On 09/15/2003 14:02, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, they know it. The problem is that the System Address Book is limited >> in comparison to Entourage's. So, does MS lose the additional functionality >> it has in it's own address book and just use the apple one? If so, how does >> it reconcile the fact that this would be external to the main database? >> Alternatively, does it just provide a means to sysn it's own address book >> with Apple's? Will this have an impact on performance? Can it be a batch >> update done through a menu command or by a schedule, or does it have to >> update everything as soon as a change is made. If they take this option, >> how do they know when the apple address book has been updated? How often do >> they check? will this impact performance? >> >> You see, the solution is not that straight forward. Sure, everyone would >> like transparent integration, but what you will probably end up with is a >> compromise between convenience, functionality and performance. Alas, this >> is not a perfect world, and no doubt many peopel will be disappointed >> when/if integration comes about. > > Fair enough. But just for the record, I didn't mean to imply that it was > straightforward at all. And yes, many people will be disappointed, because > many people are always disappointed by any major software update. > > But the questions you raise -- or similar ones -- are germane to just about > every major feature in the development of a software package. Which is to > say that there's nothing particularly difficult or challenging about Address > Book integration in the context of every other feature in Microsoft Office. > I work as a UI designer and I am often faced with a barrage of similar > questions from engineers who question the feasibility of features I'm trying > to put into place, so I know how easy it is to make a feature look very > difficult to produce. > > I know you are trying to set expectations at a reasonable level, but I > wouldn't say that the issue of Address Book integration is so onerous a task > that we, as users, don't have a right to expect a very, very elegant > solution in the next version of Office. In fact, we definitely have that > right. It's not just UI and fields. There's design differences. There's a HUGE questions of AppleScript. Take a look at the dictionary differences. The applications were designed from really different POVs. To even keep the same UI functionality would require MS to radically extend the base database for the Address Book. If they only extend it in E'rage as a wrapper around the AB, then there's not much of a point to using it, since you'd still be doing most of the same work in E'rage that you do now. The (much nicer) AppleScript integration with E'rage's address book would be dead and gone. Apple controls the AS implementation for Address Book, and that would be what you you would have to use, and it's not even close to the support that E'rage has within itself. So the only thing you would gain would be one less place for contacts. Buh-bye more data and better AppleScript support. I also now have to rely on Apple to not change anything that would break E'rage within Address Book. But..and this is one thing I haven't seen anyone touch on. What happens when someone writes an outlook -style virii for OS X? Right now, I could delete my address book DB, and so what. Minor inconvenience. I could blow out all the email addresses in my address book, and no inconvenience at all. It's just a place for my iChat buddy list more than anything else. But if it becomes something akin to windows' address book..well then every email application using it is now vulnerable. Too much integration is bad. john -- I don't mind being called tough, since I find in this racket it's the tough guys who lead the survivors. - Colonel Curtis LeMay -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
