A Different Perspective On Snow Leopard's Exchange Support 276
imamac writes "Apple Insider has an interesting perspective on the MS Exchange support built into Mac OS X 10.6 and how it essentially frees Apple from all things Microsoft: 'Windows Enthusiasts like to spin Apple's support for Exchange on the iPhone and in Snow Leopard as endorsement of Microsoft in the server space. From another angle, Apple is reducing its dependence upon Microsoft's client software, weakening Microsoft's ability to hold back and dumb down its Mac offerings at Apple's expense. More importantly, Apple is providing its users with additional options that benefit both Mac users and the open source community.'"
If this is his experience level . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Lost in space? Does he use the same stuff I do?
Re: (Score:2)
Boot them all at the same time with vmware.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I understand the article's contention that Exchange support frees Apple users from Microsoft. After all, the Exchange protocol is still proprietary and under exclusive control of Microsoft. As long as this is the case, Microsoft is free to change the Exchange protocol to freeze out third party clients.
Yes, Apple's increased support for the Exchange protocol may improve the user experience when dealing with Exchange servers. However, it does nothing to actually free users from Microsoft.
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:5, Insightful)
It frees apple from needing Microsoft software on the client.
And they did license the access to exchange from Microsoft, so they can't just lock them out.
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even so, it still doesn't guarantee access to any enhancements that Microsoft may make to Exchange/Outlook. If Microsoft adds a feature that only Outlook can access (e.g. a feature that cannot be accessed via MAPI or Exchange Web Services), then Apple is still frozen out from that feature. So, unless Microsoft commits to completely separating Outlook and Exchange, and making the interface between the two fully documented, now and into the future, there's still the possibility (or, rather, probability) that Apple's mail clients will fall behind Outlook in features.
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:4, Informative)
A feature that can't be accessed by MAPI? Just how do you think Outlook talks to Exchange?
I think you mean IMAP and DAV there...
Re: (Score:2)
Its true that Outlook *currently* uses MAPI and DAV. However, that doesn't have to remain the case. If Microsoft adds a feature to Exchange and Outlook that requires the use of some other protocol, Apple's mail client (and all other clients) will be locked out.
As I said above, unless Microsoft guarantees that the Exchange API will always be fully documented, there's always the chance that new features will use some other protocol (or a modified version of the current protocol). In other words, as long as t
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, it still doesn't guarantee access to any enhancements that Microsoft may make to Exchange/Outlook.
Have you read Apple's licensing agreement with Microsoft or something? I'm sure they have lawyers that have checked they have terms to make sure things like that don't happen.
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see it locking out Microsoft. But for the most part Microsoft doesn't really want to make Mac Software, but they do, as it is profitable, and prevents the Full Switch.
Dropping Office will hurt Microsoft More then it will hurt Apple (and it will hurt both) If you dropped Office then there will be a bunch of people with Macs who will email people back and say I need this in a different format. So people will become more use to converting documents. So when people get into the habit of say saving their Docs as PDF etc... They will find that other tools will work just as well.
Dropping Remote Desktop will hurt Microsoft Too. RDP keeps the Mac User Pacified while he is working on remote windows systems. So they will keep the windows terminal servers knowing that they won't get to much hassle from the Mac users.
Dropping Microsoft Messager is kinda a stupid idea. So much competiton if there was to many people say hey I cant do that. They will just switch.
If you realized Microsoft did Drop IE for Mac. Why well it wasn't updated and second IE is no longer a key to Microsoft Business as Web Developers started to make more browser compatible sites. And relied much less on Microsoft only tools. So when Safari came out there was no point in fighting it. It is just an expense with no gain.
Exchange is only really useful for corporate use hindering such functionality to the Mac would cause people to switch to such oddities such as Gasp LDAP and other tools.
Mac is the second largest OS for personal use out there. There is enough vocal to cause change if it spoke loud about it. Linux users you are still around 1% so your cry goes to deaf ears.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I thought Microsoft dropped IE for Mac because Apple was doing to Microsoft what Microsoft had done to Netscape.
That is to say releasing a better browser and shipping it
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no single "Exchange Protocol." What you might be talking about is MAPI, the protocol Outlook uses to talk to Exchange (and the oldest protocol Exchange supports, I believe). MAPI is full documented on MSDN, and there are a number of open source implementations of MAPI (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAPI [wikipedia.org]).
However, the Exchange support in Snow Leopard doesn't use MAPI, it uses Exchange Web Services, which is also open and documented on MSDN.
Apple is not donig "Exchange". (Score:3, Funny)
They are implementing this via a custom conduit that uses WEBDAV. It's not clear if this requires anything installed on the server side, if so then its a non-starter for most folks. For Apple PC's you're probably better off simply using the webmail interface anyway. This does provide a means for mobile sysems such as phones or laptops to actually download the messages.
Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange". (Score:5, Interesting)
They are implementing this via a custom conduit that uses WEBDAV. It's not clear if this requires anything installed on the server side, if so then its a non-starter for most folks. For Apple PC's you're probably better off simply using the webmail interface anyway. This does provide a means for mobile sysems such as phones or laptops to actually download the messages.
Snow Leopard's Exchange support works very well for connecting to my department's servers, and they're about as anti-Apple as you can get. They absolutely refuse to even make the smallest config changes to allow non-Outlook clients to connect (ie. Entourage) and I can connect flawlessly (AFAIK...). I have mail support, calendar support (with functioning invited events), tasks/todo support, contacts and access to the global address books, all through Apple's standard applications. They may be implementing this through a WebDAV backed conduit, but as far as functionality goes, this is the real deal.
Re: (Score:2)
that's because most times it means opening up all kinds of security nightmares. when iphone 3G's first came out and people bought them, some thought we would actually open up imap through the firewall so they could access their emai
Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange". (Score:5, Insightful)
If you consider IMAP to be a "security nightmare", I'm wondering why you allow anyone to access your exchange server at all.
If MS can't get IMAP to work securely, what makes you think they can do any better with any other protocol?
Re: (Score:2)
IMAP isn't really security nightmare unless you don't encrypt it and that's pretty trivial in Ex2007.
Biggest issue with IMAP access is lack of ActiveSync and with that ability to push basic security policies to the phone and brick the phone in case of theft or being misplaced. That's what caused my company not to open up IMAP access. We didn't have any way to remote kill the phone. Once ActiveSync support was available, we had no issues with permitting it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm guessing "security nightmare" really means "getting the CEO to stop using 12345 as his password."
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that's the combination to my luggage!
Re: (Score:2)
that's because most times it means opening up all kinds of security nightmares. when iphone 3G's first came out and people bought them, some thought we would actually open up imap through the firewall so they could access their emai
God forbid! Giving people access to their email over the Internet? What will it be next, the corporate website? Can you imagine the security nightmare?
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:4, Insightful)
For IT shops, though, being able to connect to Exchange without Outlook is a huge enabler. Entourage 2008 is much better than the previous Mac OS X offerings, but it still sucks in some big ways (e.g., free/busy in multi-domain ADs). I just got my copy of 10.6 on Friday. If it turns out to work better than Entourage, you can bet your ass we'll buy more Macs the next time around. OpenOffice is already at feature parity with MS Office as far as we're concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Outlook is not a hard requirement for accessing an Exchange server mailbox. There's plenty of other options such as imap, webmail, pop3/smtp, etc. If you want the full experience and features you gotta use Outlook though.
I disagree the OpenOffice is at feature parity with MSOffice. It's still not even terribly compatible as documents don't always flow the same when viewed or printed with either platform. It may be better than anything else on Linux or Apple, and work just fine for a lot of folks, but it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think feature parity means you can use MS office documents. Feature parity means you can do anything in open office that you can do in MS office.
I don't use either, so I can't comment on that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think feature parity means you can use MS office documents. Feature parity means you can do anything in open office that you can do in MS office.
You're right that I did mix feature sets with interoperability. Both are valid points. There are still lots of things you can do with MS Office that you can't in Open Office. I'll be honest and say I use both. I like OO for basic stuff like simple word documents at home. I don't use it at work because the features simply aren't there. Impress and calc are toys compared to MS Office.
The only thing OO has going for it is the price and multi-OS support. It's quickly becoming slow and bloated though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does this *free* Mac users? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, let's look at the options:
I've tried all the options, and I keep having to come back to using Outlook... I really look forward to a working Mail.app exchange-compliant connection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't free Mac users from Microsoft; it frees potential Mac users from Microsoft. Most people don't particularly care about whether something is capital-F Free and so they don't really care if they depend on Microsoft. Hell, by buying a Mac they're largely dependent on Apple. Chances are the average user has a handful of apps that make them dependent on a handful of other companies. And for the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, it does nothing to actually free users from Microsoft.
It does something: For any user with no administration responsibilities, this makes it possible to completely avoid directly running or ,in the case of organizations that allow personally-owned equipment on their network, purchasing any Microsoft product. Freedom is relative, but this is change is certainly a noticeable one.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but that's hardly being *free* of Microsoft. You've still got Microsoft in your server room.
And, as I've stated in response to sibling posts, there's little stopping Microsoft from changing the protocol between Outlook and Exchange to make Apple's Mail client obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
And, as I've stated in response to sibling posts, there's little stopping Microsoft from changing the protocol between Outlook and Exchange to make Apple's Mail client obsolete.
Except for the contract that they signed with Apple so that Apple could develop their own ActiveSync implementation. Apple's Lawyers have made boneheaded mistakes in the past as far as MS is concerned, but I can't see them making the obvious mistake of signing a licensing deal that is useless once MS releases a patch or updates their software.
I know that MS is not a huge fan of following the spirit, or even the letter of the contracts they sign, but Apple is big enough and wealthy enough to sue the hell o
Re: (Score:2)
No its not. Presumably, you're still paying for the Exchange seats for those users. Its true that you'll save by not having to buy copies of Entourage for those users, but you're not totally free economically.
One thing that's incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
The article says:
"Apple built its support for Exchange using WebDAV..."
Untrue. The Exchange support for Snow Leopard was built using Exchange Web Services, just like the next version of Microsoft's client, Entourage.
Many times (Score:2)
Particularly when the MS monopoly trial was going on, there were discussions here on Slashdot about why MS has such a strangle hold on the OS market.
Everything always came down to "because only Windows really supports Exchange."
Well well.
Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses (Score:3, Interesting)
there is an exchange client on over 40 million iphones and ipods. even though people don't use it MS still get paid. Just like the old days when they would get paid from Dell for every PC no matter what the OS. Google is licensing ActiveSync as well for Android and Docs so MS gets paid again. Palm licenses AS as well.
It's pretty much a given that Apple is not going into the server business so MS is safe on that end.
The big loser is RIM. I bet MS was scared with the BB's success because it puts the importance of email on the phone, and not the server or client. people didn't care what server software ran the email as long as they could get emails anywhere. and since BES supported almost every email server it made migration a lot easier. Just try to migrate to a Linux mail server when all the users are using Pre's and iPhones to get email on the road
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses (Score:4, Informative)
xservers are crap compared to HP and dell. 1U server with only 3 drives is a joke. nehalem server and no support for 144GB of RAM? i just priced out 1U HP servers a few days ago and they can go to 144GB of RAM in a 1U server with 8 hard drives. and Apple only sells 1U servers and no blades. unless you are strictly an OS X shop or need OS X for something there is no reason to even consider Apple for anything serious
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the Xserve I manage in the office seems to handle all the functionality required to support network logins with roaming profiles for all of the users and workstations, I could care less what HP or Dell have to offer.
All of our production servers run Linux on the "big" servers from HP. The office machines are more than well supported by the Xserve hardware we have.
You don't buy an Xserve because it smokes everything else out there in raw hardware performance numbers. You buy one because it is r
Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses (Score:4, Interesting)
not to mention the apparent lack of 24x7 onsite support. i know someone who works in a Dell server shop and everything they buy comes with 27x7 4 hour response time onsite support. if anything in the server breaks, someone is onsite within 4 hours to replace it
Re: (Score:2)
Just try to migrate to a Linux mail server when all the users are using Pre's and iPhones to get email on the road
????
Where's the issue?
My iPhone accesses 6 different servers to get email. Makes my life simple without mixing stuff up and not needing to download all. It's a none issue. It's been my experience that the only people who suffer most of these compatibility issues are the ones who are tying themselves into proprietary solutions. 2 of which are Linux, 2 are FreeBSD, one is Exchange and one I never bothered to even check.
RIM doesn't lose anything (Score:2)
Companies love RIM/Blackberry and choose the devices especially for the amazing level of Exchange support.
Nokia provides Exchange sync on Symbian for years, for free in enterpise (E) models. Who cares? They go and buy Windows Mobile or Blackberry handsets.
When you talk about exchange support, don't forget how old fashioned and stupid these companies are for using a non standard protocol while open, documented things exist for years now. Don't expect them to move to Snow Leopard or even iPhone just because s
Fix SMB first (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fix SMB first (Score:5, Interesting)
What SMB problems? My MBP connects just fine to all te shared drives around, and when I connect to a new network, it shows all the available shares very quickly.
Compare that to a XP install that repeatedly tells me that "I don't have the necessary permissions" to view the public, no password share.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Enthusiasts? (Score:3, Funny)
Are there really hordes of grassroots windows partisans? I can see people who use it because they find the alternatives worse or impractical, or even people who kind of like using it. But Enthusiasts? Is it the same sort of person who joins the College Republicans, and the Comcast Fan Club?
Re: (Score:2)
But Enthusiasts? Is it the same sort of person who joins the College Republicans, and the Comcast Fan Club?
Pretty much, but they certainly exist. They also appear to be the biggest zealots in the industry - much worse than Apple or Linux fanboys. Only Richard Stallman could possibly top them. A good starting point for investigating this species might be the commentators at Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows [winsupersite.com]. It's super!
Can Apple do their own MSTSC next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Howso? Although my experience with the application in question is somewhat limited, I've always understood it to be just as full-featured as its Windows counterpart.
Could you possibly have VPN issues instead? There are a number of windows-only proprietary VPN clients that don't play nicely with macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. [microsoft.com]
A TS gateway sits in a DMZ zone to allow connections from outside a firewall. It also provides several other advancements, like enforcing only clients with up-to-date virus software can connect. VPN in might work unless the TS gateway is required for internal machines as well, which is the case at some companies.
Re: (Score:2)
TS on Windows is just Citrix lite and MS licenses it from Citrix. You have to install it first if you install Citrix's products as well.
Apple probably needs to pay Citrix some more cash for more features
Microsoft just got 1-Uped (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been mentioned elsewhere (but not here as far as I can tell) that this development is particularly notable, given that Windows doesn't support Exchange out of the box. You need Office for that.
Re: (Score:2)
IE + OWA
Mac's cost a lot more than your typical corporate Windows PC as well so it's not like people will save money by going to Mac. And HR won't care that Mac's come with Garage Band
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sort of. OWA gives you a stripped-down interface if you're using Firefox, Safari or any other browser besides IE. On Exchange 2003 if you've never used IE you might not be aware of this; on Exchange 2007 it tells you on the login page that you can only use the Lite version.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Where I work is somewhere in between the two scenarios you mentioned - I won't make changes to centralised infrastructu
regarding your sig (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been mentioned elsewhere (but not here as far as I can tell) that this development is particularly notable, given that Windows doesn't support Exchange out of the box. You need Office for that.
Windows also cannot open Word, Excel, or Powerpoint files out of the box. You need Office for that. Ubuntu, on the other hand, opens them just fine (for certain values of fine mind you).
I feel so lucky (Score:2)
I feel so lucky, that even though 99.9 percent of our IT is based on MS Windows, I can peacefully develop in non-MS languages (php,perl mainly) with mostly free development tools. Even though I use 2 Macs at the office and 2 others at home, I have no problems or interoperability problems whatsoever. No one forces me to use Word, Exchange (pop/imap is just lovely) or anything that would be a problem on a Mac. In months the first problem I faced was an invitation (calendar event) my Thunderbird did not quite
Re:"dumb down?" (Score:5, Funny)
Assuming you have a computer that's less than about 6 years old, I think what you're looking for is Windows XP Pro. It has the look and feel of Windows XP Pro, hasn't bluescreened on me anytime in recent history (and when it has, it's been due to crappy 3rd party drivers), and has the UI you're looking for. As an added bonus, you don't even need to use WINE to run windows apps - they run natively!
Re: (Score:2)
BSOD can be prevented most of the time (Score:2)
Creating BSOD in NT based OS either happens because of cheap, bad quality RAM or hardware with badly coded drivers. It was very different deal on Windows 98 and earlier since they are mixed operating systems.
If you keep good hardware (doesn't have to be expensive) and stick with certified drivers, I bet you will never see a BSOD.
I know it is the hardware or drivers since on OS X, my first G5 1600 kept giving me the stylish BSOD of Apple. I did hardware test, found one memory module was faulty, threw it away
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
127.0.0.1
Have fun and don't hold back.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what else runs natively? Botnets, SPAMbots, various Virii, worms, etc. I know that if I was writing computer viruses, I definately want the IP address of someone who is running Windows/quote
Maybe they do on your networks, they never did here by using good sense, applying protection and not running every random exe from the Internet. Oh yeah, and not using IE as web browser. Seriously, I think Linux is ahead of Windows on this one but anyone visiting slashdot should be more than capable of administrating Windows without running into problems.
Re: (Score:3)
"My network" is known as the Internet. I'm still trying to contact the sysadmin, to no avail. ... and anyone on Slashdot should be able to post without their comment being blockquoted. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally don't care for XP (or Windows in any form), but it is at least mature enough now to make a solid platform. When XP first came out, the consensus was pretty similar to what we saw when Vista came out. Microsoft made some attempt to address (most of) the issues as time went by. So if XP fulfils the user's requirements, then why change? Not everybody needs shiny things on their latest OS.
One thing I've always taken for granted with Linu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OS X has easily accessible context menus. You right click, and it pops up.
I guess if you still have one of the mice that came with Macs years ago you might still have to hold down control and click, but if you haven't plugged in a two button mouse in all that time you probably don't really care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess if you still have one of the mice that came with Macs years ago you might still have to hold down control and click
Or one of those Macs that has a trackpad.
Re:"dumb down?" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can right-click with the trackpad in Bootcamp. However, it seems more like an approximation - for example, it doesn't work in Half-Life 2. But it works in the desktop, at least, and many other programs (browsers, etc).
What bothers me is the scroll. On OSX it's really smooth, but on windows it's not so much; windows likes the wheel-click model I guess. Changing the requisite value to 1 instead of the default of 3 seems to do the trick.
Re:"dumb down?" (Score:4, Informative)
Any of the new (intel and last few generations of PPC) mac portables, you can easily "right" click by a two finger tap. Easy peasy.
Sheldon
Re: (Score:2)
My 4-year-old PowerBook supports this. Two-finger right clicking and scrolling is easily one of my favorite features about the machine.
(I'm not terribly thrilled that Snow Leopard dropped PPC support. Even though my machine's just a few years old, it's still perfectly good for day-to-day use)
Re:"dumb down?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, the passive-aggressive trackpad on my Macbook Pro with its two finger tap (which I too often screw up) really ticks me off. It makes me wish I could run OS X on a Thinkpad.
Apple's hardware style is simply something I have to put up with to get an OS that doesn't suck that has an actual commercial application base.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually love my macbook pro's trackpad. It's easily double the size of any other notebook, and I always use tap to click (I never push the thing down to click)
Re: (Score:2)
In mouse properties, try changing the 'scroll x lines' from 3 to 1. Works a lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
So then change how the mouse pad works. The easiest alternative is to switch it so that it treats having two fingers on the pad when you press the button as right-click.
Re:"dumb down?" (Score:4, Funny)
And once again Apple's elitist attitude comes out in their discrimination of people who's hands have been horrible mangled in heavy machinery. With a normal two button mouse you only need one finger to operate either button, but needing two fingers just to get a context menu? I guess I will need to stick with Windows until the day Apple sees that people with only one finger also deserve context menus. And until that day I would like to proudly present that single finger to Steve Jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, or you can set it so that clicking one of the corners is a right click, too. It's conveniently located in the trackpad settings menu below a heading labeled "one finger."
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you enabled it, just tap the track pad with two fingers. I can't understand why people still use the button when they can actually tap the track pad with one or two fingers for left, respectively right clicks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The apps are dumbed down versions. For example, the OS X version of Powerpoint will not let me create animations where objects move along a path (which is really useful to show how data flows through an abstract model or graph). The Windows version does. The OS X version of Outlook, Entourage, won't really talk to Exchange and definitely won't let you schedule meetings with multiple attendees. This is Microsoft's fault.
Fixed and soon to be fixed. (Score:3, Interesting)
The apps are dumbed down versions. For example, the OS X version of Powerpoint will not let me create animations where objects move along a path (which is really useful to show how data flows through an abstract model or graph). The Windows version does.
Fixed in the latest service pack. (Why was it suddenly fixed in a service pack, after letting several full releases go by without it? Because Apple's Keynote gained the ability.)
The OS X version of Outlook, Entourage, won't really talk to Exchange and definitely won't let you schedule meetings with multiple attendees. This is Microsoft's fault.
Not true. (I do it every week. Not even difficult; you just keep adding attendees just like you did the first one. You can even view availability on the little graph like Outlook.) But in any event, Entourage is going to be scrapped in the next version of Office. Why? Because Apple's apps had caught up to Entourage's (weak) level of
Re:"dumb down?" (Score:5, Interesting)
The "dumbed down" stuff they are talking, at least in my direct experience, is the lack of full functionality. Almost nothing was ever implemented completely or wholly in the Mac version of MS Office. And Entourage's exchange support is abysmal. Once again, not all of Exchange's features and functions are well supported and certain parts are simply omitted from support entirely. And the connection/communication is sometimes mysteriously broken as well.
Now comparing a Windows Mobile Phone and an iPhone connecting to an Exchange server, which one do you think "wins"? If you guessed "Windows Mobile of course!" you would be horribly mistaken. As far as mobile devices are concerned, iPhone beats the all hands down. And if Apple's native/local support of Exchange server is at least as good as that found on iPhone, then I would say it is probably quite powerful and feature complete.
(There! Go back and look at all my "Apple Bashing" posts and try to call me a "hater" now! In all cases, I call'm like I see'm and nothing more or less.)
Apple is already familiar with the other side... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I would assume that Apple has some agreement with MS to keep them in the loop on the updates to Exchange. The financial entanglement of Apple and MS and their workplace symbiosis is such that MS probably will not benefit as much as one would think from dicking Apple around the way Apple dicks open sourcers around. Also, MS knows they would have no chance in the court of public opinion if they tried to do so, while Apple can make a somewhat believable case against open sourcers reverse engineering Apple software and providing, for free, some of the pro features that are supposed to be paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has "patent weapons" to fight with... should they choose to do so. It's quite likely that the alternatives are hosted in countries where software patents don't exist but even that doesn't guarantee that Apple wouldn't pay a lobbyist to talk to congress and have congress talk to the government bodies of foreign nations and have them break their own laws... you know, like they did with The Pirate Bay?
As for MS and Apple having an agreement?! I seriously doubt it. It is MORE likely that Microsoft will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now comparing a Windows Mobile Phone and an iPhone connecting to an Exchange server, which one do you think "wins"? If you guessed "Windows Mobile of course!" you would be horribly mistaken. As far as mobile devices are concerned, iPhone beats the all hands down.
Does it beat "them all" as a mobile device or in Exchange support?
IMO the best mobile device FOR EXCHANGE SUPPORT ONLY is not Windows Mobile or iPhone, but Blackberry. And pretty much the entire business world agrees with me. RIM operates a series of "reflection servers" for Exchange which dynamically "pushes" email to the clients (phones) and maintains better email access for Blackberry users. This is enormously handy for enterprise/business customers. Apple very specifically won't do this for the iPhone (
Re: (Score:2)
RIM operates a series of "reflection servers" for Exchange which dynamically "pushes" email to the clients (phones) and maintains better email access for Blackberry users. This is enormously handy for enterprise/business customers. Apple very specifically won't do this for the iPhone (they've been asked).
Could you be more specific in what you mean here? It was my understanding that the iPhone fully support push email from Exchange (and certainly does for, e.g., yahoo mail)
Are you talking about blackberry's servers? What's the advantage?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you find that having all your emails go through a 3rd party's servers is a good thing? Otherwise I'm pretty sure that a honest comparison between the iPhone and the Blackberry Exchange integration wouldn't show any differences feature-wise. Regarding the Push-Email thing, it's actually there in the iPhone OS 3.0 and it works.
On the other hand, trying to remove the blackberry from the hands of blackberry obsessed users is a sacrilege just as big as upgrading their Office 2003 to anything else. And that i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight.
Blackberry devices do not contain Exchange support themselves. They rely instead on "reflection servers" run by RIM. This therefore adds an additional point of failure - to get email on a Blackberry not only does the Exchange server have to be working, but the reflection server does too. It also exposes your email contents to RIM. There is no option on Blackberry devices to communicate directly with Exchange servers.
Apple's iPhone instead implements direct connection to Exch
Exchange it for a real MTA (Score:2)
It's getting better. Backups without stopping all service are now possible in MS Exchange and bare metal recovery is no longer a full day nightmare. Some day it will be a full feature mail transfer agent. Oh, you mean the Mac client software that had to be reverse engineered to talk to the non-standard steaming pile that is MS Exchange? I'll be quiet now and let the MS Exchange advocates tell you
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that Exchange is awful to administer -- I know that it's (imho) ridiculously expensive. My question is, what's the alternative? I've been waiting 10 years for there be open source software that is group calendaring/email/addressing, that has good client software, and more recently, has mobile integration. I work at a shop with Macs and PC user computers and FreeBSD servers. I would LOVE to have a a program that we could use instead of Exchange (which we don't havE)
So, what's the alternative? L
Re: (Score:2)
Exchange is to Email what MSIE is to the web.
The standard of expectation is set largely by what can be achieved with Exchange+Outlook. There are lots of interesting groupware solutions that offer what Exchange offers. The twist is whether or not it works with Outlook or what have you.
Look to eGroupware and Funambol and start playing with options from there. Both are quite free and impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OR, see if the FVWM 95 project is still live.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Microsoft wasn't the one who decided that Mac users didn't need the right mouse button. If part of the "dumbing down" is a lack of easily-accessible context menus, blame the Mac GUI.
Odd, an Apple mouse has five buttons (how old is Mighty Mouse now?), their touchpads are capable of many multi touch gestures (quite new aside from multiple button simulation), desktop keyboards have FOUR (control/option/command/shift) standard accelerator/modifier keys used liberally throughout both user applications and OS interfaces (old as dirt; your "lack of accessible context menus" comment is utterly hilarious in light of this), and laptops technically have FIVE modifiers, counting the Fn key.
I keep hoping to find a good Linux UI that has the look-and-feel of Windows XP Pro (running a Classic Windows theme), but without the BSOD et al.
*sigh*
Re:Gentoo?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My new mac (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about not even windows has built-in exchange support. In order to get Exchange support on Microsoft's $300 OS, you need to install a $100 email software, or $250 office suite.
I got exchange support on my mac for $29.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though the History panel was removed from Konqueror in KDE 4.3? Seriously, how do these decisions get made?
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193966#c1 [kde.org]
Even though Krunner turns UTF-8 into gibberish? [gibberish.co.il]
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192166 [kde.org]
Shall I go on?