Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Microsoft launches Office 2010 technical beta a few days early

   (Nov 18, 2009 - 8:56 AM)

   Nothing beneficial for most businesses – no reason to upgrade/purchase –
   
   Like Vista – all bling – no function.
   
   If they wanted to improve Office they SHOULD have -
   1. Made outlook open multiple e-mail accounts as full exchange -not an additional mailbox with some functionality or pop/imap with very limited functionality but two seperate exchange profiles simultaneously from multiple exchange servers.
   
   2. Full OLE support for pictures in access – umm wasn’t that functional with Office XP – why take that out? Why should someone have to code to add pictures to a personal database? Might was well use oracle or a real database if you are going to have to use code. Adding Office XP photo editor is the work around but why not just add photo editor back into office if that is the solution?
   
   3. Offer the old menu bar for people (most of my clients) who don’t want to learn the new menu bar. You can finally modify the ribbon to some extent in 2010 however my clients just want their old ribbon bar. Frankly I have no issue with the new menu bar but I’m one person and most of my clients don’t like it so prefer to stick with office 2003. MS could make money selling the new version if they just offered the old menu as a choice with the new ribbon.
   Nothing beneficial for most businesses – no reason to upgrade/purchase –
   
   Like Vista – all bling – no function.
   
   If they wanted to improve Office they SHOULD have -
   1. Made outlook open multiple e-mail accounts as full exchange -not an additional mailbox with some functionality or pop/imap with very limited functionality but two seperate exchange profiles simultaneously from multiple exchange servers.
   
   2. Full OLE support for pictures in access – umm wasn’t that functional with Office XP – why take that out? Why should someone have to code to add pictures to a personal database? Might was well use oracle or a real database if you are going to have to use code. Adding Office XP photo editor is the work around but why not just add photo editor back into office if that is the solution?
   
   3. Offer the old menu bar for people (most of my clients) who don’t want to learn the new menu bar. You can finally modify the ribbon to some extent in 2010 however my clients just want their old ribbon bar. Frankly I have no issue with the new menu bar but I’m one person and most of my clients don’t like it so prefer to stick with office 2003. MS could make money selling the new version if they just offered the old menu as a choice with the new ribbon.

2. Comment - PDC 2009 Preview: The move to Office 2010 and Visual Studio 2010

   (Nov 17, 2009 - 2:27 AM)

   Nothing beneficial for most businesses – no reason to upgrade/purchase –
   
   Like Vista – all bling – no function.
   
   If they wanted to improve Office they SHOULD have -
   1. Made outlook open multiple e-mail accounts as full exchange -not an additional mailbox with some functionality or pop/imap with very limited functionality but two seperate exchange profiles simultaneously from multiple exchange servers.
   
   2. Full OLE support for pictures in access – umm wasn’t that functional with Office XP – why take that out? Why should someone have to code to add pictures to a personal database? Might was well use oracle or a real database if you are going to have to use code. Adding Office XP photo editor is the work around but why not just add photo editor back into office if that is the solution?
   
   3. Offer the old menu bar for people (most of my clients) who don’t want to learn the new menu bar. You can finally modify the ribbon to some extent in 2010 however my clients just want their old ribbon bar. Frankly I have no issue with the new menu bar but I’m one person and most of my clients don’t like it so prefer to stick with office 2003. MS could make money selling the new version if they just offered the old menu as a choice with the new ribbon.

3. Comment - PDC 2008: Sinofsky acknowledges Vista UAC is a problem, Windows 7 adds options

   (Oct 28, 2008 - 10:55 PM)

   I consider anything that interrupts me from doing what I want to do a performance issue. While UAC doesn't slow down hard drive performance, it does stop processes you may want to occur and you have to click on a response for it to consider. Just my opinion but I can see where some might not consider UAC a performance problem - I see it as useless but that is just a matter of opinion as you clearly have yours.

4. Comment - PDC 2008: Sinofsky acknowledges Vista UAC is a problem, Windows 7 adds options

   (Oct 28, 2008 - 3:14 PM)

   Everyone was comfortable? You mean the 2% of the world that ran Unix - most of them being technical engineers. Hmm - I wonder why they were OK but Windows users weren't happy with UAC - surely this is an apples to apples comparison - so to speak.

5. Comment - PDC 2008: Sinofsky acknowledges Vista UAC is a problem, Windows 7 adds options

   (Oct 28, 2008 - 3:12 PM)

   Yes, within a year all hackers will code their viruses, spyway, malware etc to be much more UAC friendly - completely bypassing UAC.
   
   For anyone who supports the average joe who concentrates on Sales, Accounting or running their household - you know UAC serves no purpose. People will click yes to everything once they find out the app they want to run doesn't run until they say yes.
   
   Unless hackers would be kind enough to label their malware - "THIS IS A VIRUS CLICK NO" it won't serve to much purpose for UAC.