Why are MS programmers so stupid?

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:18 pm

I know that sounds like a rhetorical question - but I'm really looking for an answer.

Here's the thing. Every time Windows updates, I end up with TWO \"Outlook\" icons in my Quicklaunch. Now, I'm not a rocket surgeon, or a brain scientist, but I do know that a single line of code which says something like:

If (!shortcut to Outlook in Quicklaunch) make shortcut.

Is easy to write, and place into the update software.

Here's an even better idea: LEAVE MY ★■◆●ing COMPUTER THE WAY I SET IT UP YOU ★■◆● MORONS! IF I WANTED A QUICKLAUNCH FOR OUTLOOK, I'D ALREADY HAVE ONE THERE - AND YES - I ALREADY ★■◆●ing **DO** HAVE ONE THERE SO DON'T GO PUTTING ANOTHER ONE THERE YOU SEMICLEPTIC, INBRED UNTRAINABLE, UNFATHOMABLE FOOLS!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:20 pm

</RANT>

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:24 pm

Simple solution:

/begin smart rant

Install Linux

/end smart rant

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:15 pm

MS just hates you Mobi.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:16 pm

Hmm, looks like Mobius got the ol' Microsoft Hug.

I guess they've seen your posts here and decided that two outlook icons are better than one.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:42 pm

Must be user error, because I dont have that problem at all. Then again, I uninstalled outlook express and only use thunderbird.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:51 pm

The freaking quickstart bar is buggy as hell. What you got is a minor nuisance compared to that thing loosing icon orders, not storing size & position info and whatnot ..

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:03 pm

I don't have that problem. Must be you haha

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 pm

You haven't really done much to explain the details of your problem, so I'm going to have to make a few assumptions, but you're probably deleting the wrong shortcut. Shortcuts, even in the quicklaunch bar, are just files. And, as we all know, two files of the same name cannot coexist in the same directory (including the quicklaunch directory). So you've probably got an Outlook shortcut in there that's name is different from the shortcut name that the installer expects, so it just adds the shortcut that it expects back in there. Otherwise, it would just overwrite your shortcut. Try deleting the old shortcut instead of the new shortcut next time.

Mobius wrote:...THERE, SO DON'T...

I added that comma for you because everyone knows that you have to seperate independent clauses of the same sentence with a comma + conjunction or with a semicolon.

Unix · Post by **Unix** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:14 pm

Jeff250 wrote:
Mobius wrote:...THERE, SO DON'T...
I added that comma for you because everyone knows that you have to seperate independent clauses of the same sentence with a comma + conjunction or with a semicolon.

The spelling/grammar Nazi has been owned.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:15 pm

Hey, at least you didn't have to recompile the Outlook icon.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:50 pm

LOL! Topher that is priceless ... and so typical of Linux.

Mobius you go boy!

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:32 pm

In Linux, you can install an office suite in under two minutes by just clicking a check box in your package manager.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:47 pm

I just stopped using explorer as a shell.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:35 pm

Topher wrote:Hey, at least you didn't have to recompile the Outlook icon.

Oh - that is GOOD!

I think that if I am ranting in all-caps, then I'm allowed to miss a comma every now and then. It's not a good precedent to set, and I apologise unreservedly! In fact, I'll edit my original so it no longer offends thee!

You may be correct about the icon Jeff. I looked at the "original" one pretty carefully, and it really does look like a "proper" shortcut.

I even resurrected the dead icon form the trash bin. You were right: the original must be one I made by hand, because the target is: "C:\\Program Files\\Microsoft Office\\OFFICE11\\OUTLOOK.EXE" /recycle

Whereas the target for the "update" icon is greyed out and says "Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003".

However, this to my mind is still complete bull★■◆●! OK, so I alter my original complaint such that instead of looking for in icon with a name, it should scan the TARGET properties of the QL icons with the logic:

if (QL-Target !contain "outlook.exe" or !contain "office") make a QL icon.

My original ★■◆● still stands. Oh - Can I say ★■◆●?
★■◆● ★■◆● BIOTCH!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:37 pm

★■◆● mE! i CAN'T EVEN SAY THE WORD FOR FEMALE DOG!

B I T C H ! ! !

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:45 pm

^^^^^^^
Lolz

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:59 pm

Does he mean apologize?.....with a z

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:54 am

P.S. \"ize\"/\"ise\" words are actually dialectical variants.

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:43 am

Mobius wrote:I know that sounds like a rhetorical question - but I'm really looking for an answer.

Here's the thing. Every time Windows updates, I end up with TWO "Outlook" icons in my Quicklaunch. Now, I'm not a rocket surgeon, or a brain scientist, but I do know that a single line of code which says something like:

If (!shortcut to Outlook in Quicklaunch) make shortcut.

Is easy to write, and place into the update software.

Here's an even better idea: LEAVE MY **** COMPUTER THE WAY I SET IT UP YOU **** MORONS! IF I WANTED A QUICKLAUNCH FOR OUTLOOK, I'D ALREADY HAVE ONE THERE - AND YES - I ALREADY **** **DO** HAVE ONE THERE SO DON'T GO PUTTING ANOTHER ONE THERE YOU SEMICLEPTIC, INBRED UNTRAINABLE, UNFATHOMABLE FOOLS!

Yes, but that would make too much sense...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:56 pm

Sirius wrote::lol:

P.S. "ize"/"ise" words are actually dialectical variants.

Don't you mean dyelektackle?

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:29 pm

i so agree Mobi. You'd think that Microsoft with all of their practice in the OS field would have by now developed some kindof artificual inteligence into their OS that can avoid these kinds of stuffups.

where is our AI damnit?!

Nosferatu · Post by **Nosferatu** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:42 pm

Old joke but a good one.

What does MCSE (REEEEEAAAALLLLYYYY) stand for?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

MineSweeper Consultant Solitaire Expert.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:50 pm

If Microsoft ever devlops some internal AI for their OSes, I'll be sticking to old versions until they become unuseable, and then switching to linux permanently.

Regardless, $5 says the reason microsoft products suck is the same reason every other software product sucks and does stupid s*** from time to time: rushed to market. You have an over agressive marketing department leaning on the collective backs of the development teams which forces the development team to release a defective product prematurely and then simply continue the work later in the form of patches. IMO, seeing a company delay a product endlessly is often a good thing as it means its probably getting debugged a bit more. OSes should be subject to even more delays than they have been. IMO, Vista should be pushed back to late 2007 at least just to give the programmers that extra year for debugging, testing, attacking it, etc. The result will undoubtedly be a better product. Unfortunately, this is completely inconsistent with how the rest of Microsoft, IE: The Marketing Department and the Executives, work. More than likely the only reason theyd be willing to delay is if the programmers proved to them \"We'll be sued if werelease this bug ridden bullcrap now!\". And then when they do eventually release their bug ridden bullcrap, they'll gut the devlopment teams and move 95% of the people on to new projects and keep the rest on the crucial patch teams. After all, its not very profitable to keep working on a product once its released and everyone has it and theres no torrent of new copies being sold.

Ah, the joys of software authorship....built around making money, not making quality products.

/rant

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:55 pm

Avder wrote:$5 says the reason microsoft products suck is the same reason every other software product sucks and does stupid s*** from time to time: rushed to market.

The reason MS products suck is because they have absolutely no structure to them. They don't go through good software engineering practices (like, writing requirements and doing design before they write code.) Instead, they just let programmers kinda haphazardly code stuff up because "this would be a great feature!" without having anyone who actually knows the whole system to know if that will introduce bugs.

In the end, they probably ARE rushed to market, which means they don't find as many bugs as they should... but the essential "suck" of MS products comes from the lack of actual engineering behind them.

(This might not be true in all parts of MS, but I've heard from enough people in enough parts of MS to think it's close to company-wide.)

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:31 am

If you want a good look into how MS works behind the scenes, check out Jensen Harris's blog.

http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/default.aspx

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:32 am

Nosferatu wrote:...MineSweeper Consultant Solitaire Expert.

Top Ten Excuses for playing Minesweeper at Work

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:03 am

Topher, this is something that i've been curious of for a while...
just what IS your relationship with Microsoft?

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:48 am

I'm a developer in Office.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:55 am

My wife works in Quality Assurance and is currently reading a book on it and there's an intereting article in it. It mentions why MS won't spend time/money on testing Windows. It's reasoning is because the shelf life of any Windows OS is about 18 months before the newer version comes out. This is why they don't care if there are bugs in it.

This is why they make updates and service packs but nothing more. Saves them money in the long run and they can concentrate on the newer OS.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:24 pm

roid wrote:where is our AI damnit?!

I'm still waiting for that flying car I was promised!

[/Avery Brooks IBM ad]

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:17 pm

Geez,

Mobi has feelings! And what kind of feelings!

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:57 pm

Yeah MD, and where the heck are our JETPACKS?!

Lothar wrote:
Sirius wrote:

P.S. "ize"/"ise" words are actually dialectical variants.
Don't you mean dyelektackle?

ualuealuealeuale?

Zantor · Post by **Zantor** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:50 pm

In my opinion, M$ is stupid as heck, since they don't make things most picky users would want them. They should put in an option for whether or not to add a quick launch icon.

I don't have outlook installed, and I don't need it either...

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:16 pm

CDN_Merlin wrote:It's reasoning is because the shelf life of any Windows OS is about 18 months before the newer version comes out.

Maybe someone should point MS to this book.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:29 pm

They, er... *cough* aren't really as stupid as you'd think.

Programmers are users too.

Zantor · Post by **Zantor** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:44 am

Sirius wrote:They, er... *cough* aren't really as stupid as you'd think.

Programmers are users too.

Sometimes how they make things all nice and user friendly can piss people off. LOL

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:34 pm

Topher, if I may ask... does Office 2007 use Sparkle? If not, why the hell not?!

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:59 pm

Sparkle?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:48 pm

You know I don't get why each version of Office increasingly deviates from the Windows GUI (especially Office 2007). You'd think that if I wanted a fancy skin for Office that I'd be using a fancy theme for Windows.

Office of course isn't the only culprit. Trillian is another. Instead of going along with the Windows GUI, you've got to search the Trillian site for a Trillian skin intended to mirror your current Windows theme and hope that one even exists if you're ever going to have any consistency on your desktop.

But, alas, at least Trillian potentially gives you this option. With Office, you're stuck with whatever you get. You'd think that you could save some serious disk space and memory resources by just sticking with the Windows GUI.

Why are MS programmers so stupid?

Why are MS programmers so stupid?

Re:

Re:

Re: Why are MS programmers so stupid?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: