Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 40 of 40
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by mblank
    I'd say that effectively taking over the device (as Good does, for example, on a Treo) is clunky, yes. Are you telling me that Good, BES, and ActiveSync are NOT slower than a direct connection to the server, or just that lots of people can't tell the difference? Or are these things actually FASTER than a direct connection somehow?

    Marc
    Yup, I am saying exactly that, based upon our compression algorithm, it is faster. Now, do I have empirical data that proves that? Nope, and if you do have data that shows another method is faster, I will be more than willing to admit to it.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Pretty much what I thought you would say. But, hey, what about the already existing AUTD using SMS? Is that not "push"?

    Weren't you calling your product "push" when you used SMS?

    Your ways are so strange to me...
    The first coherent post you have made regarding this subject and you make a good point. AUTD does trigger the SMS ping, assuming you have AUTD configured correctly. Now, the difference between EAS and GoodLink is that AUTD sends the SMS message to the phone to tell the device to go and pull the email down. In GoodLink, the SMS message was used to 'wake up' the phone and establish a connection to the NOC. When that connection was established, then the traffic was pushed from the server. Of course, this is all moot now since we don't use SMS anymore.
    Last edited by GoodGuy; 06/22/2005 at 09:15 AM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    So it sounds kinda like the Goodlink server "pulls" the data from Exchange and then pushes it to the client? Kinda like that 2-headed Dr. Doolittle animal... (Or perhaps "continuous polling" is the more correct description of the Goodlink server?)

    I mean if Exchange isn't "pushing" the mail to the Goodlink server, how can the Goodlink server "push" it to the client?
    No. Exchange sends the traffic (pushes, so to speak) to the GoodLink Server which then relays (pushes) it to the device. I go again to the short definition of push: server initiated, not device initiated.
  4. #24  
    So, is Xpressmail (or other incarnations of the product from Seven, Inc.) push?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  5. #25  
    Yes
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    The first coherent post you have made regarding this subject and you make a good point.
    Still waiting on this end... Besides, I am still saying the very same thing I said in my first post.

    I don't mind people shilling their product in forums...but I have an issue with people who mis-represent--both actively and tacitly--OTHER people's products.


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    AUTD does trigger the SMS ping, assuming you have AUTD configured correctly.
    This no doubt works differently in your product? It works even when it is configured incorrectly?


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Now, the difference between EAS and GoodLink is that AUTD sends the SMS message to the phone to tell it to go and pull the email down. In GoodLink, the SMS message was used to 'wake up' the phone and establish a connection to the NOC. When that connection was established, then the traffic was pushed from the server. Of course, this is all moot now since we don't use SMS anymore.
    Restated more accurately, "Now, the difference between EAS and GoodLink is that in Exchange AUTD the SMS message is used to tell the phone to establish a connection directly to the Exchange server and synchornize. In GoodLink, the SMS message was used to tell the phone to establish a connection to the NOC and synchronize."

    I think the more fundamental point is that there are many varieties of "push", and in particular, Good (with its "persistent connection relay push) appears to be in the awkward position of trying to repudiate one type that they used and advertised as "push" (SMS-based) while not fully embracing the one Microsoft is moving to (direct push).
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Still waiting on this end... Besides, I am still saying the very same thing I said in my first post.

    I don't mind people shilling their product in forums...but I have an issue with people who mis-represent--both actively and tacitly--OTHER people's products.
    Not shilling anything. The original post asked for push email products, which I listed, including our competition. You decided to hijack this thread to continue your bashing of any product that is not MSFT in general, GoodLink in particular by totally misrepresnting the technology behind both EAS and GoodLink. EAS is not push and MSFT has never marketed it as such. MSFP will be push according to everything out there, however, EAS never has been and never will be push.

    This no doubt works differently in your product? It works even when it is configured incorrectly?
    Obviously, no, if configured incorrectly GoodLink won't work. However, there are numerous accounts of the difficulty in correctly configuring AUTD to work.

    Restated more accurately, "Now, the difference between EAS and GoodLink is that in Exchange AUTD the SMS message is used to tell the phone to establish a connection directly to the Exchange server and synchornize. In GoodLink, the SMS message was used to tell the phone to establish a connection to the NOC and synchronize."
    No, that is not accurate. AUTD pings the phone and the PHONE pulls the email down through an inbound connection through the firewall. The phone initiates the actual data transfer. The old version of GoodLink, SMS pinged the phone, the phone established the connection to the NOC. When that connection is established, the SERVER pushes the data out through an outbound only connection through the firewall. The data transfer is initiated by the server, not by the phone.

    I think the more fundamental point is that there are many varieties of "push", and in particular, Good (with its "persistent connection relay push) appears to be in the awkward position of trying to repudiate one type that they used and advertised as "push" (SMS-based) while not fully embracing the one Microsoft is moving to (direct push).
    Incorrect, again. The SMS trigger was to establish the connection between the phone and the NOC and had nothing to do with the actual transfer of the data. The server pushes the data down to the device as opposed to AUTD where the the SMS triggers the phone to go and pull the email from the server. Big difference as the device is pulling the data down from the server with AUTD. Completely different architecture and technology.

    The 'new' one that MSFT is moving to is the exact same thing GoodLink has been doing since the release of V4.0. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    It's all academic, really. I mean, it isn't like there are wireless signals emitting from your e-mail server. All these methods route the info through the wireless carriers' computers.
    Absolutely agree with KR on this...

    Always fascinated by any thread that involves Chatter - of course it didn't start out as a chatter thread but it always seems to evolve into one - no other product seems to engender such dramatic proselytizing. And it always seem to devolve into a discussion of the definitions of "pure." As in "Pure" push - as though somehow, somewhere (Plato's cave, perhaps?) there is said version and only Chatter is the rightful heir to the push thone.

    Maybe I am alone on this, but "HOW" the email gets to me is completely irrelevant, that it GETS there when (whether immediate or on a timed basis) I want it in the form and fashion I require it is what I care about. And of course that that product is stable and can handle the rigors of my business needs are other elements I look for - Good and Blackberry are two products that I have used (use) that fit this category.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    No. Exchange sends the traffic (pushes, so to speak) to the GoodLink Server which then relays (pushes) it to the device. I go again to the short definition of push: server initiated, not device initiated.
    Don't you just love it when people try to finesse their explanations? Here's your earlier comment in this thread...

    "Push email, by definition, is the server initiated delivery of information. Now, in GoodLink's architecture, all traffic is generated by the GoodLink Server and is triggered by activity on the Exchange server....Exchange ActiveSync, in its current iteration is not push..."

    Note how you were trying to distinquish Exchange as NOT doing "push." And yet, now you have just said that Exchange "pushes, so to speak".

    You tell me, how, given that in your model both Exchange and Goodlink are separate "servers", do they communicate with one another? Which one is the "client", and which is the "server"?

    I would like an "actual" explanation of how an e-mail that arrives at the Exchange server ends up on the Goodlink server for relay. Also, my understanding is that your "new" version of "push relay" relies on "persistent connection" (between the handheld device and the Goodlink server), is that not correct? If so, I am still not sure that's "push".

    Finally, just for yucks, explain how, when it is the client that establishes the persistent connection to the server, you can call that "server initiated"?

    Hey, I am sorry if I seem to be getting a little frustrated, but I cannot stand deliberate obfuscation...or should I say, "obstufuscation"
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Don't you just love it when people try to finesse their explanations? Here's your earlier comment in this thread...

    "Push email, by definition, is the server initiated delivery of information. Now, in GoodLink's architecture, all traffic is generated by the GoodLink Server and is triggered by activity on the Exchange server....Exchange ActiveSync, in its current iteration is not push..."

    Note how you were trying to distinquish Exchange as NOT doing "push." And yet, now you have just said that Exchange "pushes, so to speak".
    The traffic is sent by the GoodLink server, which is what I said. The traffic is initiated by the Exchange server, which then sends it to the GL server, which pushes it to the NOC which pushes it to the handheld. I said that Exchange ActiveSync is not push, not that Exchange isn't push.

    You tell me, how, given that in your model both Exchange and Goodlink are separate "servers", do they communicate with one another? Which one is the "client", and which is the "server"?
    The device is the client. The Exchange server is the server. The GoodLink server is middleware that allows the Exchange Server to communicate with the NOC which in turn communicates with the device.

    I would like an "actual" explanation of how an e-mail that arrives at the Exchange server ends up on the Goodlink server for relay. Also, my understanding is that your "new" version of "push relay" relies on "persistent connection" (between the handheld device and the Goodlink server), is that not correct? If so, I am still not sure that's "push".
    The GoodLink Server communicates with the Exchange Server via MAPI. There is no direct connection between the handheld and the GoodLink Server, as this would require on inbound connection through the firewall. The persistant connection is between the NOC and the handheld.

    Finally, just for yucks, explain how, when it is the client that establishes the persistent connection to the server, you can call that "server initiated"?
    Since it is just for yucks...

    The client does not establish a connection to the server. The server initiates a connection between the server and the NOC. The NOC then initiates the connection between itself and the client. Everything is initiated by activity on the Exchange server.


    Hey, I am sorry if I seem to be getting a little frustrated, but I cannot stand deliberate obfuscation...or should I say, "obstufuscation"
    Sorry you feel that way, however, the fact that you continually take the architecture and somehow try to spin it to prove your point is the epitome of obfuscation.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    ...EAS is not push and MSFT has never marketed it as such. MSFP will be push according to everything out there, however, EAS never has been and never will be push.
    Quoting from "The Design of Exchange Direct Push in Exchange 2003 SP2" (with bold highlighting added):

    Within this definition of the problem, we came up with the following solution:

    The device issues an HTTP request to Exchange, which asks Exchange to report any changes that occur in the mailbox of the requesting user within a specified time limit. The URL of this HTTP request is the same as that of other AirSync commands ("/Microsoft-Server-ActiveSync") with some differing query string parameters. The body of the HTTP request allows the client to specify those folders that Exchange should monitor for changes. Typically, these will be the Inbox, Calendar, Contacts, and Tasks folders.

    ...read the rest!

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    ...The old version of GoodLink, SMS pinged the phone, the phone established the connection to the NOC. When that connection is established, the SERVER pushes the data out through an outbound only connection through the firewall. The data transfer is initiated by the server, not by the phone.
    Really, you are kidding, right. When the handheld "establishes the connection" is that inbound or outbound?

    Outbound only? How do changes on the handheld get to the Exchange server?

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Incorrect, again. The SMS trigger was to establish the connection between the phone and the NOC and had nothing to do with the actual transfer of the data. The server pushes the data down to the device as opposed to AUTD where the the SMS triggers the phone to go and pull the email from the server. Big difference as the device is pulling the data down from the server with AUTD. Completely different architecture and technology.
    So, again, walk me through the differences in the two approaches as it concerns changes on the handheld reaching the Exchange Server. How does the server "push those up"?

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    The 'new' one that MSFT is moving to is the exact same thing GoodLink has been doing since the release of V4.0. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess.
    Oh really, that's kinda new. That's definitely NOT what you were saying in the other thread...

    And I don't see anything in the MS literature about their new "NOC" either...
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Quoting from "The Design of Exchange Direct Push in Exchange 2003 SP2" (with bold highlighting added):

    Within this definition of the problem, we came up with the following solution:

    The device issues an HTTP request to Exchange, which asks Exchange to report any changes that occur in the mailbox of the requesting user within a specified time limit. The URL of this HTTP request is the same as that of other AirSync commands ("/Microsoft-Server-ActiveSync") with some differing query string parameters. The body of the HTTP request allows the client to specify those folders that Exchange should monitor for changes. Typically, these will be the Inbox, Calendar, Contacts, and Tasks folders.

    ...read the rest!
    I have read it. This thread is regarding the current version of ActiveSync, not SP2. When SP2 ships, we can discuss it then.

    Really, you are kidding, right. When the handheld "establishes the connection" is that inbound or outbound?

    Outbound only? How do changes on the handheld get to the Exchange server?
    Again, as I said, the handheld does not establish anything, the The connection is between the handheld and the NOC.

    Yup, outbound only connection. No traffic is let through the firewall that was not initiated by the Exchange server. Being that the connection is initiated by the server, it allows traffic back in. This is called Stateful inspection. Hence the concerns with Exchange ActiveSync (http://www.mobileware.be/EmailPIM/Ga...Sync_Flaws.pdf)


    as well as SP2:

    "Gartner believes this pack, and earlier deals to license Microsoft's Exchange Server ActiveSync protocol, will make the company's mobile e-mail offering a "good enough" solution for some organizations. Security remains a problem, and enterprises should use third-party security products if they choose to deploy Microsoft's e-mail solution.


    Microsoft's product still lacks some features compared with dedicated mobile e-mail solutions. The pack adds what Microsoft calls Direct Push Technology, but this seems to be less efficient than other push implementations.

    http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=128197
    To use your words, read the rest.

    So, again, walk me through the differences in the two approaches as it concerns changes on the handheld reaching the Exchange Server. How does the server "push those up"?
    Your point has been repudiated, so you try to jump to something entirely different. This discussion has to with email getting pushed to a device. If you wish to get into a comparison of EAS and GoodLink, feature for feature, that is another thread entirely. You keep pointing to SP2 and old versions of GoodLink, while this conversation is regarding current products.

    Oh really, that's kinda new. That's definitely NOT what you were saying in the other thread...

    And I don't see anything in the MS literature about their new "NOC" either...
    Nope, you don't, hence the security issues. I was referring to the new method of push using http as opposed to SMS. That and the fact that all the features they are touting have been part of GoodLink for awhile. Again, you want to compare EAS with GoodLink we can do that, however, this thread is not the place, contrary to what you seem to think.
  13. spiVeyx's Avatar
    Posts
    573 Posts
    Global Posts
    577 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Your point has been repudiated, so you try to jump to something entirely different. This discussion has to with email getting pushed to a device. If you wish to get into a comparison of EAS and GoodLink, feature for feature, that is another thread entirely. You keep pointing to SP2 and old versions of GoodLink, while this conversation is regarding current products.
    Yep, he's kinda got a point there Delta. You keep making comparisons between products that (a) don't exist or (b) that no longer exist and are near end-of-life.

    It's seems to me the argument here is more over semantics and thus has little substance. Good, Blackberry, Seven, and Chatter all have been touted for their "push" or "push-like" functionality MS Exchange HAS NOT! PERIOD

    Now, in a few more months, that may not be the case; time will tell.
  14. #34  
    A simple discussion of "push"
    Has devolved to a puddle of mush
    Are we judging mail senders?
    or really male members?
    while talking a bit through our tush

    Oops, sorry, I thought this was the Poetry forum.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    I have read it. This thread is regarding the current version of ActiveSync, not SP2. When SP2 ships, we can discuss it then.
    See, this in particular is a recurring issue with you. I posted info that repudiated something you said, so you try to change the subject...

    You had said, in THIS thread (just up a post or two): "...EAS never has been and never will be push." So I posted info that certainly seems to contradict that statement YOU MADE in THIS thread. Your response now is apparently, 'I don't have to defend that misrepresentation I just made, because this thread is actually about something else entirely that I am currently misrepresenting.'


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    To use your words, read the rest.
    Oh I read that quite a while ago, that is why I can so readily recognize your misrepresentation of it's actual content--no doubt hoping (knowing, around here) others won't take the time to check it out.


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Your point has been repudiated, so you try to jump to something entirely different. This discussion has to with email getting pushed to a device. If you wish to get into a comparison of EAS and GoodLink, feature for feature, that is another thread entirely. You keep pointing to SP2 and old versions of GoodLink, while this conversation is regarding current products.
    Two things. First, the "thread" was about existing "push" technologies, generally. A subject of which you have an incomplete knowledge (based on your earlier posts in this thread). Second, our discussion was about 2-way SYNCHRONIZATION. But hey, your choice to not "distinquish" your product.


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Nope, you don't, hence the security issues. I was referring to the new method of push using http as opposed to SMS. That and the fact that all the features they are touting have been part of GoodLink for awhile. Again, you want to compare EAS with GoodLink we can do that, however, this thread is not the place, contrary to what you seem to think.
    Actually, you introduced the ever-increasing "granularity" of our discussion by your rather convoluted efforts to "define" "push" is a way to "exclude" a "current" product.

    Worse, you don't seem shy in taking opportunities to misrepresent the publicly available information about SP2.

    All I can say is to warn others, while you might rely on GoodGuy for aggressive representation of his own products/services...you really cannot depend on him for straight answers about anything beyond that.

    I truly think that vendor representation can be a good thing in forums, but not as it is so often manifested here. The forum policies should be amended to prohibit vendor representatives from commenting on or making any representations concerning features/functionality of other products.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by tangible
    A simple discussion of "push"
    Has devolved to a puddle of mush
    Are we judging mail senders?
    or really male members?
    while talking a bit through our tush
    I agree. What was an interesting technical conversation has morphed into a series of stupid personal attacks. You guys are acting like lawyers with one another's words, give it up. I practice law all day, it sucks, this forum is my outlet and I feel like I'm back at work. And I wouldn't sweat the "misrepresentations," any reader on this forum considering an enterprise email solution such as you two are debating is not likely to be misled by this conversation.
  17. #37  
    Can you get me the Microsoft Product Today? If not, then it doesn't exist...

    Wait untill it comes out, try it and then we can talk about it further. END OF STORY.


    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    See, this in particular is a recurring issue with you. I posted info that repudiated something you said, so you try to change the subject...

    You had said, in THIS thread (just up a post or two): "...EAS never has been and never will be push." So I posted info that certainly seems to contradict that statement YOU MADE in THIS thread. Your response now is apparently, 'I don't have to defend that misrepresentation I just made, because this thread is actually about something else entirely that I am currently misrepresenting.'




    Oh I read that quite a while ago, that is why I can so readily recognize your misrepresentation of it's actual content--no doubt hoping (knowing, around here) others won't take the time to check it out.




    Two things. First, the "thread" was about existing "push" technologies, generally. A subject of which you have an incomplete knowledge (based on your earlier posts in this thread). Second, our discussion was about 2-way SYNCHRONIZATION. But hey, your choice to not "distinquish" your product.




    Actually, you introduced the ever-increasing "granularity" of our discussion by your rather convoluted efforts to "define" "push" is a way to "exclude" a "current" product.

    Worse, you don't seem shy in taking opportunities to misrepresent the publicly available information about SP2.

    All I can say is to warn others, while you might rely on GoodGuy for aggressive representation of his own products/services...you really cannot depend on him for straight answers about anything beyond that.

    I truly think that vendor representation can be a good thing in forums, but not as it is so often manifested here. The forum policies should be amended to prohibit vendor representatives from commenting on or making any representations concerning features/functionality of other products.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    See, this in particular is a recurring issue with you. I posted info that repudiated something you said, so you try to change the subject...
    Nope, my original post was answering to applications that offer push email:

    Quote Originally Posted by goodguy
    Wow...where to start..from an enterprise level: GoodLink , Intellisync, Seven, Visto and JP Mobile come to mind right off the bat.
    Show me in your reply where you repudiated that:

    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Is it really "push" when you have to relay through a 3rd party NOC? That's really a kind of "push relay", isn't it? Maybe that's the reason for Microsoft's adoption of the "DirectPush" terminology, huh. You know, for its Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync technology that no one in this thread appears to be familiar with....
    You asked, I answered. I responded to your implication that ActiveSync is push when NOBODY in the industry feels that way, and to the statement that somehow GoodLink isn't push email.

    You had said, in THIS thread (just up a post or two): "...EAS never has been and never will be push." So I posted info that certainly seems to contradict that statement YOU MADE in THIS thread. Your response now is apparently, 'I don't have to defend that misrepresentation I just made, because this thread is actually about something else entirely that I am currently misrepresenting.'
    Show me where you proved that ActiveSync is push. The fact that the device pulls the emails from the server is pull, regardless of how you spin it. I explained our architecture (many times) to show you how GoodLink transmits data and how it is pushing the data.


    Oh I read that quite a while ago, that is why I can so readily recognize your misrepresentation of it's actual content--no doubt hoping (knowing, around here) others won't take the time to check it out.
    Misrepresentation of the it's actual content? You have got to be kidding. Read the reports. Gartner has said EAS is flawed when it comes to security and said the same thing as it relates to SP2. There are others out there questioning the true nature of the technology behind SP2. I could care less if you take my word for it. I provided third party research to back up my points whereas you insist on personal attacks and hyperbole to prove your point.


    Two things. First, the "thread" was about existing "push" technologies, generally. A subject of which you have an incomplete knowledge (based on your earlier posts in this thread). Second, our discussion was about 2-way SYNCHRONIZATION. But hey, your choice to not "distinquish" your product.
    Again, the personal attacks. This thread was a question as to providers of push email. I responded. As for my knowledge, I have constantly shown that my knowledge of the wireless space and push technology is above and beyond your own. Stating that ActiveSync is somehow push email proves that. You have failed to prove a single point that I have made is wrong.

    I say again, if you want to start a thread comparing the the distiguishing features and functionality of EAS, Seven, Intellisync, Blackberry, GoodLink or any other Enterprise level push messaging system by all means, please do.


    Actually, you introduced the ever-increasing "granularity" of our discussion by your rather convoluted efforts to "define" "push" is a way to "exclude" a "current" product.
    [/quote]
    Again, you stated that somehow having a NOC made a solution non-push. Is Blackberry not push? They use a NOC. I responded with, again third party, definition of push. You can shout from the mountain top all day that ActiveSync is push, but it isn't.

    Worse, you don't seem shy in taking opportunities to misrepresent the publicly available information about SP2.
    Publicly available Gartner report about EAS and SP2. Just because it does not meet with your views I guess makes it a misrepresentation I have not said anything other than that regarding SP2 in this thread. In your other attack thread, I pulled back and said wait until it is released. However, if it were just me, you might have a point. It isn't, so you don't:

    http://www.brighthand.com/article/In...ile_Push_Email

    http://msmobiles.com/news.php/3662.html

    http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/inde...n=expand,40510

    http://www.pcw.co.uk/vnunet/news/212...al-little-late

    I can provide more if you like.

    All I can say is to warn others, while you might rely on GoodGuy for aggressive representation of his own products/services...you really cannot depend on him for straight answers about anything beyond that.
    You are entitled to your opinion, however, show me where I misrepresented ActiveSync, where anything I said was not true. Not where you "think" I am wrong, but where I am. Your personal attacks on me notwithstanding

    I truly think that vendor representation can be a good thing in forums, but not as it is so often manifested here. The forum policies should be amended to prohibit vendor representatives from commenting on or making any representations concerning features/functionality of other products.
    ROFLMAO! You mean if they are wrong. I provided references to both EAS and SP2 that shows they are not/might not be all that you would like to believe they are. Outside of your continual pointing to single blog entry from a Microsoft employee, you can't show me a single instance where what I have said is incorrect.

    That being said, this conversation and degenerated into something that is completely off topic and should be ended. Feel free, and I am sure you will, to respond, but I won't be responding as I am tired of rehashing the same thing over and over and having what one poster said was a decent technical discussion go to this.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by mblank
    tDot - No, Good and Chatter don't compete at all. My points are philosophical, mainly. IMO, the IDEA of a middleware server for Exchange is just plain wrong for most users - adding a lot of expense and complication where none is required. (This isn't to say that they aren't necessary at this point; just that I don't see a long-term justification for it.)

    As far as your holy grail, it may indeed be coming...

    Marc
    ...Coming from WHOM??? When?
  20. Quake97's Avatar
    Posts
    557 Posts
    Global Posts
    598 Global Posts
    #40  
    Wow, lot of juvenile discussion on here.

    Anyway, I don't consider the Intellisync Mobile Suite as push. It tells the client on your Treo to sync up via SMS or network. It's still nice, but no where near Blackberry.

    Joe
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions