Jay Hornsman, you wrote on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:12:04 -0500:

[a novel...]

Could you explain the problem you have with Outlook sententiously? I
don't think that anybody here will read your posting entirely ;-).

--
Best Regards
Christian Goeller

MVP - MS Outlook
http://www.outlookfaq.net

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:20:15 +0100, Christian Goeller
wrote:

Jay Hornsman, you wrote on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:12:04 -0500:

[a novel...]

Could you explain the problem you have with Outlook sententiously? I
don't think that anybody here will read your posting entirely ;-).

It was not intended for lazy or slow readers in the first place, so
the filter is working. And it wasn't something that requires a
response, since it is not only the problem but the solution.

While you don't want a reply, I will comment for the benefit of others who
find the long missive... a corrupt outcmd.dat is rare (and will become rarer
as outlook 2010 doesn't use it). It happens most often during upgrades -
either in-place upgrading from an older version of outlook, or if easy
transfer is used to move outlook to a new machine. It is one of the 4 files
that doesn't upgrade from Outlook 2003 to 2007 well.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:


EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:


Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072


"Jay Hornsman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:20:15 +0100, Christian Goeller
wrote:

Jay Hornsman, you wrote on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:12:04 -0500:

[a novel...]

Could you explain the problem you have with Outlook sententiously? I
don't think that anybody here will read your posting entirely ;-).

It was not intended for lazy or slow readers in the first place, so
the filter is working. And it wasn't something that requires a
response, since it is not only the problem but the solution.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:21:00 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

While you don't want a reply, I will comment for the benefit of others who
find the long missive... a corrupt outcmd.dat is rare (and will become rarer
as outlook 2010 doesn't use it). It happens most often during upgrades -
either in-place upgrading from an older version of outlook, or if easy
transfer is used to move outlook to a new machine. It is one of the 4 files
that doesn't upgrade from Outlook 2003 to 2007 well.

I didn't find it to be particularly rare, bing or google around a bit
and I think you'll find lots of folks have had the problem. I also
did not upgrade, this is the first install of Outlook I've ever had on
my home system, and it's been working pretty well for the past few
months. As I mentioned in my long missive, I went from being a long
time user of Eudora to this.

The real reason for the original post is to make the point that from a
software engineering standpoint, it is unexcusable to have an entire
application simply freeze up; completely locking the user out of an
application as critical (to most) as their e-mail client.

Particularly since outcmd.dat is apparently an optional file of little
consequence if deleted and recreated. All it takes is a little
defensive code to detect when something is out of whack with
outcmd.dat, and boycott loading that particular file but allowing the
user to continue so they can get to their e-mail. I think we could
all agree this seems a bit more elegant than resulting in a frozen
splash screen and a process that sits there and burns CPU cycles doing
nothing.

outcmd.dat is the toolbar customization file. It's only created when you
customize a toolbar in Outlook. While outlook will recreate it, its not
inconsequential or of little value to most people who have one.

There are other files that get corrupted more often - some are replaced by
outlook automatically, others are not. Users do not like it when outlook
deletes customizations, even if the file is bad. If they replace it
themselves, they can see that it really was corrupt and not just outlook
deleting files willynilly.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:


EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:


Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072


"Jay Hornsman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:21:00 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

While you don't want a reply, I will comment for the benefit of others who
find the long missive... a corrupt outcmd.dat is rare (and will become
rarer
as outlook 2010 doesn't use it). It happens most often during upgrades -
either in-place upgrading from an older version of outlook, or if easy
transfer is used to move outlook to a new machine. It is one of the 4
files
that doesn't upgrade from Outlook 2003 to 2007 well.

I didn't find it to be particularly rare, bing or google around a bit
and I think you'll find lots of folks have had the problem. I also
did not upgrade, this is the first install of Outlook I've ever had on
my home system, and it's been working pretty well for the past few
months. As I mentioned in my long missive, I went from being a long
time user of Eudora to this.

The real reason for the original post is to make the point that from a
software engineering standpoint, it is unexcusable to have an entire
application simply freeze up; completely locking the user out of an
application as critical (to most) as their e-mail client.

Particularly since outcmd.dat is apparently an optional file of little
consequence if deleted and recreated. All it takes is a little
defensive code to detect when something is out of whack with
outcmd.dat, and boycott loading that particular file but allowing the
user to continue so they can get to their e-mail. I think we could
all agree this seems a bit more elegant than resulting in a frozen
splash screen and a process that sits there and burns CPU cycles doing
nothing.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:54:11 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

outcmd.dat is the toolbar customization file. It's only created when you
customize a toolbar in Outlook. While outlook will recreate it, its not
inconsequential or of little value to most people who have one.

There are other files that get corrupted more often - some are replaced by
outlook automatically, others are not. Users do not like it when outlook
deletes customizations, even if the file is bad. If they replace it
themselves, they can see that it really was corrupt and not just outlook
deleting files willynilly.

But would you agree that a simple pop-up letting the user know the
file is bad, and either giving them the choice to continue, or the
choice to exit and go fix it themselves, or the choice to erase it,
would be better development decision than to simply let the process
freeze up, requiring manual termination of the process and a lot of
head scratching wondering what went wrong? A freeze on start-up that
does not occur in safe mode first sends one down the path of looking
at add-ins, antivirus issues, recent windows updates and such. There
is no good excuse for just leaving them guessing due to a corrupt file
which is really inconsequential in itself anyway.

if they could detect that it's the outcmd and not the navpane or to-do bar
fail causing the problem, yes. But they often can't detect the cause of
problems.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:


EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:


Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072


"Jay Hornsman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:54:11 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

outcmd.dat is the toolbar customization file. It's only created when you
customize a toolbar in Outlook. While outlook will recreate it, its not
inconsequential or of little value to most people who have one.

There are other files that get corrupted more often - some are replaced by
outlook automatically, others are not. Users do not like it when outlook
deletes customizations, even if the file is bad. If they replace it
themselves, they can see that it really was corrupt and not just outlook
deleting files willynilly.

But would you agree that a simple pop-up letting the user know the
file is bad, and either giving them the choice to continue, or the
choice to exit and go fix it themselves, or the choice to erase it,
would be better development decision than to simply let the process
freeze up, requiring manual termination of the process and a lot of
head scratching wondering what went wrong? A freeze on start-up that
does not occur in safe mode first sends one down the path of looking
at add-ins, antivirus issues, recent windows updates and such. There
is no good excuse for just leaving them guessing due to a corrupt file
which is really inconsequential in itself anyway.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:16:44 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

if they could detect that it's the outcmd and not the navpane or to-do bar
fail causing the problem, yes. But they often can't detect the cause of
problems.

With all due respect, anyone who believes that has never written a
software application in their lives.

I can believe MS support might not know which one is causing the
problem (although, I believe the command line switches can isolate it
further than the scenario you describe above). But don't spend one
second convincing yourself that the actual developers cannot detect
the cause, with a debugger they can see the exact line of code causing
the issue.

They have the capability within the dev team, but the builds we get do not
contain debuggers - the "cost" in speed and resources is too high and the
benefit too low. Crashes can send data back to Microsoft (if you allow) so
they can analyze and fix the problem but hangs don't generate doc watson
files.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:


EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:


Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072


"Jay Hornsman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:16:44 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

if they could detect that it's the outcmd and not the navpane or to-do bar
fail causing the problem, yes. But they often can't detect the cause of
problems.

With all due respect, anyone who believes that has never written a
software application in their lives.

I can believe MS support might not know which one is causing the
problem (although, I believe the command line switches can isolate it
further than the scenario you describe above). But don't spend one
second convincing yourself that the actual developers cannot detect
the cause, with a debugger they can see the exact line of code causing
the issue.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:33:00 -0500, "Diane Poremsky [MVP]"
wrote:

the "cost" in speed and resources is too high and the
benefit too low.

That is short-term management think, and the primary cause of poor
software quality. "It's too expensive to make an app as important as
a widely used e-mail client reliable"; this mentality has a much
greater long term cost, as users get fed up with the software and
switch to another vendor offering. I would agree that not every bug
is worth chasing down, but e-mail is critical for most users, and if
it is not rock solid (or at least degrade gracefully), users will
simply seek alternatives. Microsoft cannot afford much more lost
goodwill due to poor software quality, and if they continue to employ
management that relies more heavily on "business metrics" and pretty
charts and graphs to guide their direction, their reign will be short
lived. That is a cost that a software vendor cannot afford. Do it
right the first time and the health of the company will remain strong.
Google, Apple and others have been eroding MS marketshare in every
category for some time now, and it is up to MS to re-think the cost of
quality versus the cost of low quality, or the competitors will simply
keep coming until there's nothing left.

Crashes can send data back to Microsoft (if you allow) so
they can analyze and fix the problem but hangs don't generate doc watson
files.

If they felt the cost was too high to fix it the first time, why would
they invest time to fix it after the fact? It is a known software
engineering fact that the least expensive time to fix a bug is in
early development and testing, and the cost skyrockets exponentially
after the product has shipped or otherwise late in the lifecycle.

I've never received a followup from MS that said "hey we fixed your
bug, just grab the latest update". I agree they can fix the problem
but for reasons mentioned above they often don't.