MS strategy for Teams adoption: buy up companies one by one and force them to use it
GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
261–270 of 725 posts
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#262For my current project I have to use Teams on a Mac. Priblems that I encounter daily:
1. I am invisible in conference calls, quiting and starting Teams sometimes helps.
2. Messages refuse to load. I get a notification but no message appears.
3. Recent messages that were already loaded take ages to appear when switching chats
4. When switching chats I get put at a random place in the timeline.
5. Collegues do not receive my messages.
6. The text starts to jiggle a few pixels up and down. When this happens I cannot copy anything.
7. I get a missed call notification without having got the call.
Speaking of text and copying, I really dislike how often when I select a specific part of the text and paste it, it contains the username and the timestamp, I want this 0% of the time. Also their seems to be a issue with the font rendering like it is the wrong DPI.
The software contains so many rough edges, things like the alignment of text jumping all over the place because the diration of the call text changes size while counting.
Truly, and honestly, this software makes me feel miserabel. I would be hesitant accepting a project that requires me to use Teams in the future.
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Teams is minimally usable, but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does. It’s two compelling selling points seem to be (1) that “nobody every got fired for buying IBM” now applies to Microsoft more than IBM, and (2) moreover, users don’t actually buy Teams qua Teams, they get a Microsoft 365 subscriptions for some of the things where Microsoft has not-worst-in-class solutions, and Teams comes along for t…
What does it mean to be worst-in-class for text chat or video conferencing. Video conferences look and sound great. Text chat is text chat. What am I missing here that's so awful?
I've been wondering the sam thing for a while, while I dont like teams much, I like it better than all of the direct alternatives.
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broken means "doesn't work". I've used Teams for 2 years now for conferencing, chat, desktop sharing, etc. It works just fine. I think a lot of Microsoft hate is clouding judgement here. People want Teams to suck.
I simply can not get it to work. Note that we are on Linux/Chromebooks depending on the person in the team and this alone seems to be a major barrier for something that should be a non-issue. Every two bit video chat site in the world seems to have this figured out.
Weird, I've used teams on a chromebook before, no problem with the basic functionality we used (i.e. video call).
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#265Teams is so horrific we banned it. If you force us to use teams you'll have to find another supplier. Seriously, it is incomprehensible that Microsoft would ship something so utterly broken. I know they don't have a reputation for writing good software but Teams is on another level, and I don't mean that in a positive way. I've really tried to get it to work but it is so messed up that I don't think it can be done. M…
[dead]
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so weird -- I use Teams all the time and I've never had a serious problem with it. It's not the greatest software ever made but it's certainly functional. It's definitely getting a lot of work done to it.
Teams is minimally usable, but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does. It’s two compelling selling points seem to be (1) that “nobody every got fired for buying IBM” now applies to Microsoft more than IBM, and (2) moreover, users don’t actually buy Teams qua Teams, they get a Microsoft 365 subscriptions for some of the things where Microsoft has not-worst-in-class solutions, and Teams comes along for t…
>> but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does
It has good outlook calendar integration; joining from a single click in my calendar view is much nicer than having to open the occurrence & find the zoom link.
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if those who complain about Teams actually use it. They might not. My company forces us to use Google Chat. I would take Teams any day.
My company uses Teams... and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. So here's at least one person who is using teams who complains about it. The shitty UI/UX is one thing, but some of the behaviors are incredibly frustrating. Here's some examples: - Sharing a single window makes Teams minimize the window with everyones video camera on it into a small window in the corner of your primary screen. I have a 49" wide scree…
It is telling that there is almost no overlap between your list of why you hate Teams, and my list of why I hate Teams.
Burn it with fire.
Salt the ground on which it stood.
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Teams is minimally usable, but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does. It’s two compelling selling points seem to be (1) that “nobody every got fired for buying IBM” now applies to Microsoft more than IBM, and (2) moreover, users don’t actually buy Teams qua Teams, they get a Microsoft 365 subscriptions for some of the things where Microsoft has not-worst-in-class solutions, and Teams comes along for t…
What does it mean to be worst-in-class for text chat or video conferencing. Video conferences look and sound great. Text chat is text chat. What am I missing here that's so awful?
For me the ability to seamlessly start a meeting, pull in 10 participants from different organizations by just sharing a URL and be off to the races a few minutes later is what makes the difference. If I have to spend even a couple of minutes debugging audio/video issues, dealing with people that can't seem to join, people that are trying to install a client that they then can't get to work, people that need to make IDs for some proprietary system and so on then it's a non-starter for me.
I'm fine with asking the meeting organizer to have an account but the participants should just be able to use the web client with a minimum of hassle.
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Teams is minimally usable, but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does. It’s two compelling selling points seem to be (1) that “nobody every got fired for buying IBM” now applies to Microsoft more than IBM, and (2) moreover, users don’t actually buy Teams qua Teams, they get a Microsoft 365 subscriptions for some of the things where Microsoft has not-worst-in-class solutions, and Teams comes along for t…
What does it mean to be worst-in-class for text chat or video conferencing. Video conferences look and sound great. Text chat is text chat. What am I missing here that's so awful?
For chats, it is embarrassingly slow at rendering. Seemingly only maintains the last ~two dozen messages in memory, if you scroll back in history, you have to painfully wait for it to retrieve the text and then render it. Weird rendering bugs frequently.
Meanwhile, I remember reading full ebooks on my Pentium which were rendered as a single HTML file with zero lag.
Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure the GP definition of broke is not really what broke means. I know it is all the rage these days to just redefine terms to make them often mean the exact opposite of what the rest of the planet understands them to mean But we have to have shared definitions for words or communications just breaks down It can not be "your definition of broke is different from mine" if that is the case then language is just…
Do you realize I'm the idiot that came up with live video in the browser to begin with? When I say it is broken I'm pretty serious about it: we spent a full day because there was one customer that positively insisted that we had to use their Teams setup rather than what we normally use and in the end we just gave up, it isn't worth the stress to me if there is a viable alternative (or even several). But of course if…
>> we spent a full day because there was one customer that positively insisted that we had to use their Teams setup rather
So you tried it once, as a guest and then banned the entire things with out understand the permissions systems or any other possible causes?
Understand that as a Admin I have the power to block Guests from Joining, Block some features from Guest, and so alot of things that is not commonly possible under other platforms. Often these security settings are aggressive by default, for example we had an issue with one client needing to connect to one of our teams room, teams and the room worked fine but because the security settings the Guest could not connect, everyone else could but the guest could not
This is not something that can be fixed by the guest, nor it is problem with teams as a technology, it is the security controls built into the platform
>Do you realize I'm the idiot that came up with live video in the browser to begin with?
and I am a guy that wrote PHP code in the 90's and love it... so....