A Different Perspective On Snow Leopard's Exchange Support

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.'"

Comments

If this is his experience level . . .

[1alpha7]

"The Linux community, along with Google's new Android mobile platform, offer even less in terms of minimum standards and quality control, resulting in software that is often free but usually unfinished and typically inaccessible to anyone outside of dedicated tinkerers and hobbyists. While examples of fine open source client software exists, there is no available market driving this kind of development financially."

Lost in space? Does he use the same stuff I do?

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[agnosticnixie]

Partially, yes since he has a mac.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[BitZtream]

Sounds like he hit the nail on the head, sorry if it hurts, but its true.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[agnosticnixie]

TFA is wrong on the technical aspect, and is pushing a book that promises to teach more stuff that's factually wrong.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[BrokenHalo]

TFA is wrong on the technical aspect, and is pushing a book that promises to teach more stuff that's factually wrong.

Given how light TFA is on detail, I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from on that.

However, there was one remark that stood out when I read it [*quickly dons tinfoil hat*]:
"Apple owns the Snow Leopard software that talks to Exchange".

Microsoft's tried-and-tested response in the past with interoperable software is to break it. Samba is one example that comes to mind here, but I'm sure there are others. It will be interesting to see if they try this with Exchange. Though it might be a bit hard to do this without breaking more than they intend.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[Movi]

And the EU commision would be on them like flies on a pile of shit (eg. fast). This is just what they're waiting for.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Since he's pimping the equivalent of a tonka-toy operating system I'd liken him to a chiropractor - mostly full of crap & definitely not the guy to diagnose anything.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[mdwh2]

A Mac fanatic sneering at Linux users for lack of market!

I don't know who this guy is, but his entire article reads like a flamebait rant. If market share is so important, then Windows beats anything else into dust. If it isn't, he doesn't get to use that point to sneer at Linux - he can't have it both ways.

If it "hits the nail on the head", then he should quit whining about Microsoft "spin", and start hitting a few nails on the head about Macs too.

Re:If this is his experience level . . .

[that this is not und]

Maybe he's a marketing dude for Adobe.

"dumb down?"

[FlyByPC]

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.

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.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Z80xxc!]

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.

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:"dumb down?"

[ceoyoyo]

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:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:"dumb down?"

[HazMat 79]

Why is this troll? My mother can't even get a BSOD. Thats with a machine I have to clean up daily to boot. Her XP is almost as stable as any of my machines runnning Linux, well except for maybe my eeee. Thats another story though.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I love(d) XP Pro, but the lack of builtin / MS native software raid without NVidia drivers ejecting my disks randomly drove me nuts. Eventually my system went into an endless reboot cycle and was unrepairable. Rather than reinstall, i put on RHEL.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Are you talking about the contextual menus that have been there since MacOS 8 (which came out in 1997)? Apple doesn't have a problem with contextual menus being there. Their main issue is that contextual menus shouldn't be the only place you can find certain features or options, which sadly is all too common in the Windows and Linux worlds.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Guy Harris]

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?"

[erroneus]

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.)

Re:"dumb down?"

[ModernGeek]

Look up XPDE. The older version looked and IIRC, felt just like XP in "classic" mode.

Re:"dumb down?"

[kickme_hax0r]

Which allow a right click, (enabled by default IIRC) by having two fingers on the trackpad while clicking.

Re:"dumb down?"

[stokessd]

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:"dumb down?"

[c_forq]

You depending on how you have it set up you can either tap with two fingers, or hit the button we two fingers on the trackpad.

Re:"dumb down?"

[i'm lost]

Tap with two fingers, or put two fingers on the trackpad and click.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Zero__Kelvin]

"As an added bonus, you don't even need to use WINE to run windows apps - they run natively!"

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.

Re:"dumb down?"

[argent]

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:"dumb down?"

[FictionPimp]

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:"dumb down?"

[SScorpio]

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:"dumb down?"

[moosesocks]

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?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, osx has a right mouse button. You put down both fingers and click. What the fuck are you talking about? xD

Re:"dumb down?"

[rtechie]

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 (they've been asked). This is why iPhone adoption isn't coming from the business side, but the consumer side. It's worth noting that Palm IS doing something like this for the Pre, so it may see more uptake in the business world.

I'm not saying that the iPhone isn't a good device, or even the best device, for most users. It's just that in this specific area it's weaker than the competition.

Re:"dumb down?"

[fullgandoo]

Lucky you're running OSX only. If you were running Windows under Bootcamp, you would find that Apple has deliberately disabled tap to click.

Re:"dumb down?"

[BitZtream]

I right click on my trackpad all the time, not sure what your problem is.

Actually, this is a new addition, and until it happened, i wouldn't buy a Mac laptop. Now that the pads are multitouch, its a software controlled 'right click', technically it can be any zone of the pad you'd like.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Yvan256]

127.0.0.1

Have fun and don't hold back.

Re:"dumb down?"

[armanox]

KDE 3.5.x with the Redmond Window Style and Coloring.

OR, see if the FVWM 95 project is still live.

Re:"dumb down?"

[stei7766]

Works fine in Win 7 RC. Was it disabled in XP/Vista? The scrolling is a bit jerky though compared to OS X.

Re:"dumb down?"

[mysidia]

Touch the track pad with two fingers and push the button.

That's how you right click.

Re:"dumb down?"

[jnork]

You can use two fingers to scroll, too. Vertically as well as horizontally.

I prefer a mouse to a trackpad but I as trackpads go, I really like this one. Too bad that feature isn't available in Bootcamp. (Not the version I'm running, anyway. Maybe a later version has added it.) OTOH I rarely boot into Windows so it's not much of an issue for me.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Annorax]

Which allow a right click, (enabled by default IIRC) by having two fingers on the trackpad while clicking.

Actually, in Leopard and Snow Leopard, the two finger click for right-mouse click is not on by default.

You have to enable it in System Preferences.

Re:"dumb down?"

[agnosticnixie]

Yes it's on by default in Leopard, what is not on is tap and right-click on a designated spot of the trackpad.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Zero__Kelvin]

You lied to me. All attempts to connect to 127.0.0.1 fail because the guy at that address is some kind of informed Linux Uberadmin. YMWV ;-) (That's Your Mileage WILL Vary)

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Referring to yourself -- even in jest! -- as an "informed Linux Uberadmin" pretty much guarantees that you're an asshole. Even if deep, deep down inside you're not, everybody else thinks you are.

Get over yourself and your crazy obsession bashing a piece of computer SOFTWARE.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably just trying to be funny, but just in case: Apple computers use standard USB mice. If you don't like the Apple mouse, use a different brand.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Kjella]

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:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

For this exact reason, Windows XP needs to die and die as soon as possible. XP protects their users from threats in 2001. At that time, an incoming firewall was sufficient over Windows 2000 which had no way to configure one easily (though you could do some elementary port blocking.)

Security is a moving target. Yes, the OS feels like a pair of well broken in leather boots that are extremely comfortable, but times change. XP is dead people. The only way it is kept protected against threats is four ways:

Air gap the OS.
Keep using third party programs to supplement its lack of security features.
Run it behind third party hardware firewalls and packet filters that can filter malware in transit.
Run XP in a VM, store the data in a persistent area, the rest of the OS somewhere that can be rolled back.

For older hardware (boxes with less than 1 GB RAM, or older CPUs), XP is probably the best you can do. However for new PCs, don't bother with XP. Windows 7 is a lot more modern and is designed for security issues of 2009, not 2001. Yes, it has a UI change, but it isn't hard to get used to. Of course, a few clicks, and you have your XP Mode for those 16 bit apps and other equipment without relevant drivers.

I feel dirty saying good about a Microsoft offering, but for goshsakes people, touting XP is like demanding Apple continue to make, update, and ship OS 9 or OS 8, Sun to keep supporting SunOS 4.1.x, or IBM to keep AIX 3.2.5 going. XP is a good OS, but its time has passed. Time to move on.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Moridineas]

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:"dumb down?"

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Maybe they do on your networks,"

"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:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies for replying to myself. I just realized that "jest" doesn't mean what I think it does ...

Re:"dumb down?"

[zippthorne]

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:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can enable right clicking from the lower corners if desired.(one finger) (well on unibody macbooks)

Re:"dumb down?"

[ToasterMonkey]

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* way to set the bar... You should actually TRY a modern Mac/Windows UI, before settling for simplistic "classic windows" emulation.

PS. I'm not bull shitting you, even the shift key is used as a context menu modifier, often removing the (...) from a command and replacing it with a sensible default.
EX: "Add Bookmark..." becomes "Add Bookmark to Menu" in Safari.
"Force Quit..." becomes "Force Quit [FocusedApplicationName]" in the Apple menu.
It seems to be similar to the option key, but that often alters commands that didn't have (...)'s in the name.
Note how the text visibly changes in menus when a modifier is pressed, and the full accelerator+modifier sequence can be typed to avoid the menu altogether. This is why the Mac UI doesn't really need right click context menus. It already had uber context menus with more consistency and standardization than Windows's right-click context menus. Macs CAN make use of multiple mouse buttons however (games, complex apps, etc) and they are provided..

Gnome might be technically capable of using as many accelerator keys, but they are not represented in the UI well.. at all.. and few things outside the window manager will use them.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't listen to him, he's an impostor AC. A foolish AC at that... if you'd care to explain how I used the term "jest" wrong, I'd be glad to hear it. In the meanwhile, two definitions of "jest" for you:

Jest (dictionary.com):

noun
1. a joke or witty remark; witticism.
2. a bantering remark; a piece of good-natured ridicule; taunt.
3. sport or fun: to speak half in jest, half in earnest.

Jest (merriam webster)

3 a : a frivolous mood or manner b : gaiety and merriment

If Zero_Kelvin's attempt at humor doesn't fall under the category of speaking "half in earnest" or "frivolous in mood or manner," I don't know what does...

Re:"dumb down?"

[slimjim8094]

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?"

[slimjim8094]

In mouse properties, try changing the 'scroll x lines' from 3 to 1. Works a lot better.

Re:"dumb down?"

[BrokenHalo]

For example, the OS X version of Powerpoint will not let me create animations where objects move along a path...

OpenOffice (or NeoOffice) Impress does this free of charge. And the version of Mail included with 10.6 supports Exchange out of the box.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Telvin_3d]

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?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I definately want the IP address of someone who is running Windows.

You should definitely get the IP address of someone running a spellchecker.

Re:"dumb down?"

[BrokenHalo]

XP is a good OS, but its time has passed. Time to move on.

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 Linux is that you *never* see blingy stuff when you upgrade your operating system. Sure, you can upgrade X11/compiz/whatever if you get bored and need some new eye-candy (and lots of this is very good indeed), but you don't have to. (I use Arch Linux, which operates on a rolling-release basis rather than the more usual release/upgrade cycle.)

Likewise, there are no new shiny bits to be found in Snow Leopard. Apple has concentrated on upgrading an already-good OS to one that is even better, without breaking much.

The only speed-bumps I ran over when loading SL on to my MacBook were an issue with the Cisco VPN client and a problem with my cheapie Huawei mobile broadband dongle. Both were resolved by using native preference options instead of the 3rd-party client software, though I did have to hunt for updated hardware drivers for the dongle.

Re:"dumb down?"

[d3vi1]

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:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

OS X can be made to run on a Thinkpad. A guy I used to work with did most of his work on a Thinkpad running OS X. Personally I wouldn't trust a setup like that with any important work since you lag behind in updates and you never know if the next update will crash your setup completely. Another point is that hacked OSX installs have the same problem with all sorts of little but annoying things not working that Linux used to have, and occasionally still has if you are running Linux on exotic laptop hardware. But if you are really desperate for two trackpad buttons and the trusty old TrackPoint you can get OS X to (mostly) run on a Thinkpad. Depending on the Thinkpad model you pick OS X can run well enough to be quite usable.

Re:"dumb down?"

[d3vi1]

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 is regardless of the fact that the blackberry is actually crappy for a very important reason: having a J2ME app that runs on both any J2ME enabled phone as well as on a blackberry is a pain. Just think of the button mappings. Granted that on this one in particular, the iPhone sucks even more because it doesn't even have a J2ME implementation.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Vahokif]

Or if you have fairly standard hardware, try XP x64 (not 64-bit edition). It's based on the Server 2003 kernel and stable as hell.

Re:"dumb down?"

[zurmikopa]

My main issue with this is when I want to do both a right and left click at the same time with the track pad (or mighty mouse for that matter).
Probably not something most people need to do often, but I've run into it more than once.

Re:"dumb down?"

[janwedekind]

That may be true for Windows. But Linux users run GNU Emacs and then nothing is farther away than three key-combinations.

Re:"dumb down?"

[fullgandoo]

Are you using the new Macbook or Macbook Pro? I heard they fixed it there. But in the older models (I bought mine early 08) this didn't work on any Windows OS.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Archibald Buttle]

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 Exchange servers, including push email, push contacts, and push calendar support, and have had this in place since iPhone 2.0 over a year ago. Oh, and there's remote wipe capabilities too just in case the phone gets lost. Apple refuses to implement "reflection servers" because, well, there's absolutely no need for them - they would increase the complexity of the system, increase the points of failure, and decrease the reliability. And that refusal is a point of criticism?

I'm not seeing any way in which the iPhone is weaker than the Blackberry in this specific area.

Re:"dumb down?"

[DavidApi]

We're talking laptops here - typically no mouse, so what is your one fingered person doing trying to right-click? So plug in a mouse - and all new Apple mice have a left and right side for clicking. Don't want to use a mouse? How about clicking the trackpad while pressing a Control key down? Wow, right-click.

Or are you saying this person has only one arm, and that arm has only one finger?

What else. Oh yes, you can even plug your Apple (or any USB) mouse into the left or right hand side of an Apple keyboard - just in case your person of interest is left or right handed. I don't recall any other keyboard with two USB ports attached. Hell, you could even plug another keyboard into the first - and really go to town with collaborative typing.

Maybe it's not the fingers that are the problem - but your sight (and mind) are a little squinted and one-eyed.

Re:"dumb down?"

[DiLLeMaN]

Couple of small things: the key to remove "..." from menu items (or otherwise do interesting things to menus) is Option (alt), not Shift.

Also, the "new" (as in "has been on the market for quite a while now") alu keyboard as that fn key as well, and uses it too.
As to the Mighty Mouse: as far as I know it has *4* buttons; those things on the side both map to one button.

But yeah, it's been quite a few years ago that the Mac was a One Mouse Button Only beast. =]

Re:"dumb down?"

[Mattsson]

Personally, I've taken the other road.
Sold my Mac due to its horrible hardware and went back to using a Thinkpad for a laptop and a standard homebuilt x86 system for a stationary.
Rather Windows than Apple hardware i say. =P

For me, the OS is mainly something that glues together my hardware I/O with my applications.
As long as I can use the hardware I want and run the applications I want, what OS I run is irrelevant.

Re:"dumb down?"

[ceoyoyo]

True - that gets you even further back. And the two finger right click and scrolling is the best computer interaction refinement I've used since the mouse.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The word is "viruses".

Re:"dumb down?"

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, they've thought of that. Craning one finger around to right click on a normal mouse is very awkward, so Apple lets you use your other hand to hold down the control key while you left click, very comfortably, with the single remaining finger on your mouse hand.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Lars T.]

System Preferences -> "Advanced" Tab -> "Startup And Recovery" Settings -> uncheck "Automatically restart" under "System failure"

Bamm, the BSODs are back. HTH, HAND.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know what does..."

.. and I, the idiotic AC, am adding that to my very long list of the things I don't know ...

Re:"dumb down?"

[obarthelemy]

you mean, a non pearl-white mouse that will totally destroy that wonderful styling ? no wayyyyyyy

Re:"dumb down?"

[Moridineas]

Likewise, there are no new shiny bits to be found in Snow Leopard

Dock icon expose, multitude of new Finder animations, expose blue borders, etc. There are a FEW shiny bits ;-)

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what an ASSHOLE. This is "definately" a great teachable moment. Time for some introspection.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got the new multi-touch pad. I use gestures for everything now. Browsing slashdot in Firefox is easier than work a TV remote. I hope to use the Chinese Handwriting Recognition as a learn tool too.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, looks like Zero_Kelvin had his feelings hurt by being modded down for trollish posts and then being called an asshole. He responds by--being an asshole. Big shocker. Get. Over. Yourself. You don't HAVE to be a rude asshole.

Re:"dumb down?"

[argent]

So then change how the mouse pad works.

I'm not prepared to solder in an extra button.

Re:"dumb down?"

[argent]

If I wanted to run Windows, I wouldn't have a Macbook.

Re:"dumb down?"

[mccabem]

Windows apps (that run) run in WINE (aka CrossOver) natively.

Re:"dumb down?"

[stei7766]

I'm using a unibody pro, so that must be it. The support is still pretty clunky though, I feel like it has more misreads than in OS X.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "network" is known as your parents basement. You are still trying to get outside but the idea of talking to someone scares you. You also enjoy growing your beard and think your body odor after 2 weeks of not bathing is kind of pleasant...

Re:"dumb down?"

[Telvin_3d]

You've never actually looked at the mousepad settings panel on your Mac, have you? It comes with two or three different (software) ways it can be set up to trigger different key combinations. There are also a number of 3rd party options to do the same thing. This is only a problem if you don't want a solution.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The sound of Linux is the sound of a retard trying to clap with one hand

Re:"dumb down?"

[argent]

You've never actually looked at the mousepad settings panel on your Mac, have you?

Sure. None of them say "physically add an extra button".

I've tried them all. I've tried third party hacks. None of them give me an actual extra button that I can feel with my fingers, that I can reliably hit without having to stop and think about what I'm doing lest I brush the mousepad and move the mouse and click in the wrong place. Nothing but a separate physical button will solve that problem.

You don't have that problem? I'm happy for you. Enough people do that Apple's passive-aggressive war against the second mouse button is fundamentally self-defeating.

This is only a problem if you don't want a solution.

No matter how many times you solve the wrong problem, you're still SOLVING THE WRONG PROBLEM.

Re:"dumb down?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tap with two fingers, or put two fingers on the trackpad and click.

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?

With a normal two button mouse, why aren't you using the mouse instead of the trackpad?

Re:"dumb down?"

[rtechie]

Several people have misunderstood the service offered by RIM in operating their own NOCs.

Right now, on the iPhone a Pre you have access to Exchange EAS, which is Exchange Remote Access, or web access that pushes out email through the web gateway. Blackberry also has this method (though rarely used because of BES).

This has a number of limitations:

1) The organization has to set up their Exchange server to allow web access, they may not want to do this for security or other reasons.
2) Web access causes a performance hit on the Exchange servers, on big installs this really matters.
3) Web access is traditionally fairly buggy in Exchange.
4) MOST IMPORTANTLY, web access tends to screw up calendaring and invites.

For this reason it would be nice to have DIRECT access to Exchange. This is possible in Windows Mobile and Blackberry. With Windows Mobile you have Outlook Mobile and as long as RPC ports are open in the firewall or the Windows Mobile device is on the LAN or VPN'ed in (there are robust VPN clients for Windows Mobile) this works fairly well. However most sites don't allow direct access to Exchange over the Internet, so this can be a big pain when trying to check mail through the phone network (because VPN won't work on the phone network).

Blackberry takes the Exchange support one step further, you install an application called Blackberry Enterprise Server which syncs your internal Exchange server against RIM's NOC(s) and Blackberry users can get their email automatically pushed down through the PHONE connections (3G and WiFi are not required) with full Exchange support and features. Unlike other products, you can browse the Global Address List and other Exchange users' calendars. You don't have full Outlook functionality, but more than other phones (Windows Mobile is in a grey area).

There is certainly a security issue in bouncing your corporate email through Blackberry's servers, but I think this is exaggerated somewhat. In reality, most email bounces through several unsecured on it's way to the destination so your email is going to be "exposed" this way no matter what you do. For the "internal" email their might be an issue here, but it strikes me as a bad way to do security. If you want secure email you have to use PKI, there's no way around it. BTW, As far as I'm aware only BES supports Exchange PKI (PGP is not supported by any mobile mail clients). So if you really want SECURE email your only options are Blackberry with BES or Windows Mobile.

The reality is that most organizations care a lot more about access and availability than security. IME, the only sites that care more are military sites with a "fail closed" mentality. Such sites would completely disallow all mobile access to classified email anyway.

How does this *free* Mac users?

[quanticle]

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?

[TheSunborn]

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?

[ejdmoo]

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).

However, the Exchange support in Snow Leopard doesn't use MAPI, it uses Exchange Web Services, which is also open and documented on MSDN.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[raddan]

Does anyone here know if Microsoft is being required to license ActiveSync under the terms of their antitrust settlement? I suspect that Microsoft is now prohibited from changing the protocol in any kind of blatantly anticompetitive way, especially given that they've licensed it out to paying customers. Given their past behavior, though, this still might not stop them.

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[quanticle]

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?

[gilbert644]

Well it doesn't really surprise me to see that apple users don't understand the meaning of (software/hardware) freedom.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[fluffy99]

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 still doesn't implement a huge number of the more advanced features. Granted most home users don't know or care about them. For a true corporate environment, MSOffice is king for features and management support for a reason.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[PhunkySchtuff]

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[jellomizer]

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[FictionPimp]

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[i_liek_turtles]

It enables offices with an Exchange server already in place that can't be easily changed to move to Apple machines if they pleased instead of being tied into XP/Outlook.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

However, the Exchange support in Snow Leopard doesn't use MAPI, it uses Exchange Web Services, which is also open and documented on MSDN.

What I really want is rpc-over-https for the mac. That was the killer feature when exchange 2003 came out: you get a full MAPI client connection tunneled over ssl.

Unless Exchange Web Services gives you the same access as a MAPI client...

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Dhalka226]

I'm not sure I understand the article's contention that Exchange support frees Apple users from Microsoft.

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 most part, most users are okay with that.

To whatever extent poor Exchange support on Mac would stop somebody from switching from Windows to Mac--say, for a laptop that they use at work and need to have integrated into the system--better exchange support frees them from that burden. It allows them to choose based on merits rather than "I can't switch because..." Maybe they decide to switch, maybe they decide to stay; I'm not trying to get into a Windows-Mac fanboi war at the moment. But it helps to free them to actually make the decision a decision.

As long as this is the case, Microsoft is free to change the Exchange protocol to freeze out third party clients.

Technically true. From what others have said, it appears Apple's support is built on an open set of protocols that Microsoft's own client uses, so it's probably safe for now. There's also been a commitment demonstrated from Apple to maintain said support, at least in my mind. They advertised it like a pretty big deal and they no doubt put a lot of time and money into it. I doubt they would do that if they had no intention of keeping it functional.

That's not to say it's completely or permanently safe, but it is reasonably so at least for now. If nothing else it shifts the reliance from 100% on Microsoft to, say, 75% Apple 25% Microsoft. The merits of that can be debated by others.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[quanticle]

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 the protocol remains proprietary, one can never be "free" of Outlook while using Exchange.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[quanticle]

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[good soldier svejk]

The first thing my CIO said (10,000 employee company) was, "great, now I can wipe the last Microsoft products off my hard drive."

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[fluffy99]

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[angelbunny]

MS is a software company and they make money for selling their software. If apple is making the software so you do not have to buy MS products then it at least is economically freeing apple users from buying MS products.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[quanticle]

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.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[crmarvin42]

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 out of MS if they try anything funny. Besides, even if MS adds some new feature and fails to document how to access it, all of the other pre-exisiting Exchange features would still be implemented far better in Snow-Leopard and it's decendants than any version of MS Office for Mac has ever done.

Free may be a poor choice of words due to the different way it can be taken, but the current situation does make it so that Apple no longer has to beg, bribe or otherwise cajole MS to fix Exchange support in MS Office. If they don't, then people will just use a different office suite and Apple's version of ActiveSync. That would cost MS money while simultaniously enriching it's competitors, so I don't see it happening if anyone at the MacBU has half of a brain.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[dbIII]

Any long term MS Office user knows that their macros only have a very short life anyway. If they don't break in the next version of MS Office they break in the one after that. Expecting openoffice to support that entire menagerie when MS Office doesn't is a bit of an unrealistic expectation.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[dontclapthrowmoney]

Don't forget also that MS are pushing SharePoint in a huge way (I mean MOS, not the basic SharePoint that ships with the OS) - and Office is basically mandatory once you start to use SharePoint for anything more complex than as a basic intranet.

(SharePoint personally leaves me completely cold...yuk.)

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Kjella]

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?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yeah, and Apple licensed Java from Sun. That hasn't helped in getting a recent Java build on osx now has it? 2-3 years their exchange support will be in a similar situation. If I'm a mac user that needs exchange support, I'm still buying Outlook for mac.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[VGPowerlord]

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.

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 as part of your OS.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[MrZaius]

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[rsborg]

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

Ok, let's look at the options:

1. POP3 - you better hope that you you never get those "gallstone" emails that clog up your pipes (ie, your boss emails you the 100MB photo gallery from the company party - as a zipfile)
2. IMAP - I have tried it at my company's system (tried using Thunderbird), and it kept giving me a weird "message not read" error on each sync. Could never get rid of it, even after doing traces and deleting suspect emails on the server
3. webmail - ok, on a non-IE browser, this is really weak, like worse than hotmail/yahoo kind of weak.

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:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Movi]

movibook:~ movi$ uname -a
Darwin movibook.lan 10.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.0.0: Fri Jul 31 22:47:34 PDT 2009; root:xnu-1456.1.25~1/RELEASE_I386 i386
movibook:~ movi$ java -version
java version "1.6.0_15"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_15-b03-219)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.1-b02-90, mixed mode)

Your point beeing?

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Serious Callers Only]

Even so, it still doesn't guarantee access to any enhancements that Microsoft may make to Exchange/Outlook

Actually, in a strange way, it has. Microsoft has now announced their intention to produce outlook for OS X (starting in 2010). I have no doubt they did this to try to wrest control on the client side back again from Apple, and their action is a persuasive demonstration that they do feel threatened by Apple interoperating with Exchange on desktop/mobile.

To keep OS X as a second class platform, they need to control both sides of the equation, so that they can quietly degrade the client software (which is what the user sees and judges after all), once they have captured the market. Entourage used to be their mac client, but it was so bad many have deserted it and it no longer serves as a chokehold on corporate mail clients on OS X. It's an old trick, but it has worked well for them time and time again.

The real answer to the difficulties with Exchange is of course to drop Exchange, and use a proper email protocol, and then a proper calendar/address book protocol too. There's no reason that email/calendar/addressbooks have to be tied in to one set of server software.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[MartinSchou]

[OpenOffice is] still not even terribly compatible [with MS Office] as documents don't always flow the same when viewed or printed with either platform.

The same can be said for Microsoft Office, where there are instances where it isn't even compatible in different languages!

Not sure if they've fixed this in the newest version of Excel, but having operations translated into different languages (i.e. SUM(A1:A9) being SUMMA(A1:A9)) is really really stupid unless every single version does a behind the scenes translation into a common one. This certainly wasn't the case previously, which makes any kind of regionalized language version useless when you're working with people in other countries.

I, for one, had a lot of fun translating a German source spreadsheet into English, Danish and Swedish at one point. Especially fun when you don't have access to the English, German and Swedish language versions to test it on. Add to that the loads of fun involved when no one can seem to agree one which version they should be using, and you're in for a treat!

Whomever came up with the idea that it'd be a good idea to translate function names in the UI and not ensure that the back end could understand other languages needs to be hung from a flagpole by their nose hairs.

I don't know if this is also the case in OpenOffice.org (I suspect it might be, as I seem to recall having to use Danish function names at one point), and if that's the case they ALSO need to be flogged for that insane idea.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Idaho]

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.

I'm not sure about Exchange, but what you say used to be true about the CIFS (SMB) protocol as well, and that most decidedly has changed. Microsoft is losing some of its power: there are now so many (usually Linux-based) (embedded) devices running Samba, i.e. think of NAS appliances but also file servers etc., that large corporations by now *demand* functional support for Samba-based devices.

The thing is that the mentality has shifted to "oh, so the new version of Windows doesn't work with this device? Guess I'll keep using XP then". So Microsoft simply cannot afford that.

So yes, Microsoft is now testing new versions of CIFS clients against Samba, and working with Samba developers in case of problems.

All that said, the same may not *yet* be true of Exchange...but that point might easily come ("so, if we upgrade, we'll have to tell all our Mac-using clients that they're SOL? Guess we'll keep running Exchange 2007 for a while then!")

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[lukas84]

Unless Exchange Web Services gives you the same access as a MAPI client...

It does... Entourage Web Service Edition uses this too.

Microsoft is transitioning away from MAPI.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Joe Jay Bee]

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.

Microsoft Messenger for Mac is a piece of shit as it is. No AV support and a user interface that doesn't go with anything else. They need to either kill it off or improve it as soon as possible,IMHO.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[ceoyoyo]

Does it still roll over and die if you've got more than 2 GB of messages?

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[jabuzz]

There is a great deal stopping Microsoft changing the protocol between Outlook and Exchange, it is called their installed client base.

Just imagine that Exchange 2010 only worked against Office 2010. There would be huge squeals of protest from pure Microsoft shops if they tried that stunt that they would not even contemplate it for one minute.

Of course Apple have done the wrong thing, they have implemented the http web interface to exchange which is much more open to change than the binary MAPI interface. Personally if I had been in charge at Apple I would have at least tried to strike a deal with the Openchange people to license the libmapi library under something more favourable to them than GPL3.

My personal belief is that a BSD type license for libmapi would be the best choice because it would get it integrated into more product sooner.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Lars T.]

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.

Including all previous versions of Outlook. I'm sure replacing each and every Outlook app even on ancient computers will be a real incentive to use this new Exchange version.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[TheRaven64]

Because it provides an excellent transitional step. Look at how support for calendars works in Snow Leopard, for example. There are no new APIs for adding support for Exchange calendars. Exchange support adds a total of one new symbol to the Calendar Store framework; CalCalendarTypeExchange. If you use Calendar Store in your application, then your users can now use Exchange calendars. They can also, via the same API and UI, use CalDAV servers like OpenGroupware.org or the (open source) one that Apple released. You can migrate your clients to SL and then migrate your server to CalDAV without any of the users noticing.

On Windows, there is no such pervasive API. If you want to support CalDAV, you get a CalDAV library. If you want to talk to Exchange, you use MAPI (I think; been a few years since I did much Windows programming). Exchange integrates with all of the MS tools, so everything else is very much a second-class citizen. On OS X, now, Exchange and CalDAV have equal status both on a UI and, more importantly, on an API level.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

# POP3 - you better hope that you you never get those "gallstone" emails that clog up your pipes (ie, your boss emails you the 100MB photo gallery from the company party - as a zipfile)

That's because mail client developers are lazy. I remember the "good old days" traveling for work and having to check the POP3 email server using a 56K modem. Luckily, I had Eudora which allowed me to retrieve a list of emails first and pick which ones I wanted to download. The capability is in the protocol, just nobody really took advantage of it. It is definitely a protocol past it's prime.

# IMAP - I have tried it at my company's system (tried using Thunderbird), and it kept giving me a weird "message not read" error on each sync. Could never get rid of it, even after doing traces and deleting suspect emails on the server

IMAP works great for me. The only gotcha is that you have to keep the main inbox pretty much empty for performance reasons. But I like being able to store my emails on the server and using my mail client to move mail to different folders on the server.

I use IMAP with exchange 2007 and have no issues with Thunderbird on my Linux workstation, Apple Mail on my Mac (I haven't upgraded yet), and Android Mail on my phone.

webmail - ok, on a non-IE browser, this is really weak, like worse than hotmail/yahoo kind of weak.

Microsoft did make improvements with exchange 2007. But before our office upgraded, I would have to agree 100% with you on this one.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I'm not sure I understand the article's contention that Exchange support frees Apple users from Microsoft.

It doesn't. It frees Microsoft from the abomination that is Entourage...

What people don't seem to want to understand is that Microsoft is a software company. Sure they compete with Apple with the Windows OS, but they still want to develop products on the Mac Platform. Microsoft Office is the big money maker for Microsoft regardless of the OS it runs own.

The Microsoft/Apple relationship may have its moments, but what keeps them compatible is the fact that Apple prefers to stay within the confines of their hardware market leaving Microsoft the rest of the PC Compatible market to control...

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's the other way around. Microsoft didn't improve IE for Mac for ages. At some point, Apple noticed and decided that their platform could not stand without a decent web-browser, and so they built their own based on Konqueror.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also only relevant if these are needed features. Why do we have to use feature count as a measure of value. Look at MS Word many many features most never used.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[raddan]

Do you mean Entourage? We've never encountered that particular problem, but we didn't start using it until Entourage 2004.

Outlook 97-2002 format PST files had this problem. They basically stopped working past 2GB, and there was nothing to warn or otherwise stop you from doing this. Outlook 2003 PST files don't have this limitation.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[mjwx]

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.

Yep, will not "free"* Mac users from Entourage as MS will ensure that the functionality of this client is limited. Then there is the rest of the Office for Mac suite, if a corporation is mad enough to allow a mac onto their network they will need to be able to open and save documents in the same format as every other user in the organisation.

* Does this really free a mac user? Surely they're just swapping one overlord for another.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Ilgaz]

His point being? How much did you pay for that hardware and do you think everyone will pay that much for such hardware so they can use Java 1.6? A $500 generic PC will run way more newer Java with better performance under Windows.

There, I said it.

Oracle/Sun should start thinking about blocking Apple from having Java under pre 10.5 since they started doing childish tricks like not releasing security updates to push people to 10.5 and hardware upgrades. Just like MS once was forced to remove their junk, Sun should sit, code a freaking Quartz Java and force Apple to replace the unmaintained junk with theirs.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

dang, they finally did. Still my point is the following:

http://www.osnews.com/story/21522

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Waveguide04]

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.

Actually, anyone heard of PostPath? Cisco acquired them a while back and they make what amounts to a hugely scalable 'exchange' back end, thus Snow Leopard + PostPath (actually being called WebEx Mail, now I believe) and then there is no M$ needed.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Movi]

By Quartz Java i guess you mean a Cocoa Java. Yes, apple used to do that, but stopped, since nobody used it, and java itself is beeing heavily replaced on desktop markets (not corporate tho i guess), which guess what - is the core of Apple's marketspace.

It's not viable for Apple to code something maybe 5% of their users use, Sun SHOULD do it themselves. I can use one hand to count how many times i used Java since i got 10.5.

And maybe i DID pay a premium for this hardware - nothing wrong with that, as far as i'm getting exactly what i do, which is well thought out hardware and probably the best desktop Unix OS. And i think i do.

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Movi]

Except it's been fixed in 10.5.8, maybe even before that. How long has it been since it's out?

Unfortunately your argument is moot :/

Re:How does this *free* Mac users?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

But so are all current Microsoft Windows users, who would have to upgrade their version of Outlook. Forced upgrade = system administration nightmare.

One thing that's incorrect

[ejdmoo]

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.

Re:One thing that's incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

The Exchange support for Snow Leopard was built using Exchange Web Services, just like the next version of Microsoft's client, Entourage.

Entourage is the current Mac analogue of Outlook. It will be phased out next year when Office for Mac come with an actual version of Outlook.

Re:One thing that's incorrect

[Rosyna]

The Exchange support for Snow Leopard was built using Exchange Web Services, just like the next version of Microsoft's client, Entourage.

Entourage is the current Mac analogue of Outlook. It will be phased out next year when Office for Mac come with an actual version of Outlook.

Incorrect. The "Outlook for Mac" is just a rebranded Entourage, so you're still getting the same thing.

Re:One thing that's incorrect

[geoff2]

The Exchange support for Snow Leopard was built using Exchange Web Services, just like the next version of Microsoft's client, Entourage.

Entourage is the current Mac analogue of Outlook. It will be phased out next year when Office for Mac come with an actual version of Outlook.

Incorrect. The "Outlook for Mac" is just a rebranded Entourage, so you're still getting the same thing.

Outlook for Mac is promised to be a complete rewrite, so it's the "same thing" as Entourage only in that it's the mail/calendar/contact app component of Microsoft Office. The program itself could be quite different.

Re:One thing that's incorrect

[yabos]

Microsoft has said Outlook for Mac will be completely new, and use the Cocoa frameworks allowing it to be 64 bit. Entourage is written in Carbon and is quite the piece of crap because it's extremely slow, uses a monolithic database like Outlook which self corrupts sometimes.

Re:One thing that's incorrect

[Phroggy]

Entourage is essentially Outlook Express, plus half-assed Exchange support (and a calendar) tacked on. It is definitely not Outlook - it can't use MAPI, can't use .pst files, and the code base dates back to the era of System 7.

They chose to call it Entourage, because it is definitely not Outlook.

(By the way, Outlook Express has nothing to do with Outlook. Outlook Express was originally called Internet Mail & News until Microsoft's marketing people renamed it, which is why the executable binary for the Windows version of Outlook Express is still named msimn.exe. Similarly, JavaScript was originally called LiveScript and has nothing to do with Java, but Netscape's marketing people wanted to confuse everyone and Sun foolishly let them.)

Re:Gentoo??

[ZERO1ZERO]

I'll tell you after it's finished compiling!

pointless bs article

[Anonymous Coward]

why shit like this ends up on /. is beyond me

Many times

[ceoyoyo]

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

[alen]

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:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[BobReturns]

Uh... apple do make servers, and they have a version of the OS for servers. Just fyi. http://www.apple.com/uk/xserve/ http://www.apple.com/uk/server/macosx/

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[alen]

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:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[alen]

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:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[SaDan]

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 rack mountable and runs OS X without a hitch. Otherwise, get a MacPro/iMac/Mini and load Mac OS X Server.

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[SaDan]

It's a great thing that Dell offers that kind of support, because you'll need it frequently with the junk they produce and sell.

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[MeNeXT]

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.

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[f16c]

"It's pretty much a given that Apple is not going into the server business so MS is safe on that end."

I'm not sure what part of the market you've been looking at but Xserve has been a brand for a while:

http://www.apple.com/xserve/

Not my cup of tea but for Apple shops it looks pretty good if a bit pricey.

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[singularity]

Good thing the xServe is not built for the "I need maximum performance in a 1U box", then.

An xServe, with OS X Server, is designed primarily for small businesses to get rid of their IT department by replacing their expensive IT guys and yearly MS CALs with an xServe and maybe one OS X tech. Generally a company with 1,000+ employees will not be using it, so the need for > 48GB RAM or multiple TBs stuffed into a 1U box really is not there.

Or are we just working with the "bigger numbers are better" argument?

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[ceoyoyo]

Apple has been slowly filling out their office OS X Server capabilities for quite a while. They've now got most of the big features of Exchange going, and many of them are interoperable with Google (do you see MS doing that anytime soon?).

Snow Leopard has Exchange support built in, so one of the big roadblocks to using Mac clients in the office is gone. A few years from now, when there are lots of Mac client machines, that Exchange server is going to need to be replaced, and the Exchange license renewed or upgraded. Whereas before you HAD to get Exchange, now, and particularly with the office full of Macs, you might be thinking of looking at something a little different.

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[Anonymous Coward]

Dell support is really good when it comes to server gear.
I had a customer with a junk PE1420SC (bottom of the line server). His dimms were failing, so I logged the call. Dell dispatched an engineer from company A, dimm1 from courier B, and dimm2 from Courier C. All arrived within 4hours, incredible.

You may ask, "why did I get them to dispatch a engineer for swapping out ram?". I was in my office, 2hours away from the customer, and I had a couple of meetings to attend.

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really concerned about not having 144GB support, as you wouldn't be if you realized that Nehalem EP clocks the memory down when you populate 3 DIMM's per channel. So a machine that maxes out at 96GB can run the memory at 1066Mhz, whereas at 144GB the memory (all of it) runs at a max of 800Mhz. If you want really fast memory (1333Mhz), you are limited to one DIMM per channel, and 4GB DIMMs - so the fastest configuration is 6 4GB DIMMs - 24GB (requires an X/W CPU).

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses

[bill_mcgonigle]

not to mention the apparent lack of 24x7 onsite support.

forget 24x7, they won't even honour the on-site warranty in Vermont.

Fix SMB first

[onlyjoking]

I haven't upgraded to Snow Leopard yet but as far as I'm concerned unless Apple has fixed the dire state of its SMB networking all talk of Exchange support is whistling in the wind.

Re:Fix SMB first

[Anonymous Coward]

all talk of Exchange support is whistling in the wind.

I believe the phrase is 'pissing into the wind'. Whistling in the wind works nearly as well, pissing on the other hand... well, you go try it.

Re:Fix SMB first

[mortonda]

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:Fix SMB first

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

There are many types of shares and SMB. There are many definitions of "no password".

You can set permissions so that anyone can access the share, but the definition of anyone is client computers that are part of the domain.

Your server might be configured to require NTLMv2 authentication (it should be, all the other methods are very weak and easy to crack). BUT, the out-of-the-box default for winXP is to only use LM and NTLM authentication, so you can't connect to a NTLMv2 share at all.

You have to enable NTLMv2 manually. One of the few good things about Vista is that Microsoft finally changed the default to require the use NTLMv2.

Re:Fix SMB first

[good soldier svejk]

All I can think of is lack of DFS support. But I think DFS is proprietary.

Re:Fix SMB first

[Anonymous Coward]

Never let it be said that XP is less secure than a Mac.

Re:Fix SMB first

[kdorf]

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.

Uh, maybe the fact that if you turn on Unix extensions for Samba Mac freaks out when the UID doesn't match locally. It will actually set the permissions of all mounted files to 111. I've seen this happen several times at my workplace. You can mount a share with Unix extensions enabled and Mac will tell you that you don't have permission to write to it.Or how about the fact that you must enable 'map untrusted to domain' because Mac doesn't send the domain along with the username when it authenticates?

Mac fails at SMB while Windows and Linux clients have no problems.

Re:Fix SMB first

[onlyjoking]

I've watched SMB fail in so many different ways, first on Tiger then much worse on Leopard. Visit the Mac forums and you'll see hundreds of messages along the same lines - the SMB/Finder combo is broken and Apple doesn't seem to give a damn about fixing it. It's no good saying change your /etc/smb.conf when Finder is gumming the works. Shares should auomtaically appear in Finder and thej don't. If you have 2 similar systems, say desktop and laptop, with similar accounts and files try moving files on one machine via symlink and watch OS X move the files on your desktop machine instead. OK, change your /etc/smb.conf again and it can (maybe) be fixed but ... you get my drift. I have had files appear in remote shares and I copy them to my desktop machine only to find they were never copied, and that's after waiting for the progress bar to complete. With Finder/SMB you solve one problem and it either reappears next time or another one takes its place. To me this is THE issue stopping me from recommending OS X in mixed network environments. With Snow Leopard Apple seems to have surpassed itself with new Finder/SMB problems. I didn't think there were any more to add to the long list of unresolved bugs.

Re:Fix SMB first

[nxtw]

All I can think of is lack of DFS support. But I think DFS is proprietary.

The Linux CIFS Client supports DFS, and Samba can serve DFS.

Re:Fix SMB first

[good soldier svejk]

Huh... when did that happen? I've never had it work. I just checked in Snowy and it still doesn't work there. Which is sad since they use samba for the server. You'd think they'd at least match its client capabilities.

Of course, all CIFS is proprietary. The Samba team just does an awesome job reverse engineering it. The Open Group SMB standard is now basically a fork thanks to MS's policy.

OK, looks like Samba added DFS about two years ago.

Re:Fix SMB first

[mjwx]

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.

Compare that to a Mac that keeps writing garbage files to my SMB servers. Why in the FSM's name do you need a .VolumeSettings file in every folder. Every now and then the mac user will write a file so badly the Windows is unable to delete or back it up, I basically have to boot a linux live CD to get rid of it.

And the other office formats

[Rix]

Word/Excel files are still a must for many people.

Still, OS X isn't a competitor to Windows, because it doesn't run on commodity hardware. Lots of people would be willing to license OS X, but few are willing to consider the anaemic Mac hardware line.

Re:And the other office formats

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, OS X isn't a competitor to Windows, because it doesn't legally run on commodity hardware.

Fixed it for you.

Re:And the other office formats

[ben0207]

I work for a major media management company (I won't say which one, but it's a number between 18 and 20, and we have American Idol and David Beckham in our stable). For the UK office (where I work as a support technician) we have about 200 users, 90% of which are now on Macs (and every week we're pushing more and more of the workforce towards them)

We're more than happy with the "anaemic" hardware line. MacBooks for 80% of staff, MacBook Pro for managers (and us down in IT) and Mac Pros for the video editors. The hardware is always as good or better than comparatively priced commodity hardware (we usually use Sony Vaios for the few remaining Windows users) but the software.... ...well, let's just say I do very little work. We're desperate to be able to roll out Snow Leopard across the company - Entourage is bloody awful - and the necessary switch to Exchange 07 means we can also officially support iPhones too. It will be a while before we're 100% Mac, and longer still before we can completely shed ourselves of MS software (the majority of which we've fund ot be unstable, insecure and difficult to use) but this Exchange support is a huge leap in the right direction.

Re:And the other office formats

[ceoyoyo]

Uh, there's been an version of Office for the Mac that reads and writes Word/Excel files just fine.

Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[fluffy99]

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".

[chihowa]

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:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[alen]

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".

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[MeNeXT]

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:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[rabbit994]

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:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[pushing-robot]

I'm guessing "security nightmare" really means "getting the CEO to stop using 12345 as his password."

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[inKubus]

Hey, that's the combination to my luggage!

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[DarkOx]

I don't know about the IPHONE but I would hope it can support IMAP over SSL or TLS. SeaMonkey mail can as can Thunderbird and several other popular mail clients use TLS. I am the Exchange admin at my organization and I allow 993 and 143 through the firewall. They look like perfectly normal SSL and TLS setups to me. No major snafus like passwords in clear text or anything like that. I have never read or seen anything reported to suggest there are problems with there.

The other Linux users myself included are quite happy to use our mail via secured IMAP.

Why don't you think IMAP on Exchange is secure?

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[yabos]

Uh, run your IMAP over SSL and use proper authentication and there's no security problems unless Exchange's IMAP has security flaws. GMail has IMAP over SSL ffs and it's free.

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[yabos]

My company requires a VPN connection to access the Exchange webmail which is over SSL. Pretty lame IMO.

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I'm guessing "security nightmare" really means "getting the CEO to stop using 12345 as his password."

1, 2, 3, 4, 5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[nine-times]

That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[saleenS281]

Mine isn't anti-apple at all, and I call bullshit. The only way snow leopard's exchange support works is if you IT staff is willing to apply patches that are not part of windows update. They have to manually go out and search the patches out. If you don't, you get absolutely no folder support.

So, you're either lying, or your IT staff went out and specifically downloaded patches for exchange to allow it to function properly with snow leopard.

Re:Apple is not donig "Exchange".

[ejdmoo]

It doesn't use WebDAV, it uses Exchange Web Services, which is a standard API for developers to build their own Exchange clients.

I know this because it works with the Exchange 2010 RC, and Exchange 2010 no longer includes WebDAV.

In fact, the Apple web site states (correctly) that it requires Exchange 2007, because Exchange 2003 didn't have EWS.

Windows Enthusiasts?

[Trepidity]

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:Windows Enthusiasts?

[dangitman]

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. It's super!

Re:Windows Enthusiasts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you guys on slashdot are an extremely unrepresentative group in the context of the general user population, and with all the groupthink going on here no wonder it is hard for you to believe there are people out there with diverging opinions. It's only too bad you don't respect them.

Re:Windows Enthusiasts?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is actually.
Especially with .NET they have created a horrible subculture of open source developers that post changelogs in .docx format.

Re:Windows Enthusiasts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are also huge number of professionals (even semi-professional help desk employees) who will present themselves as enthusiasts, even if they are not. Also in my personal experience, there are large numbers of Indians who are die-hard Microsoft enthusiasts. I don't know if M$ represents upward mobility or the "American Dream" to them or what, but they seem to be disproportionally represented. Male teenage gamers are another fanbase, 'nuff said.

Can Apple do their own MSTSC next?

[weave]

The Mac version of MS terminal server client is horrible -- it lacks ability to connect to a corporate TS gateway. Yet another limited app to make it appear Macs are not pro-business. So can Apple do up one of those as well? Please?

Re:Can Apple do their own MSTSC next?

[moosesocks]

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:Can Apple do their own MSTSC next?

[alen]

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

Re:Can Apple do their own MSTSC next?

[weave]

Nope.

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:Can Apple do their own MSTSC next?

[Magic5Ball]

The official Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection Client on OS X is published by Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.mspx?pid=Mactopia_RDC&fid=CD9EC77E-5B07-4332-849F-046611458871

Apple uses a VNC protocol for its own remote desktop clients/servers.

Re:Can Apple do their own MSTSC next?

[dafdaf]

No need to. Give TSclientX a try. It's way better than the Microsoft RDP clients and also supports different protocols, more options, etc.

Why has this taken so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, almost 2010 and now we have built in exchange support? As far as I'm concerned, apple has been lacking in software compatibility for a decade or so - to the point that we are forced to use virtual machine or 3rd-party software to run applications that 90% of the 'corporate' workplace or 'home' users typically enjoy. Remember that apple goes out of the way to lock out developers from writing software/applications that work for apple OS's or devices like the iPhone - now that they add simple native support for exchange there is good reason to praise them for making such great advancements? /troll

Re:Why has this taken so long?

[SaDan]

It's probably because they (Apple) had their own calendar and email solutions, so why include support for a third-party system? Granted, it's no where near the same as Exchange for functionality, but it was there.

Personally, I could care less. I've moved more people off of Exchange and onto other platforms than I care to count (mostly to Zimbra), and personally hope to never have to deal with an Exchange system ever again. If you think Apple hardware/software is expensive, try pricing out your own Exchange server solution sometime.

Re:Why has this taken so long?

[adamstew]

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.

FOSS fans can be strange

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all i am a Huge FOSS supporter! most of the apps I run are open source from virtual box to Firefox, pidgin to Gimp, I love apps that are cheap or free and more than get the job done. but i have never understood open source guys love affair with Mac and OSX. Windoze will at least let you install it on any machine you want (legally) mac is not only closed source for code but for hardware as well. I have used and love OSX but i will never buy a mac (or OSX) because of the limiting nature of the culture of MAC.

Re:FOSS fans can be strange

[agnosticnixie]

Windows will not let you do what you want to the extent you want if you play in the command line. Also, Apple, for all its nasty bits, is not usually busy trying to make every *nix vendor go under with lawsuits and the threat of them - they have a niche (well a few niches) and seem happy to stick to it (or at least don't do many efforts to go out of it considering the way they deal with their server and workstation offerings that seem more like curiosities/stuff we put out because some people in our niches need the juice).
They also sometimes screw with standards but at least pay them lip-service, and while it's not been without gnashing of teeth at first, when they've had to deal with the GPL they didn't wait for the FSF to make subtle threats before sharing the code.
As for letting install, the only time they seem to care is when someone tries to make money off making unlicensed clones - the iphone situation is a bit more annoying, true.

Re:FOSS fans can be strange

[bubbaD]

"Windoze will at least let you install it on any machine you want (legally)"
That's a remnant of days when they were minor vendors for IBM. When Compaq and others put out IBM PC "clones," Microsoft took full advantage of the opportunity to stab IBM in the back.
Notably, Microsoft is as restrictive, even more so, with Xbox and Xbox360. I can install linux on any PPC or Intel Macintosh without hardware hacks or bizarre workarounds. I should be able to do that with Xboxen as well.

Re:FOSS fans can be strange

[TheRaven64]

Windoze will at least let you install it on any machine you want

Spoken like someone who has never read a Windows EULA.

Apple is already familiar with the other side...

[Cordath]

This might initially appear to be an odd move for Apple, because they already operate on the other side of the fence. e.g. iTunes, or Quicktime. The Apple version of quicktime that is released for windows is typically feature deprived (unless you pay for pro), buggy, and horrendously inefficient. (It's always great watching 1080p stutter along on a freakin' quad-core with a $400 video card.) It's reached the point where the deficiencies of Apple quicktime for Windows has spawned "Quicktime Alternative", just like Realvideo spawned "Real Alternative". "Quicktime Alternative", when it's fully caught up in the arms race with Apple, is a entirely superior to Apple Quicktime, offering smooth playback on modest hardware and all the features of pro for free. Naturally, Apple frequently "tweaks" things to break functionality on the open alternatives to their software. (This happened to Palm rather recently, w.r.t. iTunes.)

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.

Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[moosesocks]

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:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[alen]

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:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[agnosticnixie]

HR in some cases will care about certain pieces of apple software, it just happens to not be iLife. After all, I doubt HR gives a damn about WMP or Explorer being included in Windows. But that's a limited market. Also, some places with bad exchange-crazy IT people (who have a corner of hell specially reserved for them) will standardize on Exchange and then try to make things work with the departments where these come up. Or some universities that do the same and then pretend to support macs but where the network is as unfriendly as can be to anything that's not running on 'doze.

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[WMD_88]

OWA works on Firefox, too.

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[dontclapthrowmoney]

Sometimes there are reasons for not supporting any app, not matter how dodgy it might be, or any client OS that someone might want to use - especially in places where HR want to run some dodgy app that they've wasted money on and now want IT to soak up many hours to deploy it and get it working with the rest of their apps, and then not use it or discover it isn't quite what they wanted...

Where I work is somewhere in between the two scenarios you mentioned - I won't make changes to centralised infrastructure to suit 1 or 2 people who have a preference for a particular app, especially if there is a alternative that can do what they want to achieve (even one that's not quite as good - sorry). Having said that, if people want to go off on a tangent and use an app/client OS/e-mail client that is different from the standard, I don't have any dramas with that so long as

(1) they aren't introducing any security risks (no, sorry, you can't install "antiviruscleaner2009.exe"), and
(2) they are happy to fix it themselves - our level of support drops back to "best effort" only

Generally people who are interested in "outside the square" solutions are either technical enough to deal with any minor issues themselves and aware enough to understand when we say "sorry, not our problem...", or clueless enough so I can talk them out of what they want to do in the first place.

This might sound a bit harsh - I dunno - people do have the ability to make a case for what they want, we just actually make them do that rather than grabbing our ankles at the slightest whim of others - and if they can justify the business need for what they are after, not a problem and we'll jump in and get it done - and if they can't justify it, sorry, I got bigger stuff to deal with.

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[agnosticnixie]

heh, I don't think it sounds too harsh (both my Archlinux-powered eee and my mac have no problem dealing with available workarounds although sometimes a terminal will scream at a non-windows-formatted fat partition), and having to deal with University IT desks has probably given me a worse view of IT than is probably deserved (at least I hope) - If I hadn't blown my mod points by posting not AC I'd probably mod your reply up (info) tbh.

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[bloodninja]

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).

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[dontclapthrowmoney]

Funny, I probably have a worse view of HR than is probably deserved (at least I hope) because of my dealings with our HR area, and also some senior level non-IT managers who think they are more important than they are:

"Yeah, I know you're a regional manager - all that means to me is that you get paid *less than I do* - let's get our our payslips and see who is going to win this argument"

(:->)

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[onefriedrice]

Who cares what the human resource department thinks of the software that comes on the computers around the office? Is computer buying a responsibility of your organization's HR department? Glad I don't work where you work.

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[cheros]

"OWA works on Firefox, too."

Yes, but not as well thanks to MS-only extensions. And working with anyone's calender but your own isn't something I worked out when I needed it (didn't spend too much time on it, though - just called the guy :-).

Re:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[Phroggy]

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:Microsoft just got 1-Uped

[buchanmilne]

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.

But, most linux distributions have for the past 6 months (thanks to evolution-mapi). And that's not even counting the previous support (based on the OWA API) that was available via evolution-exchange ... and neither requires you upgrade to Exchange 2007 (but evolution-mapi supports Exchange 2007, where the old OWA API is no longer available).

Re:Apple is already familiar with the other side..

[erroneus]

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 wait a while and then when people are comfortable with things, and then release a "service pack" or bug fix that breaks Apple's ability to connect to the Exchange server... and it will likely be bundled in with some absolutely critical security patch. Microsoft has been playing "tag" with the Samba project for years and Microsoft is always "it" and manages to find new ways to run and hide.

Re:HELP! Multiple Bootcamp Partitions?

[MeNeXT]

Boot them all at the same time with vmware.

Re:HELP! Multiple Bootcamp Partitions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want to use vmware. I want to create 2 bootcamp partitions. I know how to create 1. How do I create 2?

Fixed and soon to be fixed.

[ThrowAwaySociety]

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 support.

Basically, Microsoft has enjoyed the same position with Office on the Mac that it has with Windows, despite not delivering the same level of capability. That's starting to change, because it's pretty easy to beat a product that isn't very good.

Re:My new mac

[martas]

GNU Porn?

regarding your sig

[martas]

both, but only if you're a quantum computer.

Exchange it for a real MTA

[dbIII]

The "dumbed down" stuff they are talking, at least in my direct experience, is the lack of full functionality

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 what is just around the corner and how it's growing up to be a real boy. As for users, if you think MS Exchange has been running flawlessly go and ask your admins how many servers they are using to give you that illusion.

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[Moridineas]

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? Lotus?

I have yet to see it--any suggestions?

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[erroneus]

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:Exchange it for a real MTA

[dbIII]

The answer as it has been for the last thirty years is system integration and not expecting one single application to hold every egg in it's basket. MS Exchange attempts to do that and became a basket case, and is only really recovering from that now if you run it under the adult supervision of another OS in a virtual machine. Advocates (or anyone really) will tell you it's a hell of a lot better than it was ten years ago when it did not belong in production environments, however it is still a large pile of things where simpler applications can do a better job for any single task it does. However, in the past it did sometimes end up being cheaper to set up than a collection of other things. Unfortunately some places are using it simply as a mail transfer agent and it is one of the worst performing applications in that role. The classic was the patch that made MS Exchange an open relay by default.

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[d3vi1]

Let's make a small analisys of the landscape:

1) Zarafa - the OSS version is lacking the Outlook and ActiveSync parts => not exactly what we need. I'm not really impressed with the administration and integration with existing services.

2) Zimbra - just like above, we don't have what we need and it's really a pain in the way it's packaged. It comes with it's own MySQL, Tomcat, OpenLDAP, etc. Thus it doesn't really integrate with what you already have. If you already have you own Port389/iPlanet or OpenLDAP you're probably not looking forward for another one.

3) Scalable OpenGroupware.org. - This has potential. It comes with RHEL packages for everything, it uses your own Postgres, your own IMAP, your own SMTP and your own LDAP => it rocks. A SOGo + Mozilla Messaging solution is by far the best thing that you could get to replace Exchange. There's even a proprietary plugin for Outlook (ZideOne) if you need it. It even has integration with Funambol for SyncML and ActiveSync features. The webmail is great, but it's not yet production ready, despite the 1.0 version number.

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[Moridineas]

Ok, so even if you're looking at multiple software packages, where are the equivalents?

Your basic IMAP server doesn't have all the mail functionality that exchange does, but it's good enough for us. What about shared / global / etc address books? OpenLDAP? Well, adding and updating from client email software is a pain with any LDAP I know? Shared calendaring software?

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[Moridineas]

3) Scalable OpenGroupware.org. - This has potential

Sounds very interesting and I hadn't seen it before -- I'll take a look. Thanks!

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[dbIII]

Your basic IMAP server doesn't have all the mail functionality that exchange does

Yes they do, global folders is a very common feature. Address books are a email client thing and in most cases they support shared and private books in different files. You just point it at the same file on a network share, or LDAP or a lot of other ways.
Now the thing a basic IMAP server doesn't do is the shared calendaring software - thus you use a calendar application on the server instead. The thing MS Exchange does is bring a pile of things together but it really doesn't do email very well, but in some cases that really doesn't matter.

Re:Exchange it for a real MTA

[Moridineas]

Well our imap server doesn't have public folders and as far as I can tell, Thunderbird doesn't support shared address books (nor editing ldap)

If there was an opensource server replacement for Exchange, I bet you money it would be one of the most popular projects in no time at all.

Re:Apple is not doing "Exchange".

[dontclapthrowmoney]

Allowing MAPI directly into an Exchange environment from any internet host isn't a great idea, surely - for starters that would allow someone to DoS your environment by authenticating with obviously invalid credentials and locking people out - expecially when a lot of environments will align user's e-mail address with their AD username. Plus ,the moment a vulnerability becomes known you're open to who knows what (and it is just a matter of time..?)

Allowing any IP into exchange over MAPI isn't what Exchange requires anyway, and is certainly not "best practice" - you can use Outlook Anywhere (RPC over SSL), ActiveSynch (again SSL) and Outlook Web Access (SSL). For a more secure solution preferably publish all of this through ISA Server using 2-factor or RADIUS etc. to protect Active Directory. To really take off this new client will need to support RPC over HTTPS, and have a cached mode equivalent, people in the corporate space will want to take their laptops home and connect to their mail without switching to OWA, and they will want to access their mail offline. (I am not sure if this client has this, too lazy to check - if it does, well done Apple.)

There is always a trade-off between security and usability.

Apple creating Exchange client software makes sense as it helps them aim at the corporate space, I don't see Microsoft having any issues with this as they still make money off it - any client/user requires a Client Access Licenses - one CAL for Exchange standard features (basic mail etc), one CAL for the underlying Windows Server access, and an Enterprise Exchange additive CAL for enterprise features (unified messaging (voice)/office communication server/etc).

It is the same logic as VMware driving sales of Microsoft server operating systems - sometimes decent competitor offerings aren't bad - more of a "co-opetition" than competition (up to a point anyway)

KDE4

[Sam36]

kde4 works fine for me.

Re:KDE4

[bloodninja]

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

Even though Krunner turns UTF-8 into gibberish?
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192166

Shall I go on?

BSOD can be prevented most of the time

[Ilgaz]

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 and never seen BSOD. If Apple and MS didn't act opportunistic and did a mandatory real memory test before installing their operating systems, users would get rid of lots of problems. Of course, nobody wants user to stand by 1 hour for a real memory test, even Linux distros won't dare to do it let alone commercial companies.

BTW you can make XP an "admin needed to install" thing, that means half of the cleanup will be needless. Just add a normal user and move her files.

Re:BSOD can be prevented most of the time

[Anonymous Coward]

your personal experience does not necessarily equate with the rest of the world. And, your Mom's installation is automatically restarting- basically hiding the BSOD. Also, just about every modern linux installation with GRUB includes a MEMTEST86+ entry by default.
You should read a book or two before you start posting examples of your expertise on /.

Re:BSOD can be prevented most of the time

[Ilgaz]

Including a memory tester is one thing, sparing users 1 hour of time for a mandatory memory test before install another. Any modern 32bit OS with stable drivers and stable hardware won't really crash that much, at least kernel level.

You gotta learn the function of reply button too, I didn't talk about my experience, I just added to guys experience including a suggestion to prevent such insane "clean every day" scenarios.

Sorry for bursting your bubble about "everything is unstable but linux is". Plug a bad no name mem module to your linux and see what happens.

RIM doesn't lose anything

[Ilgaz]

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 some third party thing supports it.

Let me show you one interesting thing. RIM is almost in sync with Apple. Nokia too. Apple iPhone feeds the entire smart phone industry...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=RIMM&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=AAPL&c=%5EIXIC

Re:My new mac

[Anonymous Coward]

It is gay porn and it is NOT a system directory. How often does the UPS man deliver packages to your father?

I feel so lucky

[dindi]

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 understand - needless to say it came from an MS oriented development firm.

I hate comparisons like this. The people who use Macs in an environment they can use Macs in. If I had to use all the MS tools, protocols or develop in MS Visual Whatever I would use a Windows machine logically. They fit many things, and they do not fit many things.
When 30% of your work is in shell mode on Unix servers then OSX is a beautiful alternative and MS is horror. So what do people compare... now I should run and get a Windows laptop?

Modular unix-like approach

[Anonymous Coward]

One trend, not pointed out in Apple Insider or these comments, is the modular unix-like approach Apple has taken in building up Mac OS X. They are fairly careful about the technology road map and have been more successful in not biting off more than they could/can chew.

They introduced smb, AD and now Exchange support all in different releases, incrementing the capabilities with subsequent released. They are carefully building enterprise capability on the technology side. I think they are very wise not to make the big enterprise push before they are ready. They first concentrated on core UI (e.g, dumping Display PS for a PDF based in-house 2D engine) and OS technology. They painstakingly built up 2D and 3D acceleration. Contrast this to MS promise everything and deliver a train wreck called Vista missing big chunks of promised functionality (anybody remember their file system vaporware).

Snow Leopard may not be perfect, but it like the versions before it are continuous improvements. So Exchange support is an evolutionary but big step.

I hear a gagging sound...

[Anonymous Coward]

"They are the Saviors!, and help open source thrive as it is!"

Jesus, hail the freakin lord.

Out of touch

[Patch86]

Only Microsoft and it's enthusiasts could view a company adding support for a popular system as caving in, admitting defeat, or endorsing a rival.

Back in the day, such things would be referred to as "adding useful features", or "doing what your customers want". But then, that's never exactly been MS's strong suit.

Strange office

[Rix]

You're running MS servers and Unix desktops. Amusing. Not that I wouldn't jump at the chance to use OS X rather than Windows on the desktop in your place.

You have to admit you're a bit of a special case, though. It sounds like you have a very healthy budget. A $700 laptop is perfectly functional for most business cases and so spending more is gravy. Apple doesn't have anything in that segment, which makes them a write off for many.

And whats that ram cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats 144GB of ram in a 1U cost? Seriously... go price it. Its nasty.

Furthermore, your dropping your memory speed down to 800mhz, no matter what Xeons your using when you use that third slot per channel.

Not much use in going to 144GB on a DP nehalem unless you REALLY need the ram. Doubly so since your going to be paying EVEN more crazy prices for the ram since its low enough profile to go in 1U (yeah, 8 GB RDIMM's that'll do 1U aren't that common, or cheap.)

Something tells me Apple isn't losing much of the market here.
For most uses, why buy a single 1U DP box with 144gb when you could buy a fully loaded, built to the hilt Supermicro 2UTwin2 for less? (4 nodes in 2U, redundant PSU's... etc)

i call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

fire with fire proprietary is a complete dead end. The analysis in the article is bogus from the start.

Apple cant really control any clients with 5-9% of desktop share. But nice try.

Different perspective? No, not different.

[riegel]

Apple faced a similar problem with it's retail presence. I can't tell you how many times I walked into circuit city and was told not to buy a mac. Apple was smart when they did there own retail presence, and they are smart in writing exchange support for Snow Leopard.

Re:Apple is already familiar with the other side..

[jrothwell97]

The Mac OS X version was also "crippled" until QuickTime X, which abolished the Player/Pro clusterfuck altogether. Presumably, that will end up being ported to Windows... eventually.

BSOD is easy

[yabos]

Dell Insperon notebook, plug in FireWire video output with active MPEG2 video, play video in VLC from FW input, unplug FW cable. BSOD every time. Yes this has happened to me many times at work.

Same stuff, different URL

[__aaojfq2958]

I would have supported the author with a direct link to his blog.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/09/05/inside-mac-os-x-snow-leopard-exchange-support-2/

Re:My new mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Glasses and neckbeards and mantits, oh my!

iPhone OSS push possible?

[mattr]

Whatever I didn't bother reading TFA. Just tell me please someone, is there an open source way to push email from my ubuntu server to an iPhone should I choose to get one? I heard you must use either some Exchange thing or mac.com IIRC. That's silly. I would probably only buy an iPhone if there is a way, and that is the only thing I care about related to the two keywords Exchange and Apple.

Downside to new Exchange support.

[dougnaka]

I have upgraded my machines to Snow Leopard, excited to use the Exchange support.
Only to find out it only works for Exchange 2007!
So, to move my clients off Windows/Outlook|Mac/Entourage I have to upgrade my Microsoft Exchange server to 2007?

That's not really helping *me*, Apple...

OTOH; I love getting disk space back from an upgrade - Mac Air 64GB SSD users rejoice. AND I love Apple's family pack pricing for my home Mac's. Also, WTF dropping Power PC support this soon?

Re:Downside to new Exchange support.

[rizzo320]

Apple's Exchange support is provided by the "Exchange Web Services" that is only available in Exchange 2007. There's really no other option for Apple to connect to for older versions of Exchange Server.

WindowsMail/OWA

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows doesn't support Exchange out of the box. You need Office for that.

What's Windows Mail for then?.
Or, as mentioned in other replies OWA.

Just keep worshiping at the shrine of Steve.

Re:WindowsMail/OWA

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Mail: It doesn't support the Exchange features supported by Snow Leopard that TFA is talking about. Its Exchange support is comparable to what you get with Mail/Address Book/iCal in Leopard (or in Tiger, for that matter). Fail.

OWA: That will run on most modern browsers on most modern OS's. By that measure, all versions of MacOS X up to Leopard support Exchange, and for that matter so does Linux, Solaris.... Fail. Again.

Two finger tap is a clumsy workaround.

[argent]

The problem with the two finger tap is that you have to touch the positioning device (the trackpad surface) to double tap, which means that there is a possibility of moving the mouse as you attempt to tap. Now, some people apparently don't have a problem with this... but other people do. The new trackpads with the pivoting trackpad as the button make the problem ten times worse. A separate pair of buttons is simpler to implement, more reliable, and works for more people.

Which MS could pull or cripple at any time

[Rix]

Mac users couldn't read docx files in the latest Office throughout 2007, could they?

Oh cripes, not Daniel Eran Dilger

[Richard Fairhurst]

The author of TFA is renowned as one of the least clueful Apple apologists there is, even amongst plain ordinary OS X fanbois. He's also a regular sock-puppeteer, although not a very convincing one.

John C Welch rightly reams him out over this latest burst of idiocy. Worth reading for the headline ("Douchebags fondly eviscerated") and such prize comments as "You'd have to be smoking hobo crack (as in 'ass' not 'rock') to say that without snickering".

"look" not pro-business?

[mjwx]

Yet another limited app to make it appear Macs are not pro-business.

I have to break this to you. Mac's are not pro-business. Here is why,

1. No such thing as NBD onsite service provided by the first party.
2. No such thing as NBD onsite service provided by the first party. (I know I mentioned this twice but it is that important)
3. No volume discounts.
4. Twice the cost of the competition (even more after volume discounts).

These are all Apple's responsibility and Apple will never be taken seriously until it fixes these things.

Please don't try to compare it to Windows IE

[Ilgaz]

MS delivered something which easily beats their Win32 version and also proves that IE can indeed run as a stand alone program. Mac IE has nothing to do with Win32 IE; down to engine level (Tazman). While Windows IE was being protested for not supporting basic standards, Mac IE was getting W3C recommendations and Mac users have good memories with it, even if they don't admit.

Nevertheless, IE for Mac was actually paid for Apple to be included on Mac and there was a contract. The team did a great work and some of IE Mac features still doesn't exist on IE 8. While I am sure it has something to do with the possible jealousy/MS insider politics, Apple's contract basically ended and Apple did a good job providing users a good, standards based and simple (compare to Konqueror) browser that doesn't hurt any competition at all.

itunes.tar.gz

[nightcats]

And I nearly had my head taken off by commenters because I dared suggest that Apple might create Linux versions of iTunes, Safari, and Quicktime. Oh, and Boot Camp drivers for Ubuntu.

Apple, Itunes and Palm

[oneunixguy]

How can Apple users complain if Microsoft would change the protocol and break Exchange Support. I wonder if Palm would be so sympathetic to Apple's plight. I mean, who changed the Itune syncing so that Palm Pre's broke. Apple and MS are two peas in the same pod. And how laughable is it that Apple is benefiting OpenSource? LMAO. I don't know how much more benefiting I can take from apple. LOL

Access

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that Access is the red headed stepchild of Office, but until there's a replacement my own work can't move over.

What's a little sad about that is that Access absolutely sucks. It offers two completely different operational modes, is absolutely FILLED with bugs, and doesn't really have on-schreen tables (just repeated forms).

Apple had their chance with Bento, but the data access is non-existant. What we want is the full suite of Cocoa display objects put into a data-aware form that can talk to any data source and scripting that works.

Maury

Re:Apple is already familiar with the other side..

[wolrahnaes]

FYI, both Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative are simply packages of the respective DirectShow codecs as released by Apple and Real, plus any dependencies needed to use those codecs. Effectively all they did is strip out the proprietary frontend app, which hasn't been necessary anyways for quite some time. Note how the Quicktime Alternative pack even installs the official Quicktime control panel. There should be no performance difference, or at the most a minimal difference, between QT Alt and official QT.

Repeat After Me..

[rizzo320]

Repeat after me...

Apple is not using ActiveSync in Snow Leopard.

Exchange support in Snow Leopard uses EWS to connect to the Exchange Server.

EWS (Exchange Web Services) is not WebDAV!

The number of misconceptions perpetrated on this thread make me wonder how many people have actually looked at either Exchange Server 2007/2010 or Mail.app in Snow Leopard.

That is all.

Has anybody tried an OSS Exchange-Clone-backend?

[egghat]

E.G. does Zarafa work as an exchange clone on the server for Snow Leopard clients? Or Scalix?