On 3/15/06 13:46, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[email protected]> wrote:
> But conversely why should enterprise be happy with getting the shaft? > That's what you and Jud have been doing, trying to tell customers to suck it > up and be happy with second best. Nonsense. Every release of Entourage has improved the Exchange experience. Sit in front of two Macs, one running v.X 10.1.6 and the other one running 10.2.3 and tell me there's no noticeable improvement. Since when has the Mac BU sat still on this? What you seem to think is that they're going to be able to come out with an update that will have 100% feature compliance with Outlook, and short of porting windows to run under Mac OS X, that.is.not.possible. You will never be able to get 100% feature compliance with Outlook anywhere but Outlook running on Windows. There are significant OS and environment architectural differences that make this impossible at anything approaching a reasonable cost. It would be, in the end, cheaper to just throw a C-note in each Office:Mac box than to perfectly replicated Outlook, even if you COULD do it. > > I'm a Mac user. I'm never happy with second best. Hows that Mac OS X groupware server doing for you? Oh wait, there isn't one. How's Apple's enterprise calendaring server and application working for you? Oh wait, they don't have one. You want a Mac, you win in some places, you lose in others. > >> You'll have to decide if you'd rather just use a PC, if Outlook means that >> much to you. > > Oh yeah. Real mature. Let me just go tell all the Mac users I support to > switch to PCs. I'm sure that'll go over real well. No, it actually IS mature. If you want FULL 100% compatibility with Outlook, then set up a WTS server, use Remote Desktop Client, map the local Mac drive within Remote Desktop Client, and give them Outlook. It will damned sure make your client administration costs go down, and your users can keep their Macs. Okay, so offline access is kinda fuxx0r3d, but you can't get everything and nothing for the same price. > > But you are right about this: the problem lies not with the Entourage > people. It lies with the Outlook people. Entourage wasn't built for > enterprise. It just wasn't. But it seems like there's people within MS who > are doing a great job of hampering the Mac BUs efforts to get it up to > snuff. What, you think Outlook 2001 had 100% compatibility with Outlook on Windows? I have not the room for the amusement that concept causes. As well, you're confusing "what I want" with "what can be done", and they are not in fact the same thing. Is there room for improvement? Of course, but I'll tell you this, right now, Entourage is a MUCH better overall mail client than Outlook. Outlook IMAP *sucks*. In fact, outside of Exchange, Outlook sucks period. -- "Defensive programming? Never! Klingon programs are always on the offense. Yes, Offensive programming is what we do best." -- 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/>
