Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

windowslatest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 535 posts

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#301

Post by zchrykng »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #108
zchrykng wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got an example of a well-implemented natice app for email? I'm bugged by some bugs with the Fastmail app, but have generally had a better experience with it than any other client I've tried. Search in particular is far better on the Fastmail app.

> Got an example of a well-implemented natice app for email? Mail.app isn't total shit. It's not great. But it doesn't fumble the basics, like Outlook for Mac, which thinks it's fine to take like 10s to show me my inbox.

Mail.app's search is completely and utterly broken in my experience on Macs and on iPhones.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#302

Post by KoolKat23 »

New outlook is quite honestly a joke. I tried to like it but went back to the old outlook as crucial features were missing. Simple things such as shift+f3 to change case to upper/lower/sentence case. This I believe stems from spell check being missing, another big issue for those with custom dictionaries. Poorly implemented template and template file management, I could go on...

If I intended on using a basic email editor, I would not have installed Outlook on my PC, I think the product manager or whoever is in charge of it's direction completely misunderstands the purpose/use-case of their programs.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#303

Post by fluoridation »

9x39 wrote: post #299
fluoridation wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not dual boot into something else and delete the executable?

Disk encryption is also mandated in most enterprises. I do not mean to patronize, it's just the enterprise-y stuff has tried locking down the PCs for exactly this reason - deleting the security tools when they're not loaded would be of course very effective. On top of that, showing such motivation can expose people to violating the 782 commandments of whatever corporate IT policy someone had to sign to get a paycheck…

Eugh. Well, whatever. Not like it makes any difference to the employee. They get paid whether they're waiting for the computer to finish spinning or doing useful work.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#304

Post by canucker2016 »

hylaride wrote: post #201
SoftTalker wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQL Server is a fork of Sybase. Not a MS invention. Active Directory is probably based on someone's LDAP server, though I don't know for sure. .NET is a copy of Java NT kernel is good, thank Digital/Dave Cutler for that.

> SQL Server is a fork of Sybase. Not a MS invention. It's long-since been rewritten. Pre-SQL Server 2000 it was garbage, but it's been improved significantly since then. I'd still use alternatives given the choice, but it's a solid DB. >Active Directory is probably based on someone's LDAP server, though I don't know for sure. So you don't know. It was written in house, using a bunch of standardized protocols (LDAP,…

For early history about Active Directory, you can't get much better than straight from the horse's mouth ( manager of the Exchange / Active Directory group ).

see https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/021-expand...

and

https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/bonus-the-...

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#305

Post by maccard »

fluoridation wrote: post #238
maccard wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not IT, I'm' just the senior most engineer in a game studio. Ive got WPA captures that point to windows defender, even with processes and folders excluded. But I have literally no idea what to do with those traces, hence my 99% conviction.

If it's that bad, why not just disable it?

Because the alternative is worse - no protection. Because we have everything in Intune we get the per device scan reports (I lied - we do enforce _some_ stuff as a group policy. We disable turning off certain features and we manage the windows update cadence) and thrrr have been multiple people who still need it… it’s generally non tech people who just download the absolute worst crap imaginable and ignore all the bypassable warnings too.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#306

Post by maccard »

9x39 wrote: post #295
fluoridation wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's that bad, why not just disable it?

Enterprise versions are tamper-protected.

I am the enterprise here. We enforce it on because the alternative is worse.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#307

Post by maccard »

9x39 wrote: post #299
fluoridation wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not dual boot into something else and delete the executable?

Disk encryption is also mandated in most enterprises. I do not mean to patronize, it's just the enterprise-y stuff has tried locking down the PCs for exactly this reason - deleting the security tools when they're not loaded would be of course very effective. On top of that, showing such motivation can expose people to violating the 782 commandments of whatever corporate IT policy someone had to sign to get a paycheck…

I replied above but basically we still need something; some people are just incapable of not making a total mess and they will literally go to Trojan.com and install dangerous.msi, ignore all the optional dismissible pop ups that say this is bad, and then still drop me a DM that the cracked plugin they got for maya to try out before asking to spend $8 isn’t working…

If there’s a middle ground I’d love to hear it!

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#308

Post by hn92726819 »

nasretdinov wrote: post #200
Twirrim wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail used to offer a low bandwidth / performance webmail interface, that was essentially their original UI. Ran like greased lightning, used barely any memory. Emails loaded almost instantly. It was nice while it lasted.

Isn't it still the case then? I used the basic HTML version when I was working at Google to try to understand whether or not it was slow because of the (unoptimal) frontend or not (it was the backend that sometimes took >=600ms to load messages unfortunately, not the frontend).

Google killed basic HTML in Gmail a few years ago

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#309

Post by fluoridation »

maccard wrote: post #307
9x39 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disk encryption is also mandated in most enterprises. I do not mean to patronize, it's just the enterprise-y stuff has tried locking down the PCs for exactly this reason - deleting the security tools when they're not loaded would be of course very effective. On top of that, showing such motivation can expose people to violating the 782 commandments of whatever corporate IT policy someone had to sign to get a paycheck…

I replied above but basically we still need something; some people are just incapable of not making a total mess and they will literally go to Trojan.com and install dangerous.msi, ignore all the optional dismissible pop ups that say this is bad, and then still drop me a DM that the cracked plugin they got for maya to try out before asking to spend $8 isn’t working… If there’s a middle ground I’d love to hear it!

Couldn't you disable on a per-user basis? Everyone shouldn't be punished just because a few people can't be careful with their stuff.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#310

Post by maccard »

fluoridation wrote: post #309
maccard wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied above but basically we still need something; some people are just incapable of not making a total mess and they will literally go to Trojan.com and install dangerous.msi, ignore all the optional dismissible pop ups that say this is bad, and then still drop me a DM that the cracked plugin they got for maya to try out before asking to spend $8 isn’t working… If there’s a middle ground I’d love to hear it!

Couldn't you disable on a per-user basis? Everyone shouldn't be punished just because a few people can't be careful with their stuff.

The person mentioned is a special case but the reality is that most people do need _something_. What happens if one trusted person makes a mistake and submits an exe to perforce? Now absolutely everyone is hosed.
Post reply on HN