Coffeehouse Thread

78 posts

See how people didn't notice until now.

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • evildictait​or

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    Like I said before I doesn't mean it's free to implement but it's a whole lot closer than you suggest.

    Oh yay. Another free feature for Microsoft to implement, test, review, commit, merge, localize, security audit, and maintain for 10 years.

    I hope you can see how easy it would be to make the "mistake" when you do so much of your defense here by taking things out of context or changing the scope. When you do that it makes you appear very desperate and at least in my book seem very disingenuine in your efforts. Even with great explanations like this:

    Calling people who are trying to answer your questions "deperate" and "disingenuine" (sic), when they are trying to answer your question is against the ToS of C9.

    I know I haven't necessarily been very diplomatic of late, but neither have you.

    Let's move on.

  • magicalclick

    I sincerely believe the request on making VBA excel sheet editable is a very valid request and is often quite urgent for small to mid businesses. I really don't care about the justifications and excuses. Unlike other reasons of making excel sheet read only, VBA macros are only text file sitting elsewhere in its dedicated space. It is very easy to keep it and save it. Sure it would open up possibility of someone changing it, so does an email attachment sending back and forth.

     

    There are tons of people who would want a less complicated workaround and just edit the file on their phone, save it on skydrive (or email back as attachment), and tell the assistant to run the macro on the other side of planet, and refresh the excel to get the updated data, all on a quick business meeting in some casual coffee shop. This workflow is a lot more agile when the person doesn't always carry a laptop with him. Doing any work around would make the workflow a lot less reliable when extra complexity is added to the process.

     

    We can all sit around pretending to know why MS does this or keep trying to find excuses for MS. But, we forget the main point of this topic. The original poster faces a difficulty due to software limitation. He wants the system to improve and support his use case. And I am sure many people would want the same thing if they are aware of the potentials of such capability. The demand is there. The point is, should we support the use case and hope MS improves it? Or should we just let the limitation escalate until yet another competitor supporting the use case as MS is unwilling to address it? I have seen many instances that MS doesn't believe users deserve what they want and forced them to seek solution from competitors. MS can always play the "I am giant" game, but, that doesn't always workout.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • evildictait​or

    , magicalclick wrote

    I sincerely believe the request on making VBA excel sheet editable is a very valid request and is often quite urgent for small to mid businesses. 

    There are tons of people who would want...

    And I am sure many people would want the same thing...

    The demand is there

    If loads of people want it and are asking for it via MS support tickets and via their Microsoft business liaisons  I'm sure it will be introduced in the near future.

    Features don't implement themselves. I'm sure VBA macros in an editable document is on the list of things that those developers need and want to implement. I'm just not sure it's very high on that list.

    If there's genuine business demand, a couple of CTOs phoning MS and say that they'd move to WP in their business fleet "if only documents with VBA macros were editable" might shift it up a few places in the list.

    But my suspicion is that like a lot of features "demanded" on the interwebs, there's a fairly limited set of people that really want this feature, and a fairly large number of people that want the features higher up the list.

  • kettch

    This is a pet peeve of mine, but has anybody who insists that this is a vital feature actually used Microsoft designated channels for asking for it? I just did a search for anything related to macros on the Uservoice site, and there was nothing there.

    http://windowsphone.uservoice.com

  • magicalclick

    @evildictaitor: I will value such argument as cause of why Windows Mobile failed. The demand and priority was exactly lacking for a Windows Phone until they couldn't ignore the obvious.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Oh yay. Another free feature for Microsoft to implement, test, review, commit, merge, localize, security audit, and maintain for 10 years.

    Oh yeah the same old dismissive excuses.

    "Diplomatic" isn't the term I'd use. You certainly go well beyond "answering" questions and clearly are here to defend Microsoft by changing the issue altogether and "creative enhancing" what people say. You can repeat that example of mine you site over and over but we both know it was my sarcastic attempt to mimic you.

    You're probably right though about getting banned since we know as long as you defend Microsoft you can infer anything without worrying about the ban hammer.. 

    Hey if you're willing to have honest discussions here rather than bending things like you do then by all means let's put down the swords.

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    But my suspicion is that like a lot of features "demanded" on the interwebs, there's a fairly limited set of people that really want this feature, and a fairly large number of people that want the features higher up the list.

    I suspect that a lot of people just want their technology to just work and will move on to whatever works best for them.

    , kettch wrote

    This is a pet peeve of mine, but has anybody who insists that this is a vital feature actually used Microsoft designated channels for asking for it? I just did a search for anything related to macros on the Uservoice site, and there was nothing there.

    http://windowsphone.uservoice.com

    You're right; this should get logged. It's too bad Joe Business User who runs into this sort of thing doesn't typically know about UserVoice and instead just curses Microsoft and moves on.

    I'll post something there later today.

    BTW, I don't think anyone called this a "vital feature". It's just one more PITA that gets in peoples way. I'm not sure why you hype it up like that.

  • kettch

    Oh yeah the same old dismissive excuses.

    Have you ever written software that was sold to customers? I'm seriously asking, and for what company, so I can avoid it.

  • ScanIAm

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    Have you ever written software that was sold to customers? I'm seriously asking, and for what company, so I can avoid it.

    ++

     

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    Have you ever written software that was sold to customers? I'm seriously asking, and for what company, so I can avoid it.

    That's what I do for a living believe it or not and my customers absolutely love me.

    I love all of these swipes at me. No big deal. I'll just save them for the next time someone complains that these forums are too negative.

  • ScanIAm

    And I'll try to keep an eye out for clients that need inappropriate macro coding in excel.

    Cool?

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    Here's the UserVoice suggestion that I believe captures what people here were asking for. Vote it up if you want to. If I didn't quite capture what you wanted feel free to add changes in the comments.

  • Craig_​Matthews

    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. 

  • evildictait​or

    , Craig_​Matthews wrote

    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. 

    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?

  • Craig_​Matthews

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    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?

     

  • evildictait​or

    , Craig_​Matthews wrote

    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?

    The problem is not whether you can open the file as editable. It's whether you can save it back again afterwards without deleting all of the macros. In order to save those macros back after you're done editing, you're going to need to parse them out in the first place so that you have something you can serialize back later. If you don't need to save back later (i.e. the document is readonly) you can just skip over the macros, but if you do need to save, you need to parse them into memory so that you don't lose them on the save back to disk.

    Also, nobody is saying that enabling macros is a huge amount of work. I'm just saying it's more than zero amount of work, and that the people who would implement this feature aren't sitting around doing nothing. Doing more work requires a decision that the new work is more important than the current work that is being done.

    Let's say it takes three man-weeks to make the document have macros that are editable - that's two days to put it in, a day to merge it, a day for MSEC to check it and two weeks to build unit tests and fix the bugs that inevitably occur. That's three man-weeks not being spent on other stuff.

    So my question isn't should Microsoft implement macro-disabled documents being editable or a statement that it's too hard, can't be done. It's what stuff would you like the WinPho-Office team to not do, so that you can free up three weeks in their schedule for this feature that so far as I can see is being asked for by 4 people.

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    So my question isn't should Microsoft implement macro-disabled documents being editable or a statement that it's too hard, can't be done. It's what stuff would you like the WinPho-Office team to not do, so that you can free up three weeks in their schedule for this feature that so far as I can see is being asked for by 4 people.

    Now that's just disingenuous. You have no idea how long this will take to implement nor how many people want this feature implemented. I go to the trouble of putting it on UserVoice and you then use it as an argument against it. Nice. You totally ignore Joe Office worker who gets snagged by this limitation and doesn't know that UserVoice even exists. It's just baffeling at what lengths you'll go to in order to skew the argument in Microsoft's favor.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • Kental2

    Not trying to get in the middle of the arugment here, but there are requests in the UserVoice site with 27,307 votes right now.  The only objective measure here is how many votes a request has, because that's the only variable none of us control except the user base.  Since there are items with more than 25k votes, it's not unreasonable to say that an item with 4 votesis not a popular request.  If the top voted item only had 10 votes it would be a laughable argument, but the gap there is pretty big in my opinion.

  • evildictait​or

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    Now that's just disingenuous. You have no idea how long this will take to implement nor how many people want this feature implemented. 

    Back at you.

    It's just baffeling at what lengths you'll go to in order to skew the argument in Microsoft's favor.

    Your personal attacks against me are getting tiring and are going quite a long way beyond plain rude. If you think Microsoft can magically implement extra features without diverting resources from other areas and features, that's your problem. But don't try and suggest that saying Microsoft having finite resources is somehow me "skewing the argument in Microsoft's favour".

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.