Sven
Wed Oct 29 21:08:26 CST 2003
I'm sure as developers you two are adept at trying to make your applications
foolproof. I'm sure you also learned not to underestimate fools. While it
certainly makes sense to allow redirecting large file storage potentials to
something other than the limited internal RAM, does it make sense to allow
redirecting essential storage paths to removable storage? At least think of
it in this aspect for the average (or median) user. After you have managed
to redirect your My Documents default file storage, the Avantgo cache, the
explorer cache/temp, your Inbox attachments, etc. etc. go ahead and pull
that SD card and see what happens the next time you try to sync. There's a
guaranteed help desk deluge. Sometimes not providing a boatload of
options just guarantees fewer ways for the user to screw it up. Just my
observation.
BTW, I'm not implying the average user is a fool, just that not everyone
that uses one of these is a geek, just like everyone that drives a car isn't
a mechanic...and shouldn't need to be.
--
Sven, MS-MVP Mobile Devices
"Joseph Geretz" <jgeretz@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZxtk5jnDHA.2776@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Ananda,
>
> > Firstly, the meaning of "hack" has evolved over time. As a developer
> myself,
> > setting registry values isn't my definition of "hacking". Essentially
> > functionality is there - the routines have to be parameterised otherwise
> > changing a registry key would not work.
>
> Let me clarify. I did not use the term in a pejorative sense, at least not
> toward the developer of the 'hack' which I found to be extremely valuable.
> However, having to edit the registry for a feature which should be
supported
> by the software itself - to me that's a 'hack'. It's a hackneyed way of
> doing things, if you will.
>
> > Why the programmer or programming teams decided not to expose that
> > functionality in a user friendly dialog - typically a range of factors -
> one
> > of which is often insufficient testing across platforms to officially
show
> > the end user.
>
> Tell me all about it. There's probably at least a dozen reasons to justify
a
> poor implementation. On the other hand, customers have the right to
complain
> about it.
>
> > I arrived on the PocketPC scene in July 2003. From what I can see
> ActiveSync
> > was originally designed in <put your date here 19??>
>
> Again, the litany of reasons you cite, has an 'excuses, excuses' quality
to
> it. As a developer, I can always come up with at least half a dozen
reasons
> to justify not changing a line of code. However, two significant factors
> keep coming back again and again.
>
> 1. Our competitors are breathing down our necks.
> 2. We need to catch up to our competitors.
>
> Must be nice to have a monopoly... It fosters a nice revenue stream, but
> doesn't necessarily foster the creation of good software.
>
> > In July 2003, 256Mb SD and CF cards are plenty and not expensive. What
was
> > it like at birth of ActiveSync?
>
> And since the birth of ActiveSync, there has been no revenue stream to
> justify updating AtiveSync to the current state of the industry?
>
> As far as ActiveSync being developed originally in 199x, all I can say is
> that if my own software simply maintained its status since 199x, there's
be
> about 20 people looking for work and the landlord would be looking to fill
> some office space.
>
> While the factors you cite, may indeed be the *reason* behind a poorly
> implementated feature, they are by no means a *justification* for such a
> poor implementation. (In this customer's opinion.)
>
> > > Many screen driver / utility programs won't install to the storage
card
> > > since the drivers for the storage card aren't loaded in time. I feel
> like
>
> > I don't know what you mean by "loaded in time".
>
> A driver is necessary in order to read the storage card. If I want to
> install an alternate screen driver to be able to flip my display 90
degrees
> to landscape, I can't install it to storage since the screen driver loads
> *before* the storage driver loads. (At least this is what the vendor has
> told me.) This is what I mean by the storage card driver not being loaded
in
> time to support other software which might otherwise rely on it. So again,
I
> repeat my advice to manufacturers: Media drivers *first*.
>
> > Microsoft has sworn off Windows registry and "DLL HELL" by adopting XML
> > manifests in the .NET architecture.
>
> Well slightly tangential, but I can't resist:
>
> And the fox has sworn off chickens. You can safely put him in charge of
your
> hen house.
>
> - Joe Geretz -
>
>