And Ed, if I am not mistaken, you are also a Microsoft MVP, so whose interpretation is unbiased, mine or yours?
> I continue to believe my interpretation of your attitude is more > accurate than your defense thereof. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:04 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > > Well, that was how I took it as well, but he was just doing such a > terrible job at it that it was really more just stupid than funny or > anything else. I mean, if you are going to go down that path, then make > it funny or at least mildly humorous versus coming out of left field > with a DOS reference. Yes, you want to take the argument to the extreme > to prove a point, but you cannot do it in such a way that your point > comes across as invalid. > > I could just as easily argue the other side and point out how much fun > it would be if every hotfix or service pack caused some major component > of the OS to change drastically. Let's say that every hotfix from > Microsoft changed the way printers were configured such that you had to > go out and reconfigure all of the printers on everyone's desktop every > time you applied a hotfix. > > And I hardly think that I am the biggest Microsoft basher on the planet. > They have fundamental flaws in their products and the way that they > operate as a company. I point out those flaws when I see them. That's > it. However, in some circles, any complaint against Microsoft, no matter > how insignificant, is deemed heresy. He's probably one of those > Microsoft MVP's anyway, so he's on their payroll to be a bigot. > > > I think I get his point, and you don't, so I'll explain it to you. > > It's that every time you perceive that something doesn't work, Greg, > > you paint it as a giant Microsoft crusade to ruin your life. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff > > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > > > > > My point was that this is the straw that breaks the camels back. First > > > my application written for DOS 3.22 stops working on Windows X, then > > they change core OS functionality like the ability to create an > > Outlook:// shortcut on the desktop. I say it's time to switch to Linux > > > and Samsung Contact. Screw Microsoft and their poor, very poor > > backwards compatibility. > > > > On 2/6/03 7:00, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > What exactly is your point in all of this? To be honest, I can't > > follow any line of reasoning or an actual point to this post. You seem > > > to be complaining a lot about something, but I am not sure exactly > > what it is. > > > > There's lots of sarcasm in the post, which seems to be a substitute > > for actual substance. > > > > > My DOS application worked under Windows 2000 server, but now doesn't > > > under > > > > > XP. How is that any different than something working under Outlook > > > 97 and not under Outlook 2002[1]? Hell, there's functionality that > > > worked in Outlook 2000 that was stripped out in Outlook 2000 SR1. > > > Damn that > > Microsoft! > > > Bastards the whole lot of 'em. Stripping out core OS functionality > > > like > > > Outlook object hyperlinks. Ye gods, that's more critical than > > preemptive > > > multi-tasking! > > > > > > Next thing you know they'll want us all to upgrade to Exchange 2000 > > > and > > use > > > these uniquely addressable hyperlink thingies and webdav. When will > > > they > > > learn that 640k is enough RAM for anyone? > > > > > > I have no idea what if any syntax will work for your Outlook:// > > > hyperlinks > > > > > Greg, but thanks for the entertainment. I'd test, but I don't > > > exactly use Outlook 2002 any longer. > > > > > > [1] Counts on fingers.. Outlook 97, Outlook 98, Outlook 98, Outlook > > > 2000, > > > Outlook 2001, Outlook 2002... Six. Yep, only six versions. What were > > they > > > thinking?[2] > > > [2] There wasn't a similar hyperlink syntax for the Exchange client > > was > > > there? Cause then I'd really be mad at them for changing things > > TWICE!!! > > > > > > On 2/5/03 18:42, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > First, I've already seen that Q-article. Still cannot get it to link > > > > correctly to an Excel file in Public Folder Favorites. I guess I'll > > just > > > have to keep trying different combinations until I hit the magic > > syntax > > > that makes it work, if it is even possible. > > > > > > Second, it is completely different. Last time I checked, I could > > > still > > > > > pop > > > > > out to a command prompt and enter "\temp\picture.gif" or "notepad > > > c:\temp\file.txt" and I can look at a file. This is equivalent. > > > > > > Backwards compatibility between an OS that has seen 6 or 7 version > > > changes > > > > > and an OS that has seen 1 version change are completely different > > > things. > > > In addition, one is a matter of supporting third-party applications > > and > > > this is a matter of supporting core OS functionality. You cannot > > > blame > > > > > them for not providing backwards compatibility for applications > > written to > > > > > an OS eons ago but to not provide compatibility for a core OS > > > function > > > > > of > > > only a year or two ago is sad. > > > > > > > KB 296071 and no it's not that different. > > > > > > > > On 2/5/03 16:36, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > That is a far cry from something that worked in Windows 2000 and > > Outlook > > > > > > > > 2000 to Windows XP and Outlook 2002. We're talking basic URL > > > functionality > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > >> Right, I'm still pissed my DOS 3.2 applications don't run on > > > > >> Windows > > > XP. > > > > >> Bastards! > > > > >> > > > > >> On 2/5/03 15:57, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Well, if you put in the "< >", XP wants to add an "http://"; in > > > > >> front > > of > > > > > > > it. > > > > >> If you do not put that in, it just creates the shortcut, but > > > > >> then > > > > > > >> it > > > > >> throws up an error message saying that Outlook cannot open the > > folder > > > > > or > > > > >> file. I even tried to "~" as suggested by Slipstick. No luck. > > > > >> Stupid. > > I > > > > > > > >> hate it when Microsoft puts things into their product and then > > > > >> strips > > > > > out > > > > >> functionality or significantly changes things to the point that > > > > >> stuff > > > > > > does > > > > >> not work. Poor, very poor, backwards compatibility. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
