Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Jeff Atwood wrote on the spoilage of software and laments on how software seems to be doomed by the fact that people will pay for features but not bug fixes.

This is something I've thought long and hard about for the better part of a half hour over the last year or so. And every time I start up Paint.NET, I wonder, "how long, dear friend, how long?"

Here's what I would like to see more of, if you'll forgive a humble hillbilly ending statements on a preposition: Software where features are plug-ins, not reasons to upgrade. The basic application is nothing more than a shell. You want your word processor to be able to italicize text? Download the "Slanty Text" plug-in. You need to add shadow effects to your images, grab the Shadowizer plug-in. And so on and so forth.

One of the nice parts about this, assuming it can be pulled off, is that the core application needn't change often. Only when something fundamental needs fixing or adding. Or when you want to allow a whole new class of plug-ins.

This isn't to say you leave the app wide-open for third-party developers to mix and match any way they want. Yes, you allow for those types of plug-ins but for the "core" plug-ins, those are all you. You build them, you distribute them, you decide where they go in the application. Third-party plug-ins can be handled the same way these applications handle them now.

Another bonus could be in the economics. The core shell costs relatively little and each plug-in costs a couple o' bucks. And of course, you could create bundles for common plug-ins at some reduced price. This would allow people that "just want something that works" to go with a default configuration that costs something reasonable in total.

This mere theory and conjecture, mind you, despite the deep thought that went into it. It probably would work only for a certain class of operations, despite my previous example that implied Word could pull it off. And I'm sure there are a few logistical problems I haven't considered or thought through. For example, it's hard to take advantage of new UI paradigms when you are saddled with a shell you wrote five years ago (unless that is pluggable as well, I suppose).

Still, when I can type an entire blog post while waiting for an application to load up, one has to wonder...

Kyle the Patient

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

On the heels on my post on remote pairing, I had a quick look at Microsoft SharedView Beta2 yesterday. I say "quick" look because that was all it took to determine I wasn't going to be using it for remote pairing. The majority of this post is why it's not going to work for me.

In order to start using SharedView, one person has to create a session, then invite the other via e-mail. The other person joins the session by entering in the session name and session code (randomly generated). There are hints that this may be easier if you have a Windows Live account but I never got that far.

Next, you can share exactly one application at a time, or your entire desktop. So no sharing Visual Studio and the console window. But to be fair, when I pair with someone, I generally share the desktop anyway. (Related to that is an issue I forgot to mention in the remote pairing post: Alt+Tab, or lack of it).

When you do share an application, everything else (and I do mean *everything*) goes gray. Not disabled mind you, just gray:

 

 

The apps behind the console are still active, though it isn't very obvious. And it does make for an interesting user experience dealing with muted windows.

On the other end, if you are the sharee, the application being shared is squished into the available size of your screen. Even if your resolutions match, the app is shrunk a bit to allow for the SharedView toolbar and some padding to make for good gestalt. Compare this with Office Communicator where the app remains the original size but the window scrolls if it doesn't fit your screen. If I had to choose 'twixt the two methods, I prefer the Office Communicator version.

The one advantage I found over Office Communicator's application sharing is that I can actually share something over remote desktop. But frankly, as long as someone else can share their desktop, I don't much care whose desktop I deal with.

This isn't an extensive review by any means. In fact, it barely qualifies as a cursory one given that I spent all of about six minutes evaluating the product. But it was long enough to determine that SharedView was not designed for remote pairing. Looks great if you want to give a presentation to a group of people. It does allow you to see the other attendees' mouse pointers which I imagine could be useful if they have a quick question about something on the screen. The performance was adequate if a little chunky though to be fair, there were at least two other communication protocols 'twixt me and my guinea pig.

For now, I'm not feeling enough pain with Office Communicator to put my potential pairers through another install process. But if the opportunity comes up, I'll probably give Yugma or TightVNC a try based on their prices.

Kyle the Shared

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Some great discussions going on in the ALT.NET user group. Topics such as BDD, ReSharper/CodeRush on large projects, and one that hits close to home: Remote Pairing.

I felt some trepidation when I left Calgary to come work remotely from home. There is a *lot* of interaction 'twixt developers, including daily stand-ups, lunch 'n learns, design sessions, afternoon kickboxing, sprint reviews, and, of course, pairing. Ditto for the client who shows up every morning for our daily stand-ups and every sprint review and sprint planning session (no, seriously).

So I was somewhat apprehensive about making it work remotely. But three weeks in, I'm having some reasonable success with Office Communicator and a Vonage account. Office Communicator for the application sharing and Vonage so I don't have to keep switching back and forth to the IM window. (Side note: I've noticed Vonage has been a lot more reliable in recent weeks than when I first got the account.)

I say "reasonable" success because there are a couple of issues. Firstly, the last time I paired (two days ago), the connection dropped several times. As in at least half a dozen until we gave up entirely and my partner went off to pair with someone a little less virtual. This is the only time it's happened and I'm not sure what caused it as I didn't lose the internet connection.

Issue number two: Apparently, Application Sharing doesn't work if you are connected via Remote Desktop or Citrix. Which means it sure as heckfire ain't working if you connect via Remote Desktop through Citrix. It works if someone on the other end shares Visual Studio with me but I can't do it myself.

But those glitches aside, remote pairing isn't much different than local pairing. One of us would write the test, the other would make it pass and it isn't all that from removed from actually being there. In fact, it helped reduce the "here, let me drive for a sec" factor.

The next tool on my list to try out is Microsoft SharedView Beta. Here is the link where I got it but it's also listed in a couple of other places that look valid (as well as one other place where the links don't work at all). No idea whether it will solve my issues but it was recommended to me by someone at Microsoft and I don't do nothin' until the Mother Ship tells me to.

To tie this back to the ALT.NET discussion, here are some other combinations along with the people who talked about (but didn't necessarily recommend) them:

• Skype & UltraVNC (Kevin Miller): Note that he's "feeling a bit of pain" with VNC
• NetMeeting (Chad Myers): Worked well enough a few years ago. He also mentioned SharedView which I think is basically the next version of NetMeeting
• RAdmin (Tom Opgenorth)
• Yahoo IM and TightVNC (Steve Donie): Steve also recommended the mVox MV100 USB audio device
• Skype & Yugma Skype (Jason Meredith): Jason also blogged about his experience and also mentioned Elluminate.
• CrossLoop (Matthew Clendening)
• RealVNC & Skype (Luke Melia): No major problems but inadequate for communication 'twixt a PC and Mac. In that case, he recommended Apple Remote Desktop (Mac) and TightVNC (PC). He also recommended a separate laptop with a camera to better approximate a live pairing session

So there is no shortage of options although only the Skype/Yugma option came back with a glowing review. Everything else was "pretty well" or "well enough".

Kyle the Re-paired

Saturday, September 29, 2007

I don't think I have a slow machine but every time I open Outlook, I keep thinking that it might be time for an upgrade. It got me thinking that it (and many other applications) could benefit from a "load in the background" option. The idea is based on the desktop search apps that index your machine while it's idle. Outlook could start loading at startup (and I must stress, while the machine is idle) while I browse the internet, load up Visual Studio, etc., etc. Then when I actually click on the icon, the app might be a little snappier.

Without something like this, I'm giving serious consideration to making GMail my primary mail client.

Kyle the Impatient

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

I couldn't tell you what the minimum requirements for Office Enterprise 2007 are but if my experience is any indication, it's higher than:

• Windows XP Pro
• 2.00 GHz Centrino Duo processor
• 1 GB RAM
• 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon X1400

Oh, it installs fine. But the hideous screen refresh time whenever I switch to Outlook and Excel's startup time are enough to have me revert back to Office 2003. And if you don't like my specs, ping me privately and I'll tell you why I'm glad I have them at all.

And credit where it's due on my last post on the Zune. You can create a playlist consisting of songs already on your Zune. You just create it on your computer first and synchronize. Despite the fact that the Zune appears to want to re-add the songs, it is smart enough to know when the song already exists on the device.

Two more downsides though. If I add a single song to my playlist, it has to verify the list's entire contents. Which takes a while for playlists in the hundreds of songs.

Second one: I think there may be a limit to the number of songs you can store in a playlist. I tried several times to synchronize one with about 2700 songs and the playlist simply didn't appear in the list. Worked with up to 1100 songs but I didn't bother checking further. See downside #1.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

My evidence is purely anecdotal but has anyone else noticed a tremendous increase in startup time, application launch time, and overall performance when Windows Desktop Search is uninstalled?

Monday, October 16, 2006

So here's some interesting behaviour I'm witnessing with PowerPoint 2003. Try this at home, kiddies:

1. Create a new PowerPoint 2003 presentation
2. Type some text, any text, in the slide
3. Save the presentation somewhere, anywhere, on your hard-drive
4. Navigate to that location and note the size of the file
5. Save the presentation again (without changing anything)
6. Note the size of the file again
7. Continue steps 5 and 6 until you are suitably befuddled

I've tried this on two systems with the same results so hopefully you'll see the same thing I did: namely that the file size increments with each save until a certain point, then reverts back to its original size and starts the cycle over again.

Not sure what it's saving with each increment but this is kind of weird behaviour. I noticed it originally on a presentation file from a client. It has nigh on 300 slides in it and he added "three or four" and sent me the new one. The old one was 890KB, the new one 1604KB.

Me: Are you very sure you didn't add say, pictures of Anna Nicole Smith into the presentation
He: Well, the before and after pictures are an excellent depiction of the variability of oil prices but in the end, yes, I did take them out.

During various save cycles, the presentation will cycle through the following sizes: 899KB, 1103KB, 1295KB, 1494KB, and finally, a hard-drive-thrashin' 1693KB. That's a gain of 88% from the original file size!

Any guesses about these drastic mood swings for a simple Hillbilly?

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

My Microsoft Money saga continues...

Over a month ago, I contacted Microsoft support to find out how to get Money installed again. They suggested I call my local Microsoft office for assistance, something I'm leery to do for the same reason I'm leery about contacting anyone in the service industry in the caribbean. "Service" to many people down here is a relative term and in the Bahamas at least, it's relative to the levels of service you would get from, say, a carjacker. Even then, at least dealing with carjackers is a quick transaction.

So I wasn't looking forward to dealing with Microsoft Caribbean. I tried them a couple of times at various times of the day and night (in the off chance they use the ancient Latin definition of "office hours", openus neverium) and couldn't get connected to a real live person.

I e-mailed Microsoft again and asked for the number of the North American office that could help on the grounds that I was in Canada when I bought Money and I purchased the North American version of it. They were happy to oblige and sent me a 1.866 number which doesn't work in the Bahamas.

Next e-mail: I'm sorry to bother you but can you send me a number that isn't toll free?

The response:

Weird, not sure how installing software has anything to do with a localized version of Money. And regardless, all I asked for was a phone number. My reply:

The polite response:

Again, not answering my question in the slightest, a response I might add would have taken far less time to type up and would have made me infinitely happier.

Since I am fairly adamant against calling my local subsidiary, my options now appear to be: a) wait until I'm in the US or Canada where the 1.866 number will work, or b) buy Microsoft Money 2007 and never buy a new computer again. I'm reluctant to do b) because of the various bugs I've already learned to work around in version 2006.

I'm sure they truly believe they're being helpful but in two e-mails, I've explicitly asked for a phone number and nothing else. Not to complain, but to obtain software I've paid for. And they've been happy to give me a phone number that doesn't work, why so reluctant to give me a corresponding number that does?

This reminds me too much of when I was single.

*UPDATE* I CALLED THEM! What a &*$% nightmare! I was on the phone with them for twenty minutes and all they wanted to do was confirm that it was a valid copy. I haven't a clue where the original e-mail receipt is, if it even exists because I'm not sure it does. My argument to them: You have a record in your system. I'm looking at right now. Go to http://billing.microsoft.com, just like I did, and you'll see it. One purchased copy of Microsoft Money 2006 Deluxe for $39.95 plus tax purchased on February 13, 2006 on this credit card by an irritatingly handsome man with impeccable taste in footwear and breath freshener.

But they were undeterred in their quest. He: "What's the CD key?" Me: "I don't have one. For the last time, I DOWNLOADED IT!" He: "So you don't have a CD?" Me: "For the love of all that is hillbilly, NO!" He: "So how did you install it?" Me: "????!!!???"

Here's the thing: I installed the trial version, purchased the full version using my PassPort, signed into Money with my PassPort and it did some magic download behind-the-scenes to make it a full version. There was no product key to enter as far as I can remember.

So, get his master solution to prove that I hadn't purchased it on LimeWire: Log on to their website and print a copy of the receipt and fax it, along with a credit card statement (which I've long abandoned in favour of online statements) to them.

Me: "You want me to do all this so that I can install, pardon me, RE-install a $40 piece of software that your own system can prove I own? Sweet Jayzus, man, I've uninstalled and re-installed Exchange Server three times during our conversation. I can wear a pair of $100 jeans from the GAP for a month without bathing and they'll take them back. And you're telling me I need to find a &#*$ fax machine before I can look at my bank account?"

In the end, I told him I wasn't going to do this because I had already paid for the software twice over in long distance charges (to which he replied: "You mean you didn't call the toll free number?") and that, in true capitalist fashion, I'd be making my voice heard with my credit card and purchasing Quicken.

After that I hung up and e-mailed managers@microsoft.com to explain my disdain. I also cc'd advocate@consumerreports.com which is something I like to do when I send angry e-mails about poor customer service. As far as I know, the e-mail address doesn't actually exist. I don't actually want to deal with a consumer advocacy group but I like the response time I get when I use it.

Then I found the source of my problem so it's all good now.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Small whinge today. After eight versions, I'm still waiting on MSN Messenger to offer a "Block this entire group" feature. I work remotely and use MSN as my preferred method of communication. There are times when I'd like to be able to block the Friends and Family groups. Blocking these people individually takes time. Plus, it's a lot easier on my psyche to block a generic group than to right-click my mother and tell her I don't want to talk to her for the foreseeable future.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

I knew when I bought it that I'd have trouble with Microsoft Money 2006. And I did. Right after I bought it. Their download process is akin to trying to figure out The Big Sleep. From what I remember, this is what you have to do:

1. Install the trial version. You can't get around this
2. Purchase the full version
3. Start the trial version and wait for it to figure out you have a full version and update itself

Sounds simple enough but I had no end of problems when I installed it about eight months ago. Problems that I've promptly forgotten but it wasn't a smooth process. I'll forego mentioning the little quirks with the product's functionality itself because I've already asked.

Now here we are eight months later and I need to get it installed on my new laptop. Unfortunately, there is a new version of Money so it ain't easy finding a trial version of Money 2006. I did end up following a trail of breadcrumbs to *a* version of Money so I installed it, opened it, then waited for the update process to take hold, which it did. I thought things were looking good because it didn't say I had a trial version.

When it was finished, it said I needed to restart Money. Now, it does say it's a trial version and that my trial period has expired and what the hell are you using a 2006 product for anyway when the 2007 version is out? Don't you realize how much the world of personal banking has changed in 365 days?

Anyway, it's odd that products like Acrobat Reader and Paint.NET can pull off something like this but Microsoft can't.

Man, they'd better fix these issues or else I'll...I'll...probably whinge about it some more then shell out $50 for version 2007. <sigh>