Random Disconnected Diatribes of a p&p Documentation Engineer
So it looks like my upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 actually downgraded me to Windows 6.3. I know I don't keep up with all the latest whizz-bang O/S releases, but I can't say I've ever heard anyone eulogising Windows 6.3 as the ideal choice for today's modern computing environment.
My regular reader will know that I'm generally averse to changing anything that's not completely broken, and I was quite happy with my old big-iron Dell Precision 7500. It's got bags of disk space, lots of CPUs, two big screens, and is easy to use. But, as usual, I got overtaken by technology.
The problem in this case was Visual Studio. I was still on 2010 but the latest Windows Azure stuff needs at least 2012 to work. So if I have to upgrade on a box that's been gradually filling up with the usual effluent from years of operation and upgrades, why not go the whole hog and upgrade everything? Windows 8.1, Visual Studio 2013, and Office 2013. Who says I'm afraid to take risks?
I even ran the upgrade checker to make sure the box was capable of handling all this exciting new software, and it generally looked optimistic. So I hop over to our software distribution site and grab Windows 8.1 Enterprise, thinking I might as well have all the available goodies. Except that, after an hour or so, I discover that you can't install Media Center on this. Well you can, if you read some blog posts on nefarious sites, but it seems to involve lots of hacks that I probably want to avoid.
So do I accept that I have to give up watching the golf or snooker on TV in a window on the second screen while I work, and no longer enjoy some old Kate Bush videos to smooth the path through my daily Windows Azure documentation woes? No chance. Just grab Windows 8.1 Pro from our software site and install that over the top. Amazingly, it worked, and I quite happily paid my £6.99 to buy the Media Center add-on.
And so, onwards I go installing the rest of my daily working environment requirements. It all seems to just work, and even Corel Photo and a couple of other apps that are supposed to have issues with Windows 8.1 installed and ran. But here's the intriguing thing. When I send emails through Outlook 2013 on this box it seems to have gained a new memory feature. The send/receive bar starts off OK with "Sending message 1 of 1". But when I send another message, even long after the first has gone and the Outbox is empty, it says "Sending message 2 of 2". Then "Sending message 3 of 3", and so on.
I guess it's neat because I can tell how many emails I sent since the last time I opened Outlook. Though, according to our IT help desk, this isn't supposed to happen. Or Outlook getting fed up every now and then and locking up with the message "Send/Receive" in the status bar and nothing coming in or out. The technical term for this is, I'm reliably informed, "broken".
And the fun doesn't end there. According to the computer list in my Windows Software Update Service, I'm now running Windows 6.3. Have I actually downgraded from Windows 7? Though WSUS does seem to deliver the Windows 8.1 patches and updates to the computer without complaining. And at least, when I look at the System Info page, it's comforting to see that Windows 8.1 thinks it is 8.1.
And it's also kind of nice to reminisce about the last time we had a "point" upgrade in Windows. Though I doubt many people will remember Windows 3.1 now. It's interesting that, in those days, the biggest problems you had were trying to get devices such as printers, disks, and network cards to work at all. Usually it involved fighting with lots of different drivers, cables, connectors, and configuration files.
Now everything hardware-wise just works, and the biggest problem is figuring out how to make the increasingly complicated software do what you want. Or even be able to tell what it is doing. My corporate laptop insisted I upgrade from Windows 8 to Window 8.1 this week (I'm not even the boss in my own office, never mind in my own house). It sat there with just a green box in one corner of the screen for a whole day with no sniff of a status bar or any indication it was actually doing anything. I had to go down to the garage and look at the lights on the router to see if there was any sign of life. Please can I have my animated network icon back in Windows 8.2?
Though I'm still a little nervous that, when I upgrade next time, it will just take me back to Windows 7 again. Or maybe I have to work my way through 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, etc. first...?
Agile development is an important technique here at p&p; and throughout much of Microsoft. However, I'm yet to be convinced that it's a good way of creating user guidance and documentation. It seems to me that the process often gets in the way more than it helps to produce a great final product.
I've rambled on many times in the past about agile documentation. Most specifically in Can Writers Dance The Agile? and other posts here. Yet I keep thinking it needs deeper investigation - especially as the group I'm officially assigned to, CSI, insists we keep prodding it to see if it works.
Note: Here at Microsoft, CSI is "Content Services & International". It's probably a bit less exciting than doing clever stuff with fingerprints and DNA, but we do have fancy computers that nearly come close to those you see in the TV versions of CSI. Maybe we should call ourselves "CSI Microsoft," wear white coats, and walk around with a flashlight held over our head.
Anyway, coming back to the point, we've had another go at agile docs recently. Instead of a solid and agreed structure plan and detailed implementation notes of what we wanted to achieve, we started off with a "vision" (but see this post from a couple of weeks ago) and "brainstorming" to get a list of topics. Then we "asked the audience" with developer and advisory board surveys to see which of the topics they liked most. Next, we threw together some rough notes about each topic and then produced a first draft of each topic document.
The next stage was multiple reviews. After each review we restructured the content, and often the whole document, to get it closer to the ideal. But, because it's agile, we often changed our mind about what the doc was trying to achieve (remember, there's no detailed implementation notes to guide us here) and completely rewrote it. And then did this again after the next review pointed out the holes left by (or introduced by) the previous reworking. Some documents went through four or more complete restructurings, and several were rewritten twice.
The agile process also resulted in some of the "envisioned" topics being abandoned, often after they'd been rewritten several times, because - after investigation - they were too hard to define accurately. Or because they turned out to be not really relevant or practical. And as there is no overall structure plan, it was hard to see which topic should contain what section of the content, and how it related to other sections. It also meant that the focus could only ever be at the individual document level rather than the entire guide level, because that isn't defined yet.
But what we could be sure of was that each individual topic was precise, accurate to the nth degree, and compact with no irrelevant content. This is, of course, extremely important; especially if the content will be used as reference information. But is it still "guidance?" I guess that's the core of the problem. What exactly should "guidance" look like?
Typical equivalents of the word "guidance" include the obvious ones such as "help" and "advice." However, there are broadly two categories of meaning: "leadership" and "assistance." These almost seem like opposites - one leading from the front and the other pushing from the back. Yet the sub-meanings according to my thesaurus include "direction", "support", "management", and "control." Some of these seem more like they are related to aiding through understanding, whereas others are more related to despotic regulation. I'm going to take a guess that we're aiming for the first of these.
So did we end up with what we wanted, and does it aid through understanding? It's not completely finished yet and it will be a while before we see any user feedback. And there's no doubt that the content will be extremely useful for the specific users and use cases it addresses. But it still seems like we missed opportunities. The agile process narrowed the focus and transformed the content based on individual reviews of segments, and forced additional depth of detail. It also removed a lot of the general "understanding" content because it already was familiar to the experienced reviewers. Most of all, it resulted in huge amounts of extra work writing and repeatedly updating (and then sometimes discarding) the content.
Without a predefined (if flexible) structure and an overall feel for how it will all fit together and appear to the readers, there is nothing to prevent this wandering. As a writer, I'm lost if I can't see the finished thing in the back of my mind. It's like driving through a city in your car while blindfolded, and navigating by reversing and choosing a new direction at random every time you hit something.
Maybe agile is good thing that can help to focus guidance more accurately. Or maybe it just allows the guidance to wander away from the original vision and risk irrelevance. If the original plan was to provide guidance around X and you end up with fabulous documentation of Y instead, did you do a good job?
It's a bit scary when you turn on your computer and it's different from when you left it the day before. I don't mean it's a different computer (though sometimes that would be nice), but that something changed while you were in the land of nod.
This happened to me last week. As I sat yawning and stretching in front of the screen waiting for some sign that the technology was also waking up from sleep, I noticed that several of the shortcuts to network resources that used to be on my Windows 7 desktop had disappeared. The first immediate panic reaction is "do I have a virus?" But a scan with a virus checker, and exploring the event logs, found nothing untoward.
Next, try refreshing the desktop. No change. Then the trick of turning off display of icons (right-click the desktop, select View, and untick Show desktop icons) and then back on again. No luck. Next, look in the C:\Users\[user]\Desktop folder to see if the shortcuts are on the disk but not shown. Nope, not there either. Very odd...
Maybe it's something to do with File and Print Sharing, or some domain-related issue. So I wander down to the server cabinet and start poking the domain controller. Strange - at 5:00 AM precisely that morning it had started reporting errors that there was a fault in the Active Directory. It happened immediately an automated backup started. And now the network icon in the taskbar was reporting that it was connected to an "unidentified network" rather than its own domain network.
So I do the usual fix for that problem, disable and re-enable the network connection. Immediately it comes back with the correct network name. Except that I now have to reconnect to all the Hyper-V instances it hosts because they lost their connection when I disabled the network. And then, every six minutes, an error in the event log that Group Policy could not be processed because it can't find a domain controller. Even though it is one. The detail of the error is simply "Directory Error." Not exactly helpful.
For a minute or so I ponder a full reboot, but that means stopping all the Hyper-V VMs. One is the proxy server, and my wife is currently in the middle of her morning Facebooking session so that's not a relationship-friendly option. The next best guess is to restart Active Directory Domain Services, which automatically stops and restarts several other important sounding services. There's heart-in-the-mouth moment when the DNS Service takes almost a minute to start up, but thankfully it all comes back with no errors in the event logs. And, magically, several hours later no more Group Policy errors either. Amazingly, I seemed to have fixed it.
After that rather exciting start to the day, I do the research bit and discover that the shortcut issue is not my fault. According to KB 978980 on MSDN, being greedy and getting kicked for it is by design:
"The System Maintenance troubleshooter performs a weekly maintenance of the operating system [and] either fixes problems automatically or reports problems through Action Center. When there are more than four broken shortcuts on the desktop, the System Maintenance troubleshooter automatically removes all broken shortcuts from the desktop."
Furthermore, it says, "a broken shortcut is a shortcut to a file, folder or drive that may not always be available, for example, [...] a network folder that is currently not available due to the network not being available". I'll take a guess that being on a different network from the one the shortcut points to qualifies as "not always available." The workaround suggestion in the article is "keep the number of broken shortcuts on your desktop to four or less [or] create a folder on your desktop and move the shortcuts to that folder [which] will not be removed since they don't sit directly on the desktop."
Or you can just disable the System Maintenance utility in Control Panel | Troubleshooting | Change settings.
I can't help wondering how the meeting went where the Windows 7 developer team decided to include this feature:
"Have you seen Joe's desktop recently, it's covered in shortcut icons. I'm sure he has no idea what they're all for!"
"Yep, soaking up valuable resources and hiding that lovely picture of Niagara Falls that we went to so much trouble to include in our themes!"
"It shouldn't be allowed. There should be someone who checks user's computers regularly to make sure they aren't being untidy after we went to all that effort to make the background pretty!"
"Yes, but they might want to have a few shortcuts there for their favorite programs and regularly used files..."
"I suppose so. How many do you reckon we should allow? Twenty? Ten?"
"Why mess about. Let's just include a secret process that detects when a user is getting a bit slovenly and tidy up automatically. They'll never notice..."
Except that, as the KB article reveals, sometimes we do...
In the olden days, people with a vision changed the world. Scientists such as James Clerk Maxwell kicked off the entire revolution in harnessing electricity and magnetism to build our modern world. Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley started the silicon revolution that gave us the microchip, and Tim Berners-Lee gave us the World Wide Web. But, sometimes, you have to wonder if being a visionary is going out of fashion.
OK, so there are plenty of people still inventing technological things, but mostly its evolution now. Some people even say that we've discovered all there is to know about physics and our planet. And lack of vision seems all-pervading when it comes to things such as politics. Where are the visionary leaders (for safety and impartiality, no names mentioned) of the past? It's pretty much an accepted fact that politics these days is a case of "going with the flow." Focus groups to tell you what policies are likely to get the most votes, and sound bites to keep the population satisfied.
So what about in the world of computing, user documentation, and guidance that I and so many others inhabit? Is vision still alive and well? And is it really important? When did you last hear of a new computing device/service/product/accessory that was really new and ground-breaking?
Wearable computers? I had a digital watch with a calculator in it twenty years ago. User input devices? Touch screens and motion detection have been around for ages. Mobile phones? Do you remember the eighties and brick-sized boxes? Internet TV? Windows 7 Media Center had that as a Silverlight-based add-on, and it was hardly a new concept then. Facebook and Twitter? Just evolution of CompuServe and bulletin boards. Online shopping? See How Much Computing Power Do You Need? Quantum computing? OK, so this one is relatively recent - but it's really just about moving particles around instead of electrons because we need to do things smaller, faster, and in parallel. Something we've been doing with CPUs for many years.
Maybe we have reached the point where there is nothing really new and visionary left to be invented in the world of computing. Though there's probably more chance of actually having a vision in our industry, and implementing it, than there is in the world of politics...
One of the old chestnuts you sometimes hear from disaffected and grumpy comedians is "How come there's only on Monopoly Commission?" They're not talking about the board game, but about the people who are supposed to guard us against being exploited by large corporations. And I'm going to hazard a guess that all these disaffected comedians are, like me, customers of our monopoly cable company here in Merry Olde England.
I've been a cable-Internet-enabled customer of our national cable company for some four years. It would have been longer, but until the business division was surfaced as a separate entity within the all-encompassing media empire, they were seemingly unable to provide anything that resembled a business-level service of digital connectivity. And even then, as carefully documented in Cable Internet in 10 Easy Steps, the on-boarding experience was somewhat less than encouraging.
Having said that, it's worked like a dream ever since and I've never had a complaint, except that I have to pay them extra every month just to send me a bill. But it was starting to look rather expensive, especially as we're assured that our local telephone people will have FTTC (Fibre to the Cabinet, with the chance of proper "high-speed" ADSL) working here any day now. Well, sometime, anyway. It was advertised as being August, but slipped to September, then we were assured it was definitely October. And even though it's been postponed until the end of November, I'm still optimistic we'll see it sometime this year. Or next year.
So, anyway, I'm on the phone to a really pleasant and helpful lady at the business desk explaining that they're looking a bit pricey these days, and she tells me that I'm actually on a legacy service that's way out of date. But she can move me to a new service for free, and I'll get double the bandwidth, and it will cost about a third less! You can imagine that I asked why they didn't manage to tell me about this at the point when I became a legacy service user, but I suppose - as with all big companies - you can't expect miracles. So I agreed to be upgraded. Even when she said that, although the upgrade was free, I'd have to pay fifty pounds for a new cable modem. Oh well, I'll save that in a few months with the cheaper service.
At this point I started to ask the technical questions. The modem lives inside my server cabinet, so I need to turn off the wireless feature. I don't really want something generating tons of radio fallout inside a big metal box full of computers. But it seems not, they say, unless I have a fixed IP address which "automatically disables the wireless" (no, I don't know why). And that's an extra on the bill, so I'd end up paying more than I do now. Probably I'll just wrap the modem in aluminium foil instead.
And when can they do the upgrade? The lead time is 25 working days after the site survey. When will the site survey be? They can't say. Do I need one seeing as they already know what I have, and they're just going to swap the modem? No. Can they send me the modem and I'll plug it in myself? No, it has to be configured by an engineer.
Five weeks after I placed the order I still haven't even heard when the site surveyor might arrive, so I phone again. "We're a bit busy," I'm told, "but we'll get someone there next week." Of course, the proviso is that they need to do a line test and, if it fails for the new speed, they'll need to replace the coax that connects me to their green box. And they can't do that for "a couple of weeks."
But surely my cable will be OK? I can't say, because the engineer never turned up for the installation appointment. Obviously I immediately emailed the guy I've been talking to, the one who managed to "squeeze in" the non-arriving engineer visit. But I just got back an automatic response saying he's on holiday now for two weeks.
Ah, but only last week I had an "out of the blue" phone call from my new "business customer personal advisor" who assures me she will be "looking after my account" and "making sure I get great service from the company." It will be interesting to see if I get any more phone calls from her after she reads the email I sent to their office on Friday evening after waiting all day for the engineer.
Mind you, I did manage to sort out the problem with the phone line that was installed by default with my legacy package four years ago. It's an "included at no-charge" service where I pay only for any calls I make. As I can't even remember where they put the phone socket, you can tell how much use I made of that. But the interesting aspect is, because it's not free on the new package I've just signed up for, I now need to pay fifteen pounds a month for something that I never ordered, didn't want, and haven't ever used.
Yes, I told them just to take it out (if they can remember where they put it) or disconnect it. Did I realize that there's a 90 day notice period for cancellation? Strangely, even though the phone conversation included the words "you must be joking", nobody can supposedly do anything about it. It's my fault for not initiating a disconnection notice three months before I decided on impulse to upgrade. It only took two more phone calls, seven emails, and a long online chat to convince them that they had more chance of winning the lottery than me paying them any more money. I await next month's bill with interest.
Coincidently, there was a great article in the newspaper last week about the biggest problems facing large companies here in the UK. Surprisingly it isn't an overbearing Government, interference by the faceless bureaucrats of the People's Republic of Europe, the price of electricity, or mad taxation rules. It's poor customer service. I bet the guy who wrote it is also a customer of the cable company.
So, in the end, I'm not the least bit concerned that there is only one Monopolies Commission. I just wish they'd do their job so there was more than one cable company to choose from...
FOOTNOTE: In fact the engineers did turn up the following week after a very apologetic phone call from the local manager, and did an excellent job. It was the same guys who installed it four years ago, and they took extra trouble to disable the wireless and check the speed: 49.7 Meg down and 5.8 Meg up. Wonderful! Their office even phoned afterwards to make sure all was well and, as a nice bonus, offered to refund the cost of the new router. I'm a happy bunny all over again.
As a firm believer in freedom of expression, I guess I can't complain about the names that the Windows Azure team give to their services and features. After all, my responsibility is just to write about them. In theory that can call them whatever they like. The problem is that they keep calling things what they literally are.
Mind you, it's not just the Windows Azure people. The same problem seems to raise its head with many other technologies. I suppose it's just that I encounter the Windows Azure ones most often in my daily working life. And using literal names for things seems eminently sensible at first glance. For example, when Mr. Heinz started putting things in cans he used the obvious names. "Baked Beans", "Spaghetti Hoops", and "Mushroom Soup". His business may well have been less successful if he'd decided to label the tins "Whizz-bang Nice Stuff", "Delicacy Number 3", and "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".
But if Bill had decided to follow the Heinz approach way back in 1985 when Windows 1.0 appeared, he would have called it "Operating System". So everything written about it since then would have referred to "The Microsoft Operating System operating system". Obviously this would have been stupid. So why am I continually having to write "...stored in a Windows Azure SQL Database database" and "...hosted in a Windows Azure Virtual Machines virtual machine"?
I suppose giving things names that are generic descriptions makes it easier to recognize what they do. Amazon chose to give their cloud services distinctive names such as Glacier, Beanstalk, CloudWatch, Redshift, and DynamoDB. I guess I might want to store my data in a DynamoDB, or have my application monitored by a CloudWatch (unless it's actually something you wear on your wrist). But as I'm not a polar explorer, a fairy tale treasure hunter, or an astronomer I'm struggling to understand why I'd want a Glacier, Beanstalk, or RedShift.
Perhaps the other problem is that, like domain names, the world is running out of pronounceable combinations of letters that aren't already registered, or that don't mean something rude in some countries or regions. Like the unfortunate choice by the Japanese refrigerator company Fukushima Industries that my very respectable daily newspaper recently revealed...
Mind you, it gets even more confusing as you delve deeper into Windows Azure and try to write prescriptive guidance that is accurate to the nth degree. I recently discovered that a Windows Azure Virtual Machines virtual machine runs within a Windows Azure Cloud Services cloud service in much the same way as a Cloud Services cloud service does. And I assume that a Windows Azure Web Sites website does so as well. So now I'm having to refer to Windows Azure Cloud Services web and worker roles to differentiate the hosting platform I'm discussing from the Cloud Services cloud service that a Virtual Machines virtual machine runs in.
Of course, at the heart of all this is the strict writing style and capitalization rules we've traditionally applied here at p&p. Thankfully Microsoft is adopting a more modern style for technical documentation, which might mean that I can get away with just talking about "a Virtual Machine" or "a Cloud Service". With luck I can just use capitalization to differentiate between a virtual machine in general terms (a non-physical server) and a Virtual Machine that is an element of Windows Azure hosting services. Though, confusingly, I'm mandated to use lower-case for "web role" and "worker role", so I might be a little too optimistic here.
Perhaps I'll just write everything in lower-case. Microsoft Word word processor will automatically capitalize the first letter of sentences, and I'm sure my editor will look forward to sorting out the rest...
How would you like to be guaranteed a price for your products for the next thirty-five years, and at double the price you sell them for now? Sounds like a great idea. However, there are a couple of downsides...
For example, you'll be allowed to sell only the lowest priced item, even if the customer wants a more expensive one. And you'll get severely castigated every time you make a profit, or when there is a shortage because you were refused permission to make any more. In addition, you'll find there might be periods of a couple of years when you aren't allowed to increase the price, but you'll get plenty of warning so that you can bump it up beforehand instead. Though every now and then you'll have to pay a dollop of cash into the official protection racket.
Yes, it seems crazy - but this is exactly what is happening if you are an energy supplier here in the UK. Any day now the lights could go off because we forgot to build any new power stations to replace the ones that are slowly falling down or getting old. But now we've got no money to build new ones anyway, so we need to bribe other countries to pop over here and bring some with them. We pioneered commercial nuclear power generation as far back as the mid 50's, but we seem to have forgotten the recipe and so, even if we did have a few pounds hidden down the back of the sofa, it wouldn't help.
Mind you, we have managed to rustle up the cash to build a new railway line - which it seems could cost as much as half a dozen new nuclear power stations. And we've got loads of shale underneath our seaside resorts that could be used to fuel cheap gas-driven power stations, but we're not sure if we have the nerve to dig it out.
OK, so I've nailed solar panels all over our roof that, on a decent day, generate enough electricity to power most things in the house. Except I discovered that, when the mains electricity goes off, so do they. Something to do with not electrocuting the maintenance men from the electric company that come and dig up the street, they say. Nobody I asked can tell me why it can't be configured to disconnect from the incoming wires when the mains power dies, or why they can't wear rubber gloves and wellington boots instead.
So I probably need to buy some new batteries for my server UPSs, keep my laptops fully charged, and check if the petrol generator hidden under a pile of rubbish at the back of the garage still works. I bought it a few years ago I when the local power company couldn't decide where the wires to our house came from, which made finding the intermittent fault (it broke when it rained, a fairly regular occurrence here in England) a somewhat long-winded (two years, in fact) process.
Of course, what will be a real humdinger is if, when they finally get the new super-duper, high speed, all-electric railway built, they discover we don't have enough electricity to run any trains...
Windows and its applications are getting even easier to use, and work far better than ever before for most non-technical users. It's a fact, I'm sure; but it seems to be having some unfortunate (and annoying) side effects for the more savvy members of the geekdom.
I've been ruminating on various aspects of this since I came over all Win8ish some months back, but an event last week prompted this in-depth exploration of my opinions. A colleague reported an occurrence of the Blue Screen of Death, though now it isn't. It's a smiley face and a "Something went wrong" message. Yes, you can still get at the info previously available if you are really interested (though how many of us actually were when it happened to us?).
I suggested that Windows can now detect your mood from the way that you type and poke at the screen, and it displays the smiley face to cheer you up when it figures you're in a bad mood. Or maybe not. Though the smiley faces really annoy me in things like Outlook Web Access (OWA) when it's so pleased to tell me I don't have any junk emails.
But are the new "apps" easier to use than the old ones we were so used to? The issue, as far as I can see, is the limitations imposed by modern devices. In many cases the annoyance is caused by the fact that it's now customary to have everything on one "window" or "screen" and avoid opening new windows. This obviously makes a poke and swipe interface easier to use. And it's probably why many of the features I use regularly in OWA have disappeared from the latest version.
But it aggravates that, for example, in the Mail app when I want to see details of a contact it opens in the whole screen instead of as a pop-up window that you just close to go back to where you were. And if you want to copy information from one contact to another, you can't just pop up two windows and switch between them. Though I suppose, on a tablet or phone, you wouldn't want to attempt finger-powered tasks as complicated as this anyway.
What's clear is that Microsoft made the right decision to leave the desktop and existing apps in place underneath the new app-based UI. Inevitably I find I live in the old desktop almost all of the time, using proper "applications" instead of truncated "apps". Then, when I just want to read the news or send a couple of simple emails, I can fire up the trusty Surface RT and do wiggly finger stuff from the comfort of the sofa.
Though I still end up gritting my teeth at some inane messages in Office 2013 and other desktop apps. "We didn't find anything to show here" when my Sent Items is empty, for example. Who is "we"? Are there little men inside the computer working the controls and running around with bundles of 1s and 0s in each hand? And Lync's "Have a good meeting!" message is even more annoying than "Have a good day!" when I buy a latte from my local coffee shop.
But I suppose Microsoft doesn't design software just to be compatible with grumpy old men like me...