 Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Quietly and (apparently) without fanfare, JetBrains have released ReSharper 2.0. Those of you used
to 1.5 will find that the new version is extremely feature-rich, but also
radically slower than 1.5; I seriously hope JetBrains are aggressively
optimizing their plug-in, because on large projects it can become quite
sluggish.
That said, the huge amount of new features as well as Visual Studio 2005
support are a definite reason to move to 2.0.
 Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Damned if I know why, but Visual Studio
2005's debugger just stopped working today. I initially found this out when I
attempted to run PostXING in debug mode, and although the debugger seemed to be
working (VS2005 switched to debug view, the postxing.vshost.exe child process was right there)
absolutely nothing happened for minutes. When I eventually hit Shift+F5 I was
faced with another 30-odd-second stall, after which I was duly presented with
this astoundingly useless dialog:

"Mom! The VS2005 debugger is being a
dildo!"
If I didn't want to stop the debugger, I
wouldn't have hit Shift+F5. This is a class case of the "I know what you want
but I'll ask you anyway" syndrome which is becoming increasingly evident in
Microsoft's newer products (such as Windows Vista).
But that's not the issue. I can't
get the damn debugger to work. It stopped suddenly and wouldn't debug
any project at all - it just hangs during or immediately after loading
symbol files. And I can't find anything about it on the 'net, either. Oddly
enough, attaching to external processes seems to work
fine. Ideas?
 Sunday, May 21, 2006
How closely coupled the various components in Windows are. Take Internet
Explorer, for instance; this wretched thing has been around since the days of
Windows 98, and is now so entrenched in the bowels of the operating system it's
impossible to get rid of. In fact, if you tried to remove it from your machine
you'll find that it's not even a relevant option:

That might explain why I reacted with very little surprise when I encountered
the following dialog box when starting windows explorer (read: double-click on
"My Computer"):

I didn't start the debugger, in case you were wondering. As much
as I appreciate people who actually bother attempting production-debugging on
other people's programs, I don't have the time and patience for this - I have
actual work to do (particularly when at work). So I selected No. And
the dialog came up again. And again. And again. To top it off, my CPU was
bottomed out; Process Explorer seemed to think MDM was the culprit:

So now Internet Explorer and most programs that rely on it crash
immediately on startup (oddly enough, RSSOwl,
which relies on SWT, which relied on
Internet Explorer, works without a hitch). I immediately suspected some sort of
adware/malware/crapware, but Spybot wouldn't find anything. Now what am I
supposed to do? I hardly think Internet Explorer (which I hardly ever use
anyway) is worth a complete system reinstall.
Warning: Emotional outburst follows
So here I am, working on the latest and greatest version of Microsoft's
flagship messaging and collaboration application (read: the antiquated Outlook
2003 and its bug-riddled back-end). I've switched back to
Outlook after over a year of using the generally excellent Thunderbird. It's
driving me insane.
For starters, despite the fact that Microsoft has had years to
perfect the multilingual - bidirectional text, in particular - support
in its applications, Outlook still suffers from what - in a new product - would
be considered amusing issues that a hotfix will come out for in a couple of
days. Over three years after its release Outlook still manages to completely
mangle plain-text e-mails. Take a normal, Engilsh plain-text e-mail and try to
reply to it. At times (I still haven't been able to find a pattern), although
the e-mail is displayed just fine, replying to it causes the bidi heuristic
engine built into Outlook to decide that this is a right-to-left e-mail, and the
reply is prepared accordingly (quoted lines included). This wouldn't be such an
issue if there was any way at all to change the reading order
without completely mangling the text (Ctrl+A, Ctrl+Left Shift):
 Original e-mail (left), Outlook's reply (center)
and after changing the reading order (right)
I showed this to Ilya (a friend and colleague with much experience
in bidi-related issues). His best idea was to write a macro to do the low-level
conversion for me. That's not really a solution; where bidi support in
Thunderbird is merely missing, in Outlook it's outright
broken. Thunderbird allows me to insert arbitrary HTML if I want to; in
Outlook there's simply no way at all to work around this problem.
To add insult to injury, I started using IMAP when working against
one of my mail servers. I was frustrated for a few days becaue the messages
marked as deleted were never actually removed from the server; aside from the
nuisance of seeing old messages displayed strikethrough along with fresh
messages (which can easily be filtered out), I simply could not figure out how
to purge the deleted messages. The most obvious option, "Process Marked
Headers", was completely useless; nor was "IMAP Folders..." of any help.
This has got to be the first time I ever actually used Office's help - a fact I
would normally attribute to a fundamentally impressive UI - only to find
that the option resides under "Edit->Purge Deleted Messages." Obscure
location? I thought so too. But at least the option is there.
 Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Last month was full of interesting occasions and happenings for me - most of
those of an uninteresting, personal nature. It was hectic, to say the least.
Which is why my posts over the last month or so were extremely sporadic. I
intend to remedy the situation; now it's just a question of what to post about,
and this is where the problem lies: I am not familiar with my readership, such
as it is. Most of the comments I get in response to blogposts are either from
direct friends or occasional Google searchers; I appreciate these comments a
great deal, but they don't provide me with equally important information:
who are the people who consistently read this? What are the RSS subscribers
interested in? This is more or less a personal blog, which has its advantages
(freedom) and disadvantages (lack of focus), and I have no real way of
telling which of the subjects I touch gets more attention or interest.
This is where I'd really appreciate feedback! There are (presumably) reasons
why you read this blog. Is it for the development-related bits? Which posts do
you find useful/interesting, which are completely pointless? Please, help me to
keep you interested. Post a comment, e-mail me or whatever, and let
me know!
 Thursday, May 04, 2006
Wanting synchronization capabilities and frustrated with a bizarre folder
locking bug - a folder remains locked if a connection is dropped server-side
while downloading mail - which I was too lazy to fix, I switched from
Thunderbird back to Outlook 2003. It's actually a lot better than I remembered
(having worked with it extensively from a development point of view until last
year); when not working against an Exchange server (and on a gargantuan Athlon
64-based machine) it's actually very fast, doesn't stall and is pretty stable at
that.
It's not, all in all, a bad product. But it's not a complete one either.
First and foremost, Outlook's search capabilities are so
ridiculously bad that third party tools have been coming out for years to
address this shortcoming. Among those are Google Desktop Search, MSN Search Toolbar beta, Copernic
Desktop Search and very much my personal favourite, Lookout. Lookout is
an Outlook plugin written in .NET (one of the first commercial-grade products
I've ever seen to use the platform) which indexes your mail in the background
and performs extremely fast searches. It's complete free and was, in fact, so
good Microsoft bought the company a couple years ago and is presumably busy
incorporating Lookout's features into Outlook 12.
Second, the spam filtering options are lacking. I've no idea what sort of
mechanism Outlook uses, and it is effective for certain kinds of spam, but it
also generates a lot of false positives and misses a lot of other spam. Looking
for a client-side (i.e. non-proxy) bayesian filter implementation for Outlook I
eventually settled on SpamBayes,
which is so far completely stable and hassle-free - not to mention effective,
and open-source at that.
Moving back from Thunderbird was not without hassle though; I
wasn't inclined to import the Thunderbird mails over to Outlook so that wasn't
much of an issue, but I couldn't get the "Send To Mail Recipient" shell option
to work with Outlook. Theroetically, merely changing the default mail program in
"Internet Options->Programs" to Outlook should do the trick, but it appears
not to be the case. I eventually found a solution on Joel's
old forums: start RegEdit, go to HKCU\Software\Clients\Mail and change the default value
from "Mozilla Thunderbird" to "Outlook". That's all there is to it.
As a bottom line, if you do not require simple bidirectional mail support or
PDA synchronization via ActiveSync, stick to Thunderbird. It's a basically
superiour piece of software.
|
 Be afraid.
Navigation
Categories
Archive
| June, 2008 (5) |
| March, 2008 (1) |
| February, 2008 (2) |
| January, 2008 (5) |
| December, 2007 (8) |
| October, 2007 (2) |
| September, 2007 (4) |
| August, 2007 (2) |
| July, 2007 (6) |
| June, 2007 (5) |
| May, 2007 (2) |
| April, 2007 (1) |
| March, 2007 (2) |
| February, 2007 (2) |
| January, 2007 (8) |
| December, 2006 (12) |
| November, 2006 (3) |
| October, 2006 (2) |
| September, 2006 (10) |
| August, 2006 (2) |
| July, 2006 (4) |
| June, 2006 (9) |
| May, 2006 (6) |
| April, 2006 (12) |
| March, 2006 (6) |
| February, 2006 (7) |
| January, 2006 (10) |
| December, 2005 (8) |
| November, 2005 (5) |
| October, 2005 (12) |
| September, 2005 (8) |
| August, 2005 (22) |
| July, 2005 (12) |
| June, 2005 (26) |
| May, 2005 (7) |
Blogroll
Search
Advocacy
|