Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
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.
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!
I'll tell you after it's finished compiling!
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.
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.)
Which allow a right click, (enabled by default IIRC) by having two fingers on the trackpad while clicking.
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
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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.
GNU Porn?
weinersmith