You would appear to have issues with the MVP program, and apparently Microsoft as a whole. My personal suggestion would be that you get over yourself.
You've been in this forum long enough to know that neither Ed nor Chris is a Microsoft appologist. My personal experiences[1] with both over the last 4 years or so also shows that. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Including a 6 month stint with one of them on contract to my previous employer on one of my projects > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > > 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] > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
