Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Craig Matthews Craig_​Matthews Good News, Everyone!
  • Using just any unsecured WiFi - stealing?

    So, when I intentionally set my router to broadcast an open wifi signal, the sole purpose of which is to broadcast its existence to everyone within range and offer a connection, and then provide one without question, the person using it needs my permission? I thought I just gave them that by handing them my wifi.

    These aren't electrical extension cords, these aren't unlocked doors in front of people's houses, and they aren't cars with the keys in the ignition. These are routers, configured by their owners, to say "Hello, here is a Wifi connection for you to use" to any device in range.


  • Monopoly Microsoft was more customer friendly than today's "friendly" Microsoft

    There's one good thing about this. When Microsoft eventually decides to make MS Word have a game console UI where you write your documents by selecting letters with a game controller, and everyone bitches, the defenders won't be able to say "no one's forcing you to upgrade."


  • See how people didn't notice until now.

    No seriously, as far as I can tell, all that's being asked for this piece of mobile software is, "You see that vbaProject.bin file in the .xlsm file under the 'xl' directory? Yeah, ignore it's even there. Just don't touch it until the user hits save, then make sure that file, which hasn't been touched, is in the saved zip file."

    * edited quote and to add:

    Really --- if the phone version doesn't even support macros, there's no reason for it to touch the macro related files contained within the xlsm file. It kind of appears that someone had to do work in order to make it take a document with otherwise editable content and make it non editable because there's a file within the zip that provides extra functionality when used with a desktop client. Persisting unchanged files contained within a zip file to a newly saved copy of a zip file surely was thoroughly tested when "save" functionality was included I would hope .. at least to a point where Microsoft shouldn't be afraid of opening an Excel document write-enabled.

  • See how people didn't notice until now.

    , evildictait​or wrote


    What makes you think that a feature in desktop office is free to port to a phone app that shares almost no code with the desktop app?

    Because no one is asking for a feature to be ported from desktop Office to phone office. Phone Office already knows how to allow editing of editable data in an Office document. The file format itself separates the macros from content. Office on desktop, phone, and tablet, all know the difference between a macro and content, because they have to in order to open the file, and they have to in order to disable editing if macros exist. The portable Office already doesn't run macros, which no one is asking for it to do, and it already should know how to save an Office document without altering saved parts of the file that the user didn't touch.

    Given the above, if allowing editing of macro-enabled documents without needing to touch the part of the file that has the macros, requires as much debugging and testing as you imply, great enough to just not even bother trying, then there's a more fundamental structural problem somewhere and I don't even need to see the code to know that. "fixing bugs in the sound subsystem can break printing" anyone?


  • See how people didn't notice until now.

    The part being forgotten: Microsoft already knows how to open a macro-enabled Excel document, disable the macros, allow editing, and safely save the edited documents without breaking macros. It's part of the design of the file format, and it's been in every version of Office for the last decade.

    At first it might not make sense that Microsoft has to test and debug functionality that they already tested and debugged -- until you realize that when Microsoft starts development on VERSION X of a product, they apparently start with an alpha copy of VERSION X MINUS 2 and go from there. It's the only way to explain a lot of regressions we've seen in the past with not only Office, but Windows as well. 

  • Monopoly Microsoft was more customer friendly than today's "friendly" Microsoft

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote


    Of course it has. You were able to transfer licenses from one computer to another with the previous Office versions, that's gone. You need to pay up for every PC install the full price again now, even if your old PC got damaged and you (or the repair service) only installed a new mainboard there. Price increase.

    Older versions had dual licensing ("2PC/1 User") - one Office license was valid for a desktop AND a notebook install. That's gone. Price increase.

    The family packs for Home and Student introduced with Office 2007 (3 licenses for around 150-160$) are gone as well. Price increase. And a really hefty one for this group. Particulary if they don't need Outlook.

    And the free "Starter Edition" is gone as well.


    To be fair, almost everything you said is accurate and it is an effective price increase on Microsoft Office, but the issue with the license transfer isn't entirely true:

    Yes, you can no longer transfer a retail license of Office (starting with 2013) to another computer. This forces a user to buy Office 2013 retail again if they replace their computer and I too see this as a price increase, of course.

    BUT, the EULA defines a computer simply as a hardware system with a storage device. I'm pretty sure Microsoft would have a difficult time convincing a judge that Dell replacing one piece of a "hardware system with a storage device" makes it a "different" computer (Dell does not rip off the service tag sticker and replace it with a new one when they replace a motherboard. In fact, they program the existing service tag into the motherboard). Same serial number = same computer as far as licensing goes, and I'll take that all the way to a judge without a worry.

    So yah, Microsoft is now making people pay again for Office (retail) if they replace their computer (which I think is BS on Microsoft's part), but they're not making people pay again if they replace their motherboard, or their RAM, or their power supply.

    The loss of dual licensing would really screw me if I was intending on upgrading to 2013. I have two retail licenses of Office 2010 one assigned to my desktop and my netbook, and the other assigned to my other desktop and other netbook. If I upgrade, I'll have to buy four licenses.

    As far as the retail license transfer, Microsoft can raise their prices all they want, whether it's a stupid business move or not I really don't know -- but I think machine-locking a retail, store bought license, to a machine upon installation is quite a bit dickish, if not borderline violating the first sale doctrine. The retail license didn't come with the computer.

  • Meanwhile in the open universe...

    , fanbaby wrote

    ...IE9/10 might be faster...

    On what planet? Honestly, I don't know where you read that, but if anyone is saying IE is faster than Chrome, they're lying.

  • Monopoly Microsoft was more customer friendly than today's "friendly" Microsoft

    , kettch wrote


    I haven't been in this industry for centuries, like some, but I've at least been around since Windows 3.x. Since then, with every release there's been a pretty big chunk of businesses who say that they're going to sit out this release. They all have reasons, sometimes they just don't want or need to, sometimes they blame Microsoft, sometimes they blame the software that they need to run. The story is always the same. What's also the same is this need to justify the decision. What's new in the last few years is the increasing tendency towards histrionic displays.

    Maybe it's just that the internet is allowing people to scream their opinions that much louder in the hope that they can make themselves feel better by knowing others have the same views.

    Is there something invalid about a business staying on a particular version of an operating system or office suite because the software they already spent millions of dollars for or the business processes they've already spent millions of dollars implementing is only supported/only works with that version?

    Hell, for that matter -- do you see something wrong with businesses not spending money to replace something that already works?

  • I admit it, I just don't get the smart-phone thing

    When someone stops me in the hall and asks me to take care of something by a certain time, I press a button, say "Remind me in 45 minutes to do blah blah blah" or when I need to remember something, I go "Remind me when I'm at Lake Road and 5th to stop for milk".

    Some of us aren't walking datebooks with an uncanny ability to remember every second of every day.

    Also, I can't imagine why anyone would willingly try to drive somewhere at night to someplace they've never been, unable to read unlighted street signs in a residential area, with people going twice the speed limit behind them and not have a nice lady come out of their car speakers saying "turn left."

    Not seeing a need for a GPS device or an unpaid, uncomplaining, electronic personal assistant that can recognize what you say and act upon it is, in my opinion, the exact same thing as not seeing a need for a gas station map or a computer with Outlook installed. 

    I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer things to be easy to do instead of a hassle.


  • Why does IE10 break Cleartype for us Desktop users???

    , contextfree` wrote

    @evildictaitor: Where are you getting the "official" reason (link?)

    Microsoft does not use ClearType in Metro apps for the reasons stated (orientation, DPI, etc). IE10 is a Metro app with a desktop component that shares the same renderer. This was covered ad nauseum.