8 ms·

Teams is unbelievably shit though. It’s like they don’t even care.

by mnd999 5y ago

iratewizard 5y ago
I can't name a single messenger with worse user experience.
- coolspot 5y ago
  Try Skype?
  - jhasse 5y ago
    After Microsoft took over, yes.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    Even shitty Microsoft Skype isn't as bad as teams. Skype never just held onto messages without delivering them. Teams can't even do the core thing it's supposed to do correctly - send messages.
Keyframe 5y ago
Chat/teams itself yeah, compared to slack; and it's mostly/only UI related. Video and audio is leagues above however, and recordings integrated with Stream works like a charm. It's unbelievable how shitty audio and video is in slack however. If microsoft got its UI/UX game, it's easier to get that right than the other way around.
- spockz 5y ago
  Have you tried other tools? Discord, zoom, webex have way better audio and video quality and include video sharing. FaceTime has superb audio and video but no screen sharing.
  - aksss 5y ago
    Webex, really? Didn’t the zoom people leave Cisco to make a better Webex? The only people I know still using webex are the feds. Honestly I don’t have issues with teams voice and video, it seems largely commodity at this point, though zoom certainly talks up their ability to maintain quality over crummy connections.
    - selcuka 5y ago
      > Didn’t the zoom people leave Cisco to make a better Webex? Maybe? That doesn't tell anything about Webex being worse than Teams, though. People may also leave Zoom to make a better Zoom tomorrow.
    - sgerenser 5y ago
      Apple uses Slack and WebEx. The experience is so disjoint and WebEx itself is so crappy that I actually prefer Teams overall even though Slack is a better chat client.
    - spockz 5y ago
      Yes. In my experience the video quality in webex is better than in teams. And it supports multiple screen shares. What I really dislike about teams is that it downgrades my 4K video feed to 480p.
creativenolo 5y ago
What about Teams makes you think that? My experience has been the opposite. But that could have just been that it fitted our setup well. Or that I haven't tried better.
- floucky 5y ago
  Copy/Paste code often doesn't work for me, especially SQL. There is a dedicated component to do that, but that's not convenient at all.
  - Siira 5y ago
    https://paste.gnugen.ch/paste/E2o9 https://paste.gnugen.ch/paste/E2o9
- qwertywert_ 5y ago
  Search through messages doesn't give any context or even let you jump to the context. Very unresponsive scrolling. Notifications have been unreliable for me.
  - hennell 5y ago
    They finally fixed search so you can jump to the context a month or so back. I have no idea why it took so long, but search is actually helpful now
zapnuk 5y ago
Yes! Teams is by far the worst "popular" software i've ever used. It's so bad that eventhough most businesses depend on teams, they, as well as everyone else, would be better off if teams suddenly disappears from one day to another. edit: Just a few things that annoy me basically on a daily basis: - The status isn't always up to date. Sometimes it takes minutes to you or your contacts to show the correct status. - It is (unsupprisingly) not very responsive - It hogs my CPU when its idle and especially during video calls. So much so that the fans of my 2020 MBP start spinning up - which otherwise only happens when I run a build/tests. This is especcially bad considering all other video call software (zoom, discord) run just fine. - The UX is terrible when you are active in different organizations. It's riddled with bugs. Every time I switch organizations I have to type in my password twice because for some reason the login session expires instantaniously. If I switch back an forth sometimes some functionality like shring screen or accepting calls just stops working and I have to restart teams. - It tries to include the formatting if you copy+paste in chat. It always looks bad and sometime is ittetating because the font size is way smaller. - Cameras or shared desktops regularily freeze - You cant set the audio level of individual participants. This is especiallly annoying if you're in the same room as other participants of larger meetings since you'd then head them twice. - Because of the messy permission system between multiple organizations it's often not clear wether or not you can certain contacts of are allowed to use the chat in meetings.
- rr808 5y ago
  Still better than Skype though.
  - dvhh 5y ago
    I prefer the somewhat focused approach of skype, rather than the multi-channel type kitchen sink used by teams. To communicate you've got "Chat" then "Teams", On "Chat" you can reply to one message, and on "Teams" you can post on the Threads to reply. On the UX side, at one point I experienced bad memory leak if GPU acceleration was enabled, The shortcut for starting the voice call is the same as the "paste only the text" shortcut in other application (causing more than one department wide voice conference started by accident)
jimmaswell 5y ago
Teams is in the realm of software forced on an entire company by clueless executives who are easily swayed by sales conmen on complimentary golf/ski trips, so they don't have to actually care about making it a good experience - a perfunctory checklist of barely-functional features that look good on a powerpoint is sufficient.
bayindirh 5y ago
For what it's worth, Teams feel like it's haphazardly glued together from what's laying around, esp. in Linux. Why restart the application if it cannot connect to the internet? Why can't I have native notifications? Why iOS app's notifications are unreliable? I really can't believe the quality of this thing. While I don't like Microsoft, I agree that they can write semi-decent software. Teams is not one of them.
EvanAnderson 5y ago
The sysadmin experience on Windows is hot garbage, too. I assume the people writing it have had less than no experience dealing with deploying software to fleets of PCs, hot-desking, VDI, RDP farms, etc. It's ridiculously inefficient.
- B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
  > It's ridiculously inefficient. You mean that simple tasks take many billable hours? Hmmm ...
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    Irresponsible use of disk space, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth is more what I'm referring to. I've scripted some cleanup of profiles to take care of disk space exhaustion in a couple of situations. Cleaning up after Teams hasn't been a revenue generator for me, but it has created complaints. Anything that causes me to receive complaints from users draws my ire. (I subscribe to the "sewer system" theory of sysadmin for end-user facing servers, desktops, etc. You never think about your municipal sewer system unless it has problems. Ideally that's never. User-facing IT infrastructure should be the same.)
    - B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
      Just for kicks, a little gedanken-experiment: Product A costs 2 bazillion, and is perfect - for a 10 year lifetime, it works perfectly and requires no support. Zero additional cost. Product B does about the same, costs only 1 bazillion, but is rather shoddy - over a 10 year lifetime, it will require a further 3 bazillion worth of fixes, support and extra resources. That does feed a lot of families, though. Take your guess at what happens. Yeah, me neither.
      - EvanAnderson 5y ago
        I feel like fractional reserve banking and the broken windows fallacy fit in here somewhere too. >smile<
philwelch 5y ago
Slack is much better as a corporate chat app, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily good in the broader picture because I’m not sure you want to maximize chat engagement in a corporate setting. There are weird cultural effects to that, and paradoxically having a shittier app for that might get you the benefits of being able to chat with your coworkers and ask them questions without the weird social effects.
- Andys 5y ago
  and if the team consists of remote workers?
  - philwelch 5y ago
    I don't think that necessarily changes anything. The weird cultural effects of Slack are probably even worse with remote workers.
    - Andys 5y ago
      We might as well be from different species :) I'd love it if you could elaborate. How do you chat with coworkers remotely if not slack.. IRC? phone? Go around to their house?
      - philwelch 5y ago
        The context of the discussion here is about Microsoft Teams. Teams doesn’t have a particularly engaging or enjoyable or usable design, but it does provide the bare minimum chat functionality.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Depends. Who owns the data contained in the chat?
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I have no idea why my clients keep paying for it. Maybe it's part of some Office / Outlook insane bundle from hell? Free zoom with the 40m limit provides a better experience.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I feel Teams is thrown together by a few interns who are learning product development and trying to be "agile".

Teams is unbelievably shit though. It’s like they don’t even care.

by mnd999 5y ago

Teams is unbelievably shit though. It’s like they don’t even care.

iratewizard 5y ago

I can't name a single messenger with worse user experience.

coolspot 5y ago
Try Skype?
- jhasse 5y ago
  After Microsoft took over, yes.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  Even shitty Microsoft Skype isn't as bad as teams. Skype never just held onto messages without delivering them. Teams can't even do the core thing it's supposed to do correctly - send messages.

Keyframe 5y ago

Chat/teams itself yeah, compared to slack; and it's mostly/only UI related. Video and audio is leagues above however, and recordings integrated with Stream works like a charm. It's unbelievable how shitty audio and video is in slack however. If microsoft got its UI/UX game, it's easier to get that right than the other way around.

spockz 5y ago
Have you tried other tools? Discord, zoom, webex have way better audio and video quality and include video sharing. FaceTime has superb audio and video but no screen sharing.
- aksss 5y ago
  Webex, really? Didn’t the zoom people leave Cisco to make a better Webex? The only people I know still using webex are the feds. Honestly I don’t have issues with teams voice and video, it seems largely commodity at this point, though zoom certainly talks up their ability to maintain quality over crummy connections.
  - selcuka 5y ago
    > Didn’t the zoom people leave Cisco to make a better Webex? Maybe? That doesn't tell anything about Webex being worse than Teams, though. People may also leave Zoom to make a better Zoom tomorrow.
  - sgerenser 5y ago
    Apple uses Slack and WebEx. The experience is so disjoint and WebEx itself is so crappy that I actually prefer Teams overall even though Slack is a better chat client.
  - spockz 5y ago
    Yes. In my experience the video quality in webex is better than in teams. And it supports multiple screen shares. What I really dislike about teams is that it downgrades my 4K video feed to 480p.

creativenolo 5y ago

What about Teams makes you think that? My experience has been the opposite. But that could have just been that it fitted our setup well. Or that I haven't tried better.

floucky 5y ago
Copy/Paste code often doesn't work for me, especially SQL. There is a dedicated component to do that, but that's not convenient at all.
- Siira 5y ago
  https://paste.gnugen.ch/paste/E2o9 https://paste.gnugen.ch/paste/E2o9
qwertywert_ 5y ago
Search through messages doesn't give any context or even let you jump to the context. Very unresponsive scrolling. Notifications have been unreliable for me.
- hennell 5y ago
  They finally fixed search so you can jump to the context a month or so back. I have no idea why it took so long, but search is actually helpful now

zapnuk 5y ago

Yes! Teams is by far the worst "popular" software i've ever used. It's so bad that eventhough most businesses depend on teams, they, as well as everyone else, would be better off if teams suddenly disappears from one day to another. edit: Just a few things that annoy me basically on a daily basis: - The status isn't always up to date. Sometimes it takes minutes to you or your contacts to show the correct status. - It is (unsupprisingly) not very responsive - It hogs my CPU when its idle and especially during video calls. So much so that the fans of my 2020 MBP start spinning up - which otherwise only happens when I run a build/tests. This is especcially bad considering all other video call software (zoom, discord) run just fine. - The UX is terrible when you are active in different organizations. It's riddled with bugs. Every time I switch organizations I have to type in my password twice because for some reason the login session expires instantaniously. If I switch back an forth sometimes some functionality like shring screen or accepting calls just stops working and I have to restart teams. - It tries to include the formatting if you copy+paste in chat. It always looks bad and sometime is ittetating because the font size is way smaller. - Cameras or shared desktops regularily freeze - You cant set the audio level of individual participants. This is especiallly annoying if you're in the same room as other participants of larger meetings since you'd then head them twice. - Because of the messy permission system between multiple organizations it's often not clear wether or not you can certain contacts of are allowed to use the chat in meetings.

rr808 5y ago
Still better than Skype though.
- dvhh 5y ago
  I prefer the somewhat focused approach of skype, rather than the multi-channel type kitchen sink used by teams. To communicate you've got "Chat" then "Teams", On "Chat" you can reply to one message, and on "Teams" you can post on the Threads to reply. On the UX side, at one point I experienced bad memory leak if GPU acceleration was enabled, The shortcut for starting the voice call is the same as the "paste only the text" shortcut in other application (causing more than one department wide voice conference started by accident)

jimmaswell 5y ago

Teams is in the realm of software forced on an entire company by clueless executives who are easily swayed by sales conmen on complimentary golf/ski trips, so they don't have to actually care about making it a good experience - a perfunctory checklist of barely-functional features that look good on a powerpoint is sufficient.

bayindirh 5y ago

For what it's worth, Teams feel like it's haphazardly glued together from what's laying around, esp. in Linux. Why restart the application if it cannot connect to the internet? Why can't I have native notifications? Why iOS app's notifications are unreliable? I really can't believe the quality of this thing. While I don't like Microsoft, I agree that they can write semi-decent software. Teams is not one of them.

EvanAnderson 5y ago

The sysadmin experience on Windows is hot garbage, too. I assume the people writing it have had less than no experience dealing with deploying software to fleets of PCs, hot-desking, VDI, RDP farms, etc. It's ridiculously inefficient.

B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
> It's ridiculously inefficient. You mean that simple tasks take many billable hours? Hmmm ...
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  Irresponsible use of disk space, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth is more what I'm referring to. I've scripted some cleanup of profiles to take care of disk space exhaustion in a couple of situations. Cleaning up after Teams hasn't been a revenue generator for me, but it has created complaints. Anything that causes me to receive complaints from users draws my ire. (I subscribe to the "sewer system" theory of sysadmin for end-user facing servers, desktops, etc. You never think about your municipal sewer system unless it has problems. Ideally that's never. User-facing IT infrastructure should be the same.)
  - B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
    Just for kicks, a little gedanken-experiment: Product A costs 2 bazillion, and is perfect - for a 10 year lifetime, it works perfectly and requires no support. Zero additional cost. Product B does about the same, costs only 1 bazillion, but is rather shoddy - over a 10 year lifetime, it will require a further 3 bazillion worth of fixes, support and extra resources. That does feed a lot of families, though. Take your guess at what happens. Yeah, me neither.
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      I feel like fractional reserve banking and the broken windows fallacy fit in here somewhere too. >smile<

philwelch 5y ago

Slack is much better as a corporate chat app, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily good in the broader picture because I’m not sure you want to maximize chat engagement in a corporate setting. There are weird cultural effects to that, and paradoxically having a shittier app for that might get you the benefits of being able to chat with your coworkers and ask them questions without the weird social effects.

Andys 5y ago
and if the team consists of remote workers?
- philwelch 5y ago
  I don't think that necessarily changes anything. The weird cultural effects of Slack are probably even worse with remote workers.
  - Andys 5y ago
    We might as well be from different species :) I'd love it if you could elaborate. How do you chat with coworkers remotely if not slack.. IRC? phone? Go around to their house?
    - philwelch 5y ago
      The context of the discussion here is about Microsoft Teams. Teams doesn’t have a particularly engaging or enjoyable or usable design, but it does provide the bare minimum chat functionality.
mellavora 5y ago
Depends. Who owns the data contained in the chat?

jokethrowaway 5y ago

I have no idea why my clients keep paying for it. Maybe it's part of some Office / Outlook insane bundle from hell? Free zoom with the 40m limit provides a better experience.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

I feel Teams is thrown together by a few interns who are learning product development and trying to be "agile".