Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57
  1.    #1  
    Now that Microsoft is coming out with OSX conduits for Enterouge, I finally sat down and played with it. Wow. I FINALLY have a Palm desktop app worth using.

    I just can't get over the irony of Microsoft making a better Palm Desktop than Palm.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  2. #2  
    The Palm Desktop software was not designed to be a full fledge PIM. Thats what MS Entourage etc. are for. The Palm Desktop was built so that people can backup and manipulate their data.
  3.    #3  
    Yardie:

    Well, that's my point, I guess.

    WHY wasn't Palm desktop designed as a full fleged PIM? I have a feeling it was. Palm was just too damn lazy to ever get it updated to a robust point.

    Entourage does pretty much everything Palm Desktop does, just in a usable environment.

    So, if you are a Mac users, using a Palm (avoiding MS products) the reality is that the key product for us (the device that connects the two together) IS a Microsoft product. ;o)
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  4. #4  
    Hmmm, I am missing the irony.

    A megacorporation can write better code than a small one can?

    And what sort of footprint does Entourage leave on your computer? If it is really a MS product, then I bet it has a LOT of lines of code, is rather large, and leaves trash all over. It has probably assimilated your Internet connections, modified your start-up processes, and already knows more about you than you want.

    The irony 'I' see here is that of a megacorporation seeing enough business from a company they have been trying push out of the way that they are now writing code for them! Pretty impressive when Palm can get Microsoft to write programs for them for free!
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!
  5. #5  
    Originally posted by Madkins007
    [...] Pretty impressive when Palm can get Microsoft to write programs for them for free!
    Not impressive at all when you consider that it's being done to prevent a court from breaking up their company due to illegal business practices.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6.    #6  
    A megacorporation can write better code than a small one can?
    The size of a company has little, if anything, to do with the quality of the software they produce. Often, the smaller company is able to push out much better code in a much more timely manner.

    And what sort of footprint does Entourage leave on your computer?
    Don't know and don't care. Hard drives are cheap.

    If it is really a MS product, then I bet it has a LOT of lines of code, is rather large, and leaves trash all over. It has probably assimilated your Internet connections, modified your start-up processes, and already knows more about you than you want.
    Nope. Not at all. Microsoft is pumping out some very nice software for the Mac. Their Mac group is a quality team of programmers.

    The irony 'I' see here is that of a megacorporation seeing enough business from a company they have been trying push out of the way that they are now writing code for them! Pretty impressive when Palm can get Microsoft to write programs for them for free!
    And it's extremely sad that Palm is letting Microsoft do that. I've been perpetually irritated by Palm's laziness in keeping up. The Palm desktop hasn't changes in years. It's still a clunky, unintuitive program.

    What DOES bug me about MS, though, is that you can't by Entourage WITHOUT MS Office. Ugh. THAT is not good practice.

    Not impressive at all when you consider that it's being done to prevent a court from breaking up their company due to illegal business practices.
    Writing Mac software has nothing to do with the lawsuits. The mac division at MS is simply a profitable division. The biggest selling Mac software is Microsoft products. It was a pure business decision.

    Now, only if the PC team could start learning from the Mac team over in Redmond...
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by homer
    [...] Writing Mac software has nothing to do with the lawsuits.
    I didn't say that it did. Note that the comment I responded to was in reference to _Palm_ software on the Mac Platform.
    The mac division at MS is simply a profitable division. The biggest selling Mac software is Microsoft products. It was a pure business decision. [...]
    That comes off as a bit naive. Even _if_ the biggest selling Mac software is a Microsoft product, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to overall Microsoft sales. Quite simply, Microsoft needs Macs around to promote the idea that they have competition. They also need to keep up the illusion that they've not been targetting Palm's compatibility in their products in order to extend their monopoly. Now, it may be pure coincidence that they're suddenly changing how they've been acting towards Palms at the same time that the appeals process has been going on, but more likely, their actions _are_ a pure business decision. In order to prevent something big happening to their business, they're trying to play the cooperative monopoly.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Not impressive at all when you consider that it's being done to prevent a court from breaking up their company due to illegal business practices.
    Well, I doubt that is their ONLY motivation in this- greed probably plays some part as well!

    Other than that- I like some things about Microsoft, and I don't much miss the old 'multi-OS' days when it was awkward to put together different programs for your computer system... but I really thing Microsoft has gotten out of control!
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!
  9. #9  
    Sorry for the dumb question, but what's MS Entourage? I did a search on it and couldn't find anything other then it's part of the MS Office Suite...for mac?

    Thanks
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by homer
    The size of a company has little, if anything, to do with the quality of the software they produce. Often, the smaller company is able to push out much better code in a much more timely manner.
    I KNOW that smaller companies can and do produce great code- I was just pointing out that there should be no surprise when a big one DOES produce something better than a small one. They have a lot more R&D and other resources available to them.


    Don't know and don't care. Hard drives are cheap.
    THAT bothers me! It may be a remnant from my 386 days, but I am really irritated by long, buggy, unstable code- which Windows seems to either encourage, require, or perpetrate.

    I love good, tight, stable code- and it is getting harder and harder to find. Cheap memory is a part of the problem (but only one part!), but hardly a good excuse for mediocre programming.

    And it's extremely sad that Palm is letting Microsoft do that. I've been perpetually irritated by Palm's laziness in keeping up. The Palm desktop hasn't changes in years. It's still a clunky, unintuitive program.
    Well, I like Palm's Desktop- it is simple, stable, small, and does pretty much what it is designed to do. It IS NOT perfect and I am glad that others are starting to address this need. Actually, I would have expected a better desktop sooner than this from a third-party group.

    I agree that Palm itself could and probably SHOULD have done a better desktop- perhaps something along the lines of a Desktop Lite (the current one), and a more advanced version with better connectivity to Outlook, etc.

    What DOES bug me about MS, though, is that you can't by Entourage WITHOUT MS Office. Ugh. THAT is not good practice.
    Yeah. Ain't Microsoft great? With friends like them, we don't need any enemies!
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!
  11.    #11  
    In order to prevent something big happening to their business, they're trying to play the cooperative monopoly.
    I don't agree. I see Microsoft as being a very open monopoly. They know it...they're not trying to hide it by making Macintosh software.

    Why didn't they make a PocketPC Conduit? It wouldn't be profitable. Few mac users use PocketPCs.

    Sorry for the dumb question, but what's MS Entourage? I did a search on it and couldn't find anything other then it's part of the MS Office Suite...for mac?
    Entourage is basically a better version of the Palm Desktop + Outlook express. It has email, a calendar, contacts, to do list.

    It's packaged in a very nice interface with some very nice features.

    Drawbacks? It's only available as part of Office. It isn't Outlook compatible. Like Outlook Express, it isn't really designed for massive amounts of email.

    I was just pointing out that there should be no surprise when a big one DOES produce something better than a small one.
    Maybe. Personally, I *am* surprised when huge software companies come out with truly innovative/easy-to-use software.

    Actually, I would have expected a better desktop sooner than this from a third-party group.
    I agree. Speaking of which, where is Apple in all of this? I'm perpetually puzzeled by Apple complete indifference to handheld computers since the killing of the Newton. Jaguar is supposedly going to have a system-wide contact database, but what good is that if it isn't synchable with handhelds?

    We have iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, iPod, iChat, Mail.app, etc, etc, but nothing for a handheld. Ugh.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  12. #12  
    Is it for Mac or PC?
  13.    #13  
    Mac
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  14. #14  
    Thanks
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by homer
    I don't agree.
    That's fine.
    I see Microsoft as being a very open monopoly.
    Since when? Palm was on the list to testify against them and their 'openness'.
    They know it...they're not trying to hide it by making Macintosh software.
    Again, I'm not talking much about Macintosh software. I'm talking more specifically about Palm software.
    Why didn't they make a PocketPC Conduit? It wouldn't be profitable. Few mac users use PocketPCs.
    And how many use Palms? How many of those are using OS X and Office for Mac? For that matter, how much extra are they making by releasing the Palm conduit? Was there a pent-up demand for Entourage X which will spur a significant sales boost of Office for Mac? If not, how can you really argue that profitability of Mac software was their primary reason?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by Toby
    And how many use Palms? How many of those are using OS X and Office for Mac? For that matter, how much extra are they making by releasing the Palm conduit? Was there a pent-up demand for Entourage X which will spur a significant sales boost of Office for Mac? If not, how can you really argue that profitability of Mac software was their primary reason?
    Actually, many OSX users I know (myself included) were waiting for the release of Office v.X before they would switch over to OSX full time. (The stragglers were waiting for Photoshop 7, and that's out already too.) Personally, I switched the day I got my Office disc in the mail, and haven't gone back to OS9 for anything (that's not to say I don't use "classic" mode at all, but I haven't had the need to switch back to full-on OS9) - the only thing missing was a Palm<-->Entourage conduit, so that I could make by VPR useful again. So will the release of this conduit make that much a difference? It will to Mac users looking for another reason to make the switch.
    What do you think, Sirs?
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by critic
    Actually, many OSX users I know (myself included) were waiting for the release of Office v.X before they would switch over to OSX full time.
    That wasn't what I asked, though.
    [...] Personally, I switched the day I got my Office disc in the mail, and haven't gone back to OS9 for anything (that's not to say I don't use "classic" mode at all, but I haven't had the need to switch back to full-on OS9) - the only thing missing was a Palm<-->Entourage conduit, so that I could make by VPR useful again.
    That's my point, though. You already switched regardless of whether your Prism was supported, so there's not much reason for MS to release a conduit (other than a) to make their existing customers happy or b) to have something to show to the courts that they're playing nicer with other companies' products than they are their own, so they can't possibly deserve a harsh penalty).
    So will the release of this conduit make that much a difference? It will to Mac users looking for another reason to make the switch.
    How many of those do you _really_ think are out there that haven't switched already? How many people were on the fence, but will jump off simply because of a Palm conduit? I'm honestly curious.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18.    #18  
    Again, I'm not talking much about Macintosh software. I'm talking more specifically about Palm software.
    Are you referring to Palm Syncronization in Enterouge? That feature was added because people wanted it. The Mac group at MS knows that few if any Mac users use PocketPCs, therefore, for Mac handheld synchronization, it only made sense to support the Palm.

    And how many use Palms?
    I don't know the stats, but I personally know 40+ people using Macs and Palms and 0 using Macs and PocketPCs.

    How many of those are using OS X and Office for Mac?
    Not sure what that has to do with the point you were makin, but most Macs in office settings have a copy of Office on them.

    For that matter, how much extra are they making by releasing the Palm conduit? Was there a pent-up demand for Entourage X which will spur a significant sales boost of Office for Mac?
    Yes. There was. Maybe not Entourage specifically, but there was pent-up demand for a Mac-only, updated version of Office. And that's what Office X is. MS has decided not to port Outlook Express at this point to OSX and so decided to go with Enterouge...a rewritten app just for the Mac.

    It is also a first-step towards getting a Mac-friendly Outlook client. Something Mac users have been begging MS for years about.

    In comparison to their windows group, is the Mac a highly succesful department? Not in purse $$$s, but it certainly is nothing to scoff at. The biggest selling software for the Mac platform is Microsoft products. If you were the leading software provider for a market and you made money doing that, what other reasons would you need?

    If not, how can you really argue that profitability of Mac software was their primary reason?
    The Mac group is autonomous within Microsoft in that they don't have to abide by what the Windows group is doing. They can update and release their software at their own pace. They don't share code, and they listen to users. The Mac group actually is a very smart, talented group of programmers. They don't make software because the legal department requested it. They make software because their users requested it.

    Granted, neither I nor you can say why, exactly, they do what they do.

    I'm not a microsoft fan. There's a lot that can be improved on the backend in all of the Macintosh products Microsoft makes. That said, MS's mac group has consistently come out with usable and innovative user interfaces and features as of late.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  19. #19  
    Originally posted by homer
    Are you referring to Palm Syncronization in Enterouge?
    Yes, that was the original point of the thread which I replied to.
    That feature was added because people wanted it.
    Where was the profit motive then?
    The Mac group at MS knows that few if any Mac users use PocketPCs, therefore, for Mac handheld synchronization, it only made sense to support the Palm.
    Why does it make sense? Were there a significant number of people refusing to buy Office for Mac because it didn't have Entourage syncing with Palm?
    I don't know the stats, but I personally know 40+ people using Macs and Palms and 0 using Macs and PocketPCs.
    Unfortunately, that's the flaw with anecdotal evidence, it doesn't prove much at an individual level.
    Not sure what that has to do with the point you were makin, but most Macs in office settings have a copy of Office on them.
    The point I was making is that there isn't really much of a business case for writing a free add-on for syncing Entourage with a Palm. This suggests that either a) it's not a pure business decision, or b) the reason it's a pure business decision has nothing to do with the profitability of the Mac division.
    Yes. There was. Maybe not Entourage specifically, but there was pent-up demand for a Mac-only, updated version of Office.
    But those are hardly the same thing.
    And that's what Office X is. MS has decided not to port Outlook Express at this point to OSX and so decided to go with Enterouge...a rewritten app just for the Mac.
    I was under the impression that Entourage was more analogous to Outlook proper.
    It is also a first-step towards getting a Mac-friendly Outlook client. Something Mac users have been begging MS for years about.
    If they're such a profitable division, why haven't they listened yet? And yet why _have_ they come out with a conduit for a product which _by_definition_ will only hit a subset of a subset of a subset of the Mac community (Mac users with OS X _and_ Office X _and_ Palms), which has supposedly slipped to only 3.5% of the desktop market _as_a_whole_?
    In comparison to their windows group, is the Mac a highly succesful department? Not in purse $$$s, but it certainly is nothing to scoff at.
    Perhaps not from a profitability standpoint, but then again, I haven't seen any concrete numbers, so I've nothing to go on except your claim.
    The biggest selling software for the Mac platform is Microsoft products.
    Do they have any competitors?
    If you were the leading software provider for a market and you made money doing that, what other reasons would you need?
    Quite the contrary, if you were the leading software provider for a market, and made money doing that with little to no effort, why expend any more effort than that?
    The Mac group is autonomous within Microsoft in that they don't have to abide by what the Windows group is doing.
    No, but they certainly have to abide by what Microsoft tells them to do.
    They can update and release their software at their own pace.
    Do you honestly believe that? Even _if_ true, then it suggests that honest pure business decisions are peripheral to their existence.
    They don't share code, and they listen to users.
    The same could be said of the Windows Office group. AAMOF, they listen to users _too_ well. Many of the problems with Office's code bloat are due to features requested by an insignificant portion of users being added to the whole.
    The Mac group actually is a very smart, talented group of programmers.
    I'm sure that Microsoft has quite a lot of those in various departments.
    They don't make software because the legal department requested it.
    I couldn't care less about the legal department. Ultimately they answer to someone outside of their division in the Microsoft management structure. If you tell me they don't care about _those_ requests, you're fooling yourself.
    They make software because their users requested it.
    I thought they did it to make a profit?
    Granted, neither I nor you can say why, exactly, they do what they do.
    Perhaps not, but if it's a pure business decision, I can certainly take an educated guess, hence my questions.
    I'm not a microsoft fan. There's a lot that can be improved on the backend in all of the Macintosh products Microsoft makes. That said, MS's mac group has consistently come out with usable and innovative user interfaces and features as of late.
    And I'm not necessarily a Microsoft detractor. What I _am_ though, is justifiably suspicious of the motivations of a company whose management has shown a history of these sorts of moves (and had them documented in court).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20.    #20  
    The point I was making is that there isn't really much of a business case for writing a free add-on for syncing Entourage with a Palm. This suggests that either a) it's not a pure business decision, or b) the reason it's a pure business decision has nothing to do with the profitability of the Mac division.
    Can't writing better software to make customers happier and therfore more loyal and therfore buy more be a profitable business decision?

    If they're such a profitable division, why haven't they listened yet? And yet why _have_ they come out with a conduit for a product which _by_definition_ will only hit a subset of a subset of a subset of the Mac community (Mac users with OS X _and_ Office X _and_ Palms), which has supposedly slipped to only 3.5% of the desktop market _as_a_whole_?
    I imagine it was because it was easier to deal with a palm conduit than the outlook team over the the Windows department. ;o)

    The Outlook client for Macs is dead. It can't be rebuilt at this point. They need to start over. The Mac group isn't a big group and they simply are prioritizing things. My guess is that there are more mac users wanting Palm OS synchronization than Outlook compatibility.

    Perhaps not from a profitability standpoint, but then again, I haven't seen any concrete numbers, so I've nothing to go on except your claim.
    I couldn't find any concrete numbers in the few minutes I googled for it, but turned up stuff like this that helps define the mac group at Microsoft:

    http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0508005772.htm

    Do they have any competitors?
    Of course not What kind of question is that? ;o)

    They do indirectly. Appleworks, for instance, and a number of other word processor and spreadsheet apps.

    Quite the contrary, if you were the leading software provider for a market, and made money doing that with little to no effort, why expend any more effort than that?
    Uhhh...diversity? Pride? Ego? More profits? Shared Knowlege? First to market?

    And I'm not necessarily a Microsoft detractor. What I _am_ though, is justifiably suspicious of the motivations of a company whose management has shown a history of these sorts of moves (and had them documented in court).
    Understood.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions