tfodor
Inspired
yeah! seems it. Unfortunately I'm really "far" from the outlook folks, but I'm happy to send an email. I forwarded this thread to them, so I will let folks know if I hear back.
It was not a joke, and dismissing it as such is a very unkind form of communication. But next time, please find a funnier joke to retort.
It's easy to find material on the process. Your argument is correct; that happens most of the time when you change formats, but nobody would have forced Word to exclusively use the new format. I am sure your thoughts played a role in Microsoft's actions, but it just explains in more detail why they were not interested in "standardization" in the meaningful sense of the word.
The difference is that you regard this as a feature (or as Microsoft catering to their users), I see it as the main problem (and Microsoft just continuing forever with whatever they started to not lose any locked-in customers). As for images.. the argument still holds if half of the size were images.
Of course I have looked at many specs, as part of my professional duty. You cite good examples of similarly atrocious specifications. And accordingly, at least HTML+CSS etc is now equally impossible to implement without vast resources, which is the main reason that there are so few browser rendering engines left, moving swiftly to a monopoly.
I remember following this in the news. That really wasn't a nice move by them! And if you look at which file formats e.g. Word supports. There's its default "Word-Document" with the extension .docx and there's the "Strict Open XML-Document" format with the same extension. So they don't follow their own standard in the default format?
Dude, I live in Redmond and I worked at MS for nearly a decade in the 00s (much of it was in Office, but not on Outlook). You and I actually chatted on the same internal DL.
GMail the web frontend is garbage. GMail backend is a masterpiece - use it with an IMAP client. On Windows, sadly, the situation with email clients is pretty abysmal. The best one that's not Outlook is https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/. It was nearly dead as well until recently, but there's now a new release with many improvements and updates. That's what I'm using on Windows and Linux myself.
Not sure I want to hear the answer, or the comments at me because I asked when it should have been obvious to me, but how so?
Masterpiece? quite possibly but do not know the Gapps back-end (please enlighten me) as I understand clustering. I can tell you when Google shares files its a master disaster, wont go into details here but anyone that knows and understands what Im referring to should agree, users are blind sided on where their data lives including Microsoft Fast Track.., (lots of fun) and yes I've used the IMAP interface too for gmail..while it works it also breaks often and needs to be reinstalled, if you use this interface your PST files are garbage... I've used web interface at corporate level for over 4 years now also migrated "The" org off the gapps platform and onto o365..I've been an exchange admin since 2001, started at Exchange 5.5 MCSE in 2000, MS is not "Fn%$*@ht" IMHO its mostly end user lack of education willingness to adopt changes in technology.
It's functional, but it could be so much better. That's what I mean by "garbage" here. It's not the best UI for business email IMO.
That's cool though I'm not familiar with Bigtable however I can say MSSQL is scale-able too, wink, node.. I have can say I have deployed Googles search appliance for 3 separate generations for engineering in the last 12 years but its no longer used anymore, Google internet search is still the best imo... data storage and management on the back end is much easier these days, multi tenant is the magic quadrant in cloud these days.
It does solve the problem of robust local mail storage that is trivially accessible without any special software; that was the only point I made.
As stated above, the pressure came once Microsoft realized they could not stop ODF dead in its tracks. Things had to be rushed then, and the specifications show it, even if we assume (I don't) that they had every intention to create a useful specification.
I strongly disagree with both points. The first is probably true, but only if you count by pages.
The second: "Market share" and "standard" are not completely, but almost orthogonal concepts.I believe you're talking about the WWW, not the Internet. The latter (decades before the original sin of HTML) --- pretty damn cool; the former --- let's just add that to the list of our fundamental disagreements.
Like some of your points above, this refers back to the open/standardness; I explained why I do not see that OOXML deserves that label at all. If Microsoft products magically vanished from all computers right now, most of the people you are talking about would suffer just as bad with or without the OOXML spec --- simply because it hardly matters even to Microsoft itself, and it's written such that it is virtually impossible
BigTable is basically a transparently scalable, fault tolerant multidimensional hashtable: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//archive/bigtable-osdi06.pdf. You can basically store arbitrary amounts of data in it, with five nines reliability, and then access it at a million requests per second if neecessary. These are not theoretical numbers either. That's what it achieves in practice, in spite of underlying hardware failures. Their internal distributed filesystem (Colossus) is based on a similar design.
Look like the problem with bt is its using cnn.com... lol
Dont be scared unless you using an older product, post 2010 .pst files are as stable as slq db's
