Results tagged “Microsoft” from Bill's Words

I just bought Keyboard Maestro from Stairways Software last week and already it is de-frustrating my co-existance with Microsoft Outlook in meaningful ways. Here are two ways:

Intercept Undesired “Close” Keystrokes

Because I use a two-monitor setup with Outlook over there on that far-off monitor (actually, my MacBook display), I oftentimes switch to Outlook to read a message but forget to switch focus to Safari (or another app) where I might hit ⌘W… and inadvertently close an Outlook “Main Window” (as they’re called).

I instituted the following KM macro to prevent this problem:

It merely looks to see if the current frontmost window contains “Calendar” or the name of my company (Bloomy Controls, Inc.) which shows up in the message viewer window no matter which mailbox is selected, e.g. “Inbox • Bloomy”. This is true except for Smart Folders, which I don’t use. If the frontmost window doesn’t meet these conditions, it sends a ⌘W to Outlook and that window will close.

Sensible Find Shortcuts

I hate Microsoft Outlook’s Find functionality. Other than the fact that it can, indeed, find anything in any folder, the interface to use it is awful. And since I use the Deleted Items folder as my brain, the Find function is very important. Using it out of the box involves pressing ⇧⌘F and then clicking on the “All Items” to un-limit the search scope (every time—why, Microsoft, doesn’t it remember what scope I used before?).

Getting away from Find involves clicking on a red X in a circle called “Close”… unless you actually selected a message to look at, in which case the ribbon (WHICH I HATE) changes state to “Home”. If you did (and why wouldn’t you?), you have to click on the Search portion of the Ribbon selector and then on the red X in a circle.

Keyboard Maestro macro to the rescue!

This one’s a bit more complicated as it has to check to see what state the Outlook window is in. But pressing ⇧⌘F becomes the equivalent of “Search all items,” and pressing it again closes out the search.

(By the way, this one’s not bulletproof. Among other things, if there’s an E-mail window open with the word “Bloomy” in the title—substitute your own text here, of course—it’ll get brought to the front and might cause the rest of the macro to fail.)

I’ll add more macros as I make them.

And God help you if you have to get any work done, because as I write this, Microsoft’s activation servers are down and nobody—neither computer nor human—can help reactivate my product.

This is precisely why online activation is a really crappy idea.

John Gruber jokingly suggests that a better moneymaker for Microsoft’s money-losing Bing search engine would be to charge to listen in to the negotiation of Bing’s sale between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer. While entertaining, it probably wouldn’t make billions.

OK, so this idea that I have won’t make billions either, but it might put a bit of a dent into the red ink that Bing is making.

There’s a distinct need in Corporate America for a decent intranet search engine. My company’s corporate website has a search function, but it’s of little use as it won’t search our common network drives, where search is desperately needed. It also seems to return random results based on random words in a random result order. And it knows nothing about the popularity or quality of the retrieved results since it doesn’t keep track of who eventually used what results.

Google recognizes this problem and makes the Google Search Appliance to solve it. The GSA is a box that sits on your corporate network and indexes all of your stuff for easy, Google-quality searches. But the biggest problem is that it is a separate box with a separate OS and separate security concerns from a separate company and so forth. Non-Microsoft boxes and operating systems seem to scare IT people. Chances of adoption? Zero.

But… what if MS rolled Bing into their Windows Server product? All of the advantages that Google touts for their search appliance could be included as a native part of Windows Server. Bing, a respectable search engine in its own right, would be able to search anything served up by Windows Server, whether it’s web content, E-mail content, or network drive content, and would be able to make use of the same security models already part of the Server product.

Apple already does this with Mac OS X Server and Spotlight, but without results tracking and whatnot which differentiate simple search from a true search engine. Even still, it works remarkably well, so we use it in my wife’s office where she scans all of her paper documents, lets OCR create indexable text, and lets Spotlight return relevant documents, E-mails, etc., as she searches for them. If I had this at work (Ah! Utopia!), I would have more hair and more time, especially since I have management which insists on folders buried in folders buried in folders of folders. Give me a web portal that searches all of this stuff and I’d be one happy customer.

And think of the money! Microsoft could not only charge by the seat for Bing, as is the nature of Windows Server licensing, but they could also could charge by the document just as Google does.

But would Corporate America bite? Yes, I think it would, and it just might make a substantial dent in those billions after all…

I published these bits regarding how I think Mac OS and Windows are doing two different things in their OS strategies (via the metaphor of “What are the Steves up to?”). Then some interesting articles appear:

First, from Ross Rubin on Engadget, this piece which sorta’ agrees with my assessment that Windows is going whole-hog to total convergence. But the money quote:

It’s going to be an ugly transition, and not just figuratively.

Yeah, that’s an understatement. The current interface is a horrible thing as it is, and it’s only going to get worse for desktop users if the trend continues.

Then this piece appears from Kyle Baxter via ShawnBlanc.net in which he asserts that Apple is the one doing the converging, and that Microsoft is not.

I think Apple’s attempting to converge Mac OS and iOS… That’s a very different approach. Apple is pushing their two operating systems toward each other, while Microsoft is integrating touch as a layer on top of their pre-existing Windows operating system without bringing them closer to each other.

He and I are 180° out-of-phase with each other on this opinion. Though his points are reasonable, I think he’s missing something that I figured out as I contemplated the two companies’ different approaches, namely that the UI and the OS are not one in the same. Viewed with this perspective, it’s reasonable to see that Microsoft is indeed converging everything (as both Rubin and I think), but that Apple is willing to sacrifice developers’ effort in order to make the user experience seamless on whatever device is being used.

That’s not to say that Apple isn’t going to make it easier for developers to create excellent UI’s for both platforms (Xcode is already headed that way). What I’m saying is that the UI for Mac OS will never be Cocoa Touch, just as surely as Cocoa (plain) will never become the interface for touch devices.

Steve Jobs has said (though I can’t find the direct quote) that nobody wants to hold up their arms to a touchscreen monitor. True. And given that that’s how one would touch a touchable interface, I don’t see the UIs for iOS and Mac OS converging anytime soon, if at all. While they certainly can and will make use of elements of each other, the two use models are so fantastically different that I just don’t see them becoming one.

And only time will tell.

John Gruber makes some good points in this article which defends his position on why Windows 8 is a pretty lousy compromise OS for tablets and desktops. But as I read it and I reflected back on some of the material showing up in the Apple rumor mill, I thought of a different answer to some unasked questions: Just what are Apple and Microsoft doing? What are those two Steve guys up to?

What’s the bigger picture here?

After reflecting a bit on the ribbon interface, it dawned on me that Microsoft could simply dump all of the rest of the user interface (UI) bits into it, for better or worse. Pallets could go away, as could menus. That combination would allow for much more touch-friendly apps. I didn’t realize as I was complaining yesterday about the size of various graphical elements that in making them bigger, they are certainly making them more finger-friendly. Not that it looks good on a big 24” monitor, not that it makes for a particularly good desktop experience, and it’ll take a long time for all developers to move their apps from traditional menu-based interactions to ribbon-based interactions (especially if there’s no incentive to do so), but it certainly seems like a way to make a combo desktop/tablet UI work reasonably well.

(I still think, however, that by putting the ribbon across the top of the window that it’s in the wrong place, that it belongs down the side of the display. This would work better for everybody, especially tablets where screen real estate is at a premium. Apple’s split view controller—you know it from the mail application on the iPad—is the model that should be followed here, desktop, laptop or tablet.)

The problem of course, as John correctly (I think) notes, is that the underlying OS doesn’t make a distinction between tablet and desktop meaning that the tablet experience is likely to be very clunky at times. But though that may be true in Windows 8, I’m not so sure that it will be quite as true in Windows 9 (or whatever comes next). I’m also pretty sure that most Windows users just won’t care, or won’t be able to see that it’s a problem. Those who do care simply won’t buy Windows 8 in the first place.

So I’ll bet a virtual Dogfish Head World Wide Stout that the big picture at Microsoft is convergence of it all, both the underlying OS and the UI. (I may be stating the obvious, but somebody’s got to do it.) From a software company’s perspective, it only makes sense. One UI, one OS to develop and maintain, yet sell to all platform makers of all form factors. And developers will be happier as a result, too, for the same reason.

The Microsoft ecosystem is, from my observations, happiest with a “write once, deploy many” approach, and Windows 8 demonstrates (to me, at least) that this de-fragmenting of the Windows market is good for that ecosystem. If this is Steve Ballmer’s brainchild, directly or indirectly, then, yes, he seems to know what he’s doing.

Now, is Apple doing something similar? My answer is “Yes and no.” “Yes” in that it’s already obvious to the most casual observer that they are because everybody knows, for example, that the underlying OS of all Apple devices (save the non-touch iPods) is OS X. From a hardware company’s perspective, that approach makes sense: spend less on the underlying software required to get your devices to run.

Well, then, how about the UI? Here the answer is “No.” While there may be elements of iOS that show up in Mac OS and vice-versa, Apple has already demonstrated a willingness to make completely different-appearing versions of apps for three distinct platforms, e.g., iWork for the iPod Touch/iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Apple makes its developers do the same, though the tools are getting better and better and may eventually make it easier to do so with less effort.

Though the underlying code may work the same (rendering engines, file handling, etc.), the part the user sees is totally different. And remembering that Apple is both a software and a hardware company, from Apple-the-software-company’s perspective, that approach makes sense, too: spend less on the core stuff, and make the products different enough to justify selling them separately.

It’s clear that this particular Steve’s approach is not “Developers! Developers! Developers!” Instead, the Apple ecosystem is more symbiotic. Apple needs the hardware to look its best in order to sell, which requires developers to create apps which work well for the different hardware platforms. By specializing the apps for the platform, the net result is (hopefully) sales for Apple and the developers because they work well together. Though the Apple—the software/hardware company—approach is totally different from the approach of software-only Microsoft, this Steve Jobs guy seems to know what he’s doing, too.

So while I may agree with what Gruber says about the interface of Windows 8, that at the moment it’s a clunky mishmash of old and new, I am going to guess that this is a stepping stone. I think Windows 8 shows that Microsoft is essentially headed in the right direction for the future of their Windows product—and for the company’s bottom line. Furthermore, I think that Apple is also headed in the right direction for the future of Apple products—and for the company’s bottom line.

Thankfully, Microsoft and Apple are doing things differently enough to keep things interesting for the rest of us.

I have been using the Microsoft Office 2011 (or “office microsoft: mac²⁰¹¹” if I try to read the product packaging) suite for the Mac for quite a while now. Despite the improvements in speed and functionality (like we needed more!), I had some initial misgivings about the ribbon interface) but thought I might end up liking it, so I gave it a chance.

I have given it a chance, and I am still convinced that Microsoft just doesn’t understand user interfaces.

To begin with, let’s look at my desktop as it looked this morning as I prepared to fire off a memo or two:

Notice that the ribbon interface is clearly present in the Mac OS version of Office 2011, and it looks nearly identical to its Windows Office counterpart. It’s part of area “1” in the screenshot.

In general, I cannot find what I’m looking for in this mess of icons. While some icons are clear (superscript, subscript, underline, etc.), others are not quite as clear. Increase font size and decrease font size look more like “up text” and “down text,” whatever that might be, and the “clear formatting” icon looks to me like it’s going to erase my text. That is an eraser, isn’t it?

Now, don’t get me wrong: most of these items are useful to have in a quickly-accessed area of the screen. But did you notice that there are two of each of many of these items? That’s because the Mac version of Office hasn’t gone 100%-ribbon yet (thank goodness!). Instead, we have a mishmash of yesterday and today at hand and, because you can actually hide the ribbon, that’s a good thing. In hiding the ribbon, you’re presented with a kind of index path that shows ribbon pallets which are available, and you’re left with a mostly-familiar and unadorned interface.

So can you live without venturing into ribbon-land? Nope. Here’s where things get very screwy. Let’s say you have hidden the ribbon and are now going to edit your header or footer. You double-click on the header (or use “View>Header and Footer”) and are presented with the usual editing mode for said header. There is no way to edit the characteristics of the header (formatting, linking between sections, page numbers, etc.) exposed anywhere. The “Format” menu doesn’t have a “Header and Footer” option. The pallet on the right (highlighted in area “3”) doesn’t have anything in it like it used to. So… now what?

Your only clue as to where to get some header formatting Juju is a strange pinkish hue on the ribbon index, like this:

Click on the pinkish thing and this is what comes up:

Naturally, there’s all the stuff you wanted. But doesn’t that seem wrong? You have to go looking in a very unnatural way for this pallet of info. And when you’re done editing the header or footer, does the ribbon go away by itself? No. It exposes itself, but doesn’t know how to put itself away.

By the way, that ribbon index constantly changes: Once you’re done with header and footer formatting and tell Word that’s what you’re up to by clicking back in the main document, the ribbon loses the “Header and Footer” index element and goes back to the default list of “Home | Layout | Document Elements |…”. These other items shifted to the right to make room for “Header and Footer” and the weird “right arrow from Home” motif and thus moved items from a familiar location to an unfamiliar location.

Moving anchor points (the main elements used to access other elements) in the user interface elements is not a good idea. Microsoft still insists on moving menu bars around with windows in Windows, but at least their location is consistently at one edge of the window. These ribbon interface elements slide all over the place within a window, and that’s a bad idea. We humans are creatures of habit and exhibit muscle memory and all that stuff. Keep things in one place in an interface and the creature of habit will be better able to use the interface.

Then there’s the “Styles” section of the ribbon. Notice how it displays seven styles in the screenshot. I do kinda’ like the fact that each style is a bigger target than is shown in the Styles pallet. But did you notice that the Styles pallet shows more information? It shows the current style, and gives a very useful dropdown menu for dealing with the current style along with that. Mouseover the current style in that pallet and a dropdown menu indicator shows up and indicates that there’s more that you can do here than meets the eye. Really, though, the dropdown menu indicator should be there 100% of the time. Nothing in the interface should be “more than meets the eye” category.

However, clicking or hovering over the big fat style icon (with lots of space) in the ribbon does nothing useful to indicate “But wait! There’s more!” Instead, you can guess that right-clicking will reveal a useful menu (it does), but, again, you had to guess that it was there since there is no visual indicator at work here.

OK, so you do hover over the style buttons in the ribbon, but you don’t see the style you’re looking for. By clicking on the arrow(s) at the end of this style pallet, you can see more styles. Now, one click at a time, one seven-button-pallet of styles at a time, you can look for the style you want. Very graphical, very pleasing to look at, but damned hard to use. With each click, my eye has to scan the pallet again. Worse, I can’t compare the style in one click-full to another style in another click-full of styles. Wouldn’t it be more useful to display all of them at once?

Ah! Microsoft thought of that, thank goodness, and there appears a funny little disclosure tab triangle dingleberry at the bottom of the style pallet. Excellent… except that it’s in a visually-awkward place (it appears as a layer in front of the ruler) and it is not the world’s largest target to hit. If you hit it, though, you are rewarded with all of the styles in… all of the styles in… well, some styles, anyway:

What set of styles are these? I have no idea because if I click on the style list in the Styles pallet, I see not 17 styles as in this pallet, but rather 19 styles, including “Clear Formatting”, “Header”, “Footer”¹ and some which are not among the 17, and vice-versa. And if I click on the style menu in the space between the ribbon and the window’s title bar, there I see about 100 styles which is, undoubtedly, the complete set of available styles. So, to summarize: three different ways to see particular subsets of the styles, and none the same subsets.

Last, but not least, describing to someone how to use the ribbon (verbally) is difficult. If you’re helping someone out, e.g. via telephone, just how do you describe to the user what to do? First, you have to assess the current state of the visual interface. “Do you see the ‘Header and Footer’ section of the ribbon? What’s the ribbon? Oh, that’s the thing with the little house icon on it. See that? OK, now do you see the…” Then you have to describe each icon that might need a click: “Click on the little icon with the ‘A’ and the ‘up’ arrow. No, not the one with the ‘A’ and the sideways arrow, the ‘up’ arrow…” I will never install Office in an environment where I have to support it…

So what do I like about the ribbon? Well, I do like the idea that there’s a way to see what’s going on at the moment in the are of the document in which you’re working. That is, when you are working in the header or footer, the formatting, etc., for that section is clearly visible in the ribbon. Also, there are some good things that the ribbon does graphically, such as the SmartArt and Charts ribbons. These ribbons have lots of good real estate to show nice pictures of what you might want to do instead of trying to describe it textually and make it fit into a menu.

However, Microsoft is missing the boat on how to display “big graphical things” with their ribbon UI, and as a software-only company, I can understand how they might make such an obvious miss.

In case you’ve not bought a monitor (or an iMac or laptop) recently, I’ll offer one important clue to you: monitors are wider than they are tall, and they’re only getting wider. The current aspect ratios of monitors is headed to 16:9, which mirrors what the HDTV market is manufacturing in quantity. Dell is bucking that trend slightly with a squarer monitor, but for the most part, everybody’s headed to 16:9 territory.

To help make my point, I need to refer back to the overview screenshot above. (The monitor in the screenshot isn’t 16:9—it’s actually 16:10—but that’s close enough to work.) Notice that the virtual piece of paper is a very, very small piece of the screen. Also notice just how much vertical space the ribbon and some wasted space in the area above it (area “2”) take up. This area is constant no matter how big your display is, and in this case, everything from the top of the display down to the top of the piece of paper is about 250 pixels. On a 27” iMac, that’s only 17% of the vertical display space. But on a 11” MacBook Air, it’s a full 33%—one third!—of the vertical display space taken up with menus, rulers, icons, and other stuff. That doesn’t leave much room for your actual work.

So where did Microsoft go wrong? Anybody can pretty clearly tell that area “3” in the screenshot is going largely unused. Area 3, where the poor, lonely Styles pallet is right now, was where all of these other formatting options existed in what was sensibly called the Formatting pallet in Office 2008. Apple knows this, and also got it right in Pages, Keynote, etc., with the Inspector pallet (which doesn’t lock it down by name to one particular function). Of course, Apple wastes some space in the area between content and title bar, in my opinion, but not nearly as much as Microsoft does. Apple makes up for this by allowing some reasonable customization—and by not requiring the user to use it at all.

Usability is the key word here, and I think Microsoft made their usability studies show the data they wanted to see, namely that the ribbon is a good idea of some sort. Here, they have form clearly leading function, and not the other way around as it should be. Worse yet, the mishmash of new and old items makes for a usability nightmare which will only get better or worse depending on which interface elements they choose to lose over the next iterations of Office. I’m betting on “worse.”

How would I choose to fix things?

1. I’d like to see a consistent interface, one where elements don’t come and go on a whim. Items would stay where they are belong.

2. I’d put these elements into an interface that is minimally-invasive, such as the menu bar where I can clearly describe what to select. I’d use minimal menu icons to help visually cue the user as to which items do what, but I wouldn’t make the graphic the main means of identifying the function.²

3. I would move as much of the status and formatting display to the unused space on the screen, area “3”, in order to regain the use of area “1”. The Apple Inspector pallet in Pages is, to me, a superb example of how to do it right. (Interestingly, Xcode 4 moves this stuff from a pallet into part of the main window. I’m not sure I like that yet.)

4. I would remove as many of the hidden elements of the interface and bring them to the fore. The disclosure-triange-model pallet in Microsoft’s previous version of Office was pretty good, but Apple improved on it with the tabbed pane concept. (The tabs don’t move. The disclosure triangles do.)

So Microsoft, if you’re reading this customer feedback, you are free to choose to ignore (and most likely will ignore) my input. But knowing that iWork is out there and that it is cross-platform compatible enough for the home user and a lot of office users, and that it is much, much simpler to use than Office should scare you just a little bit. Please reconsider the adoption of the ribbon, especially on the Mac versions of your products. Write it off as a good experiment and then develop something that will knock our collective socks off. You can do it. We know you can.

¹ I just switched to logical punctuation, or some variation thereof.

² “Select ‘File>Save’”, for example, is quite a bit easier than either saying to a teenager “Click the floppy disk icon” (because they have no frickin’ clue what a floppy disk looks like) or, if you happen to be supporting a Windows user, easier than “Click on the large round Windows icon and select… no, not the ‘Start’ menu with the Windows icon, the one that’s in the circle at the top of the window.” (Whose idiotic idea was it to put useful functions in a menu titled with the damned Windows icon?! Oh. That’s right. It was Apple’s idea, what with the Apple menu and all. But it’s for seldom-used and non-application-specific items such as desk accessories and system-wide preferences, not for everyday actions like saving a file where “File” is a much more appropriate menu title. Honestly, Apple could have called it the “Misc.” menu and it would have worked just as well, but would have lost the branding and cost many more pixels on that original 512 pixel wide display.)

From ZDnet, this gem:

Microsoft officials have attempted to distinguish slates and tablets running full Windows 7 from those running Compact 7 by saying those running the Windows Embedded Compact OS are meant to be consumption devices, rather than consumption and creation devices.

A few questions:

1. Do they really think that the public cares about what sub-brand of Windows they have? If a consumer picks up a “consumption” device and likes it, he probably won’t care that he doesn’t have the “creation” version of Windows. Simplify. Call it Windows Mobile, Windows Desktop, or Windows Server.
2. How many “Microsoft officials” were involved in this tragedy?
3. And why nameless officials in the first place? For comparison, can you name Apple’s primary spokesman?

[Via DaringFireball.net]

Microsloth has a bad habit of knowing what we need as users better than we do. Hence there are wonderful notifications like “There are unused icons on your desktop. Click here…”

Fortunately, there’s a way to turn this off, as detailed in this posting.

But why the horribly complex, roundabout way to find it? And how about that for an unintuitively-placed preference?!

It’s my not-so-humble opinion that any time you have an alert that pops up regularly, it should also tell you either how to disable it or allow you to disable it right on the spot. But that’s just me. I’m spoiled.

It sounds vaguely disgusting, doesn’t it, having one’s GAL broken?

I don’t know what’s going on. I use MSO2008 with Entourage in a corporate environment, and up until yesterday, I had no trouble whatsoever accessing my company’s global address list (GAL), which is something done via LDAP. After the update to 12.2.0, I could no longer access that GAL.

After much frustration in changing LDAP server settings, rebooting, etc., just because I thought it was my company’s fault, I decided that it might be the update that was responsible.

Fortunately, I have Time Machine running. So I first tried to revert to yesterday’s version of Entourage, but that crashed each time I launched it. Figuring that Microsoft can’t build a monolithic application to save its life and that there might be other things in the MSO 2008 folder that Entourage depends on, too, I reverted the whole folder and, guess what?

Entourage GAL access now works.

My conclusion is that the Entourage 12.2.0 update breaks GAL access somehow. I kept the updated MSO folder by renaming it “Microsoft Office 2008 12.2.0” and then restoring the older version, so I am able to keep using the new version of Word (speedier!) and Excel (tastier!).

Your milage may vary. Please comment if you have similar experiences.

Hilarious writeup of a first experience with Microsoft’s $17,000 touch/table computer, “Surface.”

It’s here. Go read it now.

Article here.

John Gruber jumps on the “No IE” bandwagon, or has jumped on that bandwagon already, anyway. And it got me to thinking about the super-secret web-based application for LAN deployment that T. and I are developing. We’ve decided to develop for one… and only one… browser: Safari.

Why Safari? Simply, it’s not everything else.

It’s not Internet Exploder. Forget IE. We’re not going to check to see if anything renders in IE. If you use IE, in fact, you will essentially void your warranty for the inevitable support call, and I’ll have the server logs to show that you used it. It is so non-standards-compliant that it’s the exception in most browser pages. Check the source code for your favorite page and you’ll likely find something that reads “workaround for IE” in it somewhere. We don’t have time for that kind of crap. And security… argh! You want to use IE? Buy another product. (I probably don’t want you as a customer anyway if you insist that IE is your preferred browser.)

It’s not Firefox. Firefox, a quick, cross-platform browser, has two very annoying traits. First, it is extensible, meaning you can throw lots of plugins into it. Problem is, I have no frickin’ idea what plugins you might have (and they won’t show up in the server logs) and how they may or may not affect how the web application works. The app we’re working on is a mission-critical app, the kind of app you don’t want to fail because somebody throws a new cursor plugin into the browser. (“Tell the users not to do that!” you say. “Screw that. They will anyway,” I say, “because they do.”) Since debugging that kind of thing remotely is damned near impossible, I’m not going there. And two, it doesn’t provide a great user experience. I use FireFox about once per week and it is rare that I get to fire it up (heh) without being prompted to upgrade one piece of it or another. (Same goes for Linux in general—it nags me to upgrade some component of it waaay too often. Score one for Apple and… gasp! Microsoft. Monolithic, closed-source OSs do have that going for them.)

The others? Nah, not worth considering. Too esoteric, not widespread enough, no guarantee of longevity, and not all of ‘em are free.

So that leaves Safari. It’s cross-platform, it renders 99% consistently across platforms, it’s fast, it’s free, it’s pretty secure, and it’s very well-supported. It doesn’t get updates so often that I will spend my time countering the updates. It allows for enough user customization of the interface to be convenient, but not so much as to annoy web developers. And it’s pretty. Mostly.

And that’s why I’m ignoring the gorilla, too.

Article here.

The subject and title of the page is a bit misleading in that the problem really seems to have nothing to do with Parallels, but the solution is right on:

If you are experiencing really slow typing performance (“slower than frozen snot”) in Excel 2008 for Macintosh and you have files in File>Open Recent Items… which are from a Windows network volume, then go to Excel>Preferences>General and disable Show this number of recent documents.

Performance should become snappy again.

Article here.

Another take:

Wonder how I missed this one?

Oh, that’s right. I was actually using my Macintosh instead of screwing around with Vista on a pee cee.

Article here.

Another take:

Do the words “critical mass” mean anything to you?

Article here.

Translation: Beating a dead horse does not make it run better.

Article here.

Translation: Microsoft found another good thing to ruin.

Here’s the page. (via DaringFireball.net)

Translation: Everything about Windows Vista sucks.

Article here.

Translation: Vista sucks less.

I don’t have much good to say about Microsoft. As far as allegiances go, I fall squarely on the side of Apple Computer, Linux, and pretty much anything that isn’t Microsoft. I usually call it “Microsloth,” in fact, because of the sloth-like pace at which the company moves in reaction to things like the market, bugs, customers, technology… everything, in short. Of course, there’s something to be said for the giant that moves slowly and carefully, and that’s pretty much what’s gotten them to where they are now, so it’s not all bad.

And I do respect Bill Gates’ business acumen. I can’t say he is a great software architect, though, because that’s not what he did that made him a bajillionaire. He made his billions buy… ooops, I meant “by,” of course… He made his millions by being an exceptionally savvy businessman without writing a single line of code. (You could argue that he did write code to get him to a position where he could negotiate with IBM with an air of legitimacy. I’ll grant that point. But pretty much since then, he’s managed to expand Microsoft by being a businessman.)

But the Gates era at Microsoft is over. He’s no longer the Chief Software Architect. Instead, there’s some guy named Ray Ozzie in that role. Now, for those of you who don’t know, Ray Ozzie is by all accounts brilliant. He did, after all, invent Lotus Notes, one helluva product that did some fantastic things that Microsoft still hasn’t managed to duplicate, though they have pretty much buried it in relative obscurity. He then went on to found Groove Networks and Microsoft actively courted him (if you can call buying his company for something like $125 million “courting”) to get him to work in Redmond.

In other words, Microsoft saw the right guy for the job and, well, there he is now.

According to Wired, his management style is very different from Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. He doesn’t sit on a dais and expect his minion to prostrate themselves before him. No, he visits the trenches. He listens to the front line employees. He tries to understand what they are doing. He listens to rumors. He’s hands on. And that sounds like a great kind of person to have steering the biggest software company on the planet. And what a change that is.

But then he said in front of a big crowd of investors that his vision for the future of Microsoft involved something to the effect of “Wouldn’t it be great if you could just hit F5 and your presentation….” I don’t have to go any further in this narrative than that: the man actually said “hit F5” as if it were a natural thing to do, something “obvious to the most casual observer.” It bothers me that, now that Microsoft is led by someone with software acumen, he actually said “hit F5!”

Since when has hitting F5 been a natural interface to anything? It’s a meaningless abbreviation for Function 5. Its function varies from program to program in Windows. Heck, on the Mac notebook computers, those keys on the top row also have little pictures indicating that they do other things first, like volume up and down and mute, because most Mac programs don’t even know that those keys exist, don’t care about them, and the net result is that the function keys’ primary role in life is doing other system-wide things first—with neat icons as a memory crutch!

[I must digress for a moment because I just realized that Steve Jobs just caused me angst and heartburn when I recognized that F12, F11, F10 and F9 all do something in MacOS X such as Exposé and Dashboard functions. Fortunately, though, these are system-wide functions and don’t vary from program to program. All he needs to do is put some little icons on those keys and it’d be very similar to the volume and brightness controls on the MacOS notebook computers. But that very realization has me doubting the basic premise of this entry, namely that anybody so bright, yet so short-sighted… wait, I haven’t gotten to that part yet.]

So when your chief software architect reveals his grand vision and it’s centered around a function-key interface, you have to wonder who will refine that vision into something workable. We, the folks who are forced to use Microsoft products day in and day out (I’m looking squarely at you, corporate IT Microsoft-niks), must hope that there will be others who will refine these implementation of an otherwise-great idea that he has into something that is more user-friendly than “F5” or, worse yet, ALT-F-S-Y or something bizarre like that.

It will be very interesting to see where Microsoft goes, because while I hope that there will be that someone who will stand up and say, “Ray, I think that idea sucks, and here’s one that’s better,” I’m desperately afraid that the culture at Microsoft that has been grown there by Gates and Ballmer will prevent that kind of open, honest feedback. And then all of that good listening and other good stuff that Ozzie brings to his role will be for naught, and that’s a F5uture I don’t want for anybody.