| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Comments:
<0> sorry production user test drivers! (thanks sam for that buzzword)
<1> but buggy drivers in vista aren't as likely to take down your entire machine
<2> if thats true, i bet vista will be slower than xp
<1> actually, for audio, its faster
<0> because your ears work faster than your computer
<1> because having the driver in user space means less crosses into kernel space
<3> speaking of Recalling Messages in Outlook. Apparently it doesn't recall the message, but emails a "recall request".
<0> it also means api calls every millisecond
<3> For the recipient to acknowledge
<3> what the **** is the use of recall then ?
<0> eh
<0> the message is marked as recalled but you can't read it
<0> if you've read it it stays.
<3> my test end user just read it
<4> fk
<3> the recalled message
<3> then he opened the "recall"
<0> eew.
<3> and it said "the sender would like to recall the message: blah"
<0> "I didn't mean to call you a fat big, boss"
<4> its purpose is to inform the user that the message isn't intended to be valid
<3> ok
<4> it doesnt fix mistakes on the senders part
<3> so it doesn't recall the message
<3> I can just send another email that says "please disregard my previous email"
<3> instead of having a feature that purports to doing something else
<4> no
<4> because IF you fix the recall it will replace it
<4> before the user reads it
<5> Oh ****. My boss is pissed today.
<1> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931917,00.asp Better audio fidelity? Check. Moving primarily to User Mode actually resulted in an increase in performance over the existing Kernel Mode audio stack, because there were far fewer transitions between User Mode applications and processes and Kernel Mode drivers.
<3> what do you mean "fix the recall"
<1> We use an IMAP server and SMTP Internet gateway, how is Outlook supposed to "recall" a message after its left our mail server?
<1> (or even still in our mail server)
<1> I don't think such a thing could ever work
<3> Jet: I wouldn't expect that would work. I'm speaking internally to my exchange org.
<1> well, maybe Exchange could actually delete the original message if it hasn't been read
<3> well
<3> that's what the recall dialog box says it's going to do
<3> when I click "recall"
<3> "Delete unread copies"
<6> what was that e-mail service that got some press last year? was some goofy **** like e-mail that could be removed, recalled, edited after already sent, etc. apparently it was some HTML-crap that'd render the message content as JPG or something and present that to the recipient. i guess that **** never got too popular.
<5> Gmail.
<4> in other wordes, if you correct the message after the recall and the person opens "x wants to recall message y"
<4> message yu will go away
<4> y
<3> yeah that happens. But what's the point of the recall if they can still open the original message if they avoid opening the recall message?
<4> keep things clean
<4> its clearly not a good way to "recall" messages you never intended to be read
<4> but it still works
<3> All I'm saying is Microsoft didn't need to put in a feature that sounds like it does one thing, but in reality only replaces the sender having to type "please disregard my last email"
<4> maybe office 12 will have an "oh ****" button
<1> I remember when the admin ***t to the corporate secretary accidentally sent her boss an incomplete message
<4> please disregard my last email requires the user to manually delete it
<1> and thought it was horribly unprofessional
<1> so asked us to remove it
<1> and we informed her we couldn't
<1> then she insisted we could log into his account and do it
<1> and we told her not without changing his p***word
<1> eventually she insisted on talking to the mailbox admin
<1> who told her the same thing
<1> to the day she quit, she was convinced we just didn't do what she wanted, as opposed to couldn't
<7> always think thrice before hitting send
<3> mistakes happen though. When you send an email to everyone about a surprise party for the CFO
<3> nevermind I take that back
<3> you can't configure stupidity out of the system
<1> (this was cc:mail btw, and even the admins has no way to access the mail store of a user without resetting the pw)
<7> correct.
<7> stupidity is the most pervasive attribute to any endeavour.
<3> But I still think it's lame that "Recall Message and Delete Unread Copies" is really just a replacement for me sending a second email and saying "please disregard my previous email".
<1> but it SOUNDS cooler
<5> tgif btw.
<8> They could have a 5 step approval before you send the email process, and people would still send emails they didn't mean to send
<1> but like I said, since you don't actually know where the end-recipient of the original message is, you'd get different behaviour for recall based on where it was sent
<1> someimtes it would delete it before the other person saw it
<1> sometimes it wouldn't
<1> and people wouldn't understand the difference
<1> or why
<3> that's part of what I'm saying to
<3> the fact that the option "recall message" is there already gives someone a false sense of what it does
<3> by it's NAME
<3> how many end users read the help? And does Microsoft know the answer to that question? yes.
<1> if it worked the way you wanted, then a message sent internally would be "recallable" before being seen, but a message sent outside the exchange server wouldn't be
<3> that's how I've always ***umed it worked.
<3> This is the first time I've ever tried it though (test email message, I'm not stupid)
<1> so the user would call support saying 'last week I recalled the message before the CFO saw it and it worked, this week I sent one to Mr. Smith at Co. X and it didn't work!'
<7> hahahah
<7> yes!
<7> http://www.xorp.org/
<7> runs under windows!
<7> hahaha let the stupidity begin in earnest!
<6> i resent that.
<8> Now to get an OC192 interface in my PC!
<7> yes!
<2> Jet: yeah i've gotten that
<7> isps spring up over night with mom and pop running windows based routers.
<2> and spring down the next week
<1> FK|Work`: here's something extra stupid, I just opened a received message, picked Recall this message... (which was available)
<1> the system told me since I didn't originally send it
<1> I can't recall it
<1> SO WHY DIDN'T YOu GREY OUT THE OPTION
<1> twits
<1> can't you ****ing TEST THAT _BEFORE_ you build the menu
<1> So yes, in a lot of ways, Outlook is horribly designed
<2> heh, i loaths osx but at least they have some sort of ui guidelines
<1> huh?
<1> what does that have to do with anything?
<8> nonsequitor
<1> I think it was in relation to my "its not greyed out but it doesn't work" comments
<1> which is just BAD DESIGN
<1> not a non-conformity to UI design
<1> for example, if I right-click and having "Copy"ed anything, then "Paste" is greyed out
<1> that's good desing
<1> don't let me think I can do something I can't do
<3> That's all I'm saying too. Take a screenshot of an email in outlook with the recall message button highlighted, send it out to all of your users asking them what they think it does.
<9> I wish options that you dont have were not there at all
<9> not just greyed out
<3> Castr00: yeah
<3> I agree with that
<3> BUT
<1> well... for us, most people wouldn't know about Recall at all, because it only shows up when you open a message in its own window
<3> what happens with that is
<1> Castr00: no
<1> the general concept is
<3> you have ****ty spaghetti code that references **** on menus by their index number
<9> nothing is more annoying than having a greyed out option that you have found a situtation where you want that option
<1> if its possible here, but not possible NOW
<3> so the menu item HAS to be there
<1> grey it out
<3> or code breaks
<8> And most people don't open emails they have sent in their own window
<8> So few people will ever see what Recall does
<1> FK|Work`: its about predictability
<1> I _can_ Paste from the right mouse button
<8> I don't open emails I've sent unless I need to forward to someone elese
<1> I can't Paste _right now_
<1> so its there, but greyed out
<3> see
<3> I'm looking through the Outlook help right now
<3> and they're talking about how message recall works
<3> at no time anywhere in this help do they say the recipient has to do ANYTHING
<3> it doesn't say they have to open up the the recall message to cause the original message to be deleted
<3> but that's what has to happen
<3> if the end user avoids opening the recall message, the recall is unsuccessful.
<3> it does say the recipient has to be LOGGED IN
<3> but in the context of them not saying WHY
<3> it's ambiguous
<10> recall is a waste of time
<2> kinda scary deleting messages...im sure it could be implemented in outlook that it can be done with pop3, etc
<10> I don't know why it's included at all with such poor implementation
<3> it's a lot faster for me to click NEW -> type the recipient, and then type "please disregard my last email". Because that's all it does.
Return to
#windows
or
Go to some related
logs:
xxxisraelpass illegal channel name
#nhl
fedora rc.local mdadm
#gentoo
#stocks
armed populus polite
#beginner
#delphi
#heroin
twisti
|
|