"Screen-scrape Outlook Web Access"? As far as I've been able to tell--and I've done a fair bit of investigation--the only client to support MAPI on Mac OS X is Entourage. If your company (like mine) turns off POP and IMAP on their Exchange server, you're stuck with Microsoft's (mostly dreadful) mail app.
The replies in this thread seem to be either missing the real issue, or guessing. Here's what I know based on direct experience at my company (approximately 99% Windows, 0.99% Macs--including me--and 0.01% Linux).
Exchange Server supports (at least) MAPI, IMAP, and POP. My company recently "upgraded" to a newer/the lastest Exchange Server and turned off IMAP and POP support.
Mail.app does indeed work with Exchange, but depends on IMAP being "turned on" in Exchange Server. So I can no longer use Mail.app. It does not support MAPI. Period.
The latest Entourage (part of Office 2004), however, does work, so I'm reasonably sure it must be using MAPI. Unfortunately, it's unquestionably the worst app I use on my Mac: slow, burdened with "Microsoft featuritis," and ugly/inelegant.
I could not find any Mac OS X e-mail clients besides Entourage that support MAPI. (Microsoft's previous Exchange 2000 for OS 9 did, but it was dropped in favour of Entourage.)
I was using Snerdware's Groupcal until the server upgrade. It no longer works. There is apparently a WebDAV method that Groupcal requires that is not enabled by default. See:
Yeah, I was there. Best Wilco show I've seen since San Francisco 1997 ("Being There" tour). Jay who?
One of the great current bands. Points out how screwed up the music industry is--there is no radio format that would play Wilco.
Chris
I'm curious: why do so many people insist on writing "MAC" (all caps), when (1) that stands for "Media Access Control;" and (2) "Mac" is short for "Macintosh"?
When Windows users watch me on OS X (933MHz G4), they often comment that it is fast. The particular instances I recall are opening and displaying a PDF; and LDAP address lookup in Mail.app.
Conversely, I find it painful to watch people using Windows. Some of this may be the operating system; but in general I find Windows users less adept, which slows them down. Part of this may be a more awkward user interface, ESPECIALLY the tendency to push people towards a one-window-at-a-time environment. Very little drag and drop or cross-app integration.
Something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread on Apple buying Emagic is the issue of quality. I was a Vision user for years and it was a good application, but crashed far more frequently than any of my other apps. I cross-graded to Logic last fall and, before I upgraded to OS X (stupidly believing Emagic's claims of the pending OS X release of Logic!), had similar experiences.
I expect Apple will try very hard to release a more robust and stable application. (And probably one that conforms more to Mac OS X user interface standards.)
I was a devoted QuarkXPress user from version 1; it was so much better (mostly more stable and better at printing) than PageMaker (then from Aldus), even given early limitations such as the inability to copy and past boxes. But three things happened to make me abandon the application.
(1) Poor customer service. I got tired of paying US$25 every time I wanted a simple question answered. And though I was honest enough to buy my own copy for personal use, I felt I was always treated with suspicion. While studying in the UK, I upgraded to System 7.5 and found that my copy of QuarkXPress would no longer work. I called support and they threatened to revoke my license since I was not "authorized" to run on the British system. This struck me as draconian.
(2) Exhorbitant upgrade pricing. I could "cross-grade" to InDesign for less than the cost of the upgrade to the latest version of QuarkXPress. Quark is the only company I ever saw that considered a PowerPC version of their software an upgrade in and of itself; so one had to buy a "double upgrade" to PPC and the latest version. As I recall this was over US$600.
(3) OS X support. For anyone paying attention, as soon as the details of Carbon became common knowledge the troubles Quark would have porting to OS X should have been obvious. QuarkXPress has always used non-standard controls; even version 4 (not sure about 5) used a faked/hacked System 7 scroll bar appearance even on OS 8/9. It seemed to me that there were so many aspects of the program like this that "carbonizing" it would actually require significant rewriting, unlike most apps that used standard toolbox routines.
Unfortunately it looks like the hesitation to go to InDesign is going to be a major drag on moving Apple's installed base in one of its most important markets (pre-press) to OS X. But I'm sure it will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
"Screen-scrape Outlook Web Access"? As far as I've been able to tell--and I've done a fair bit of investigation--the only client to support MAPI on Mac OS X is Entourage. If your company (like mine) turns off POP and IMAP on their Exchange server, you're stuck with Microsoft's (mostly dreadful) mail app.
The replies in this thread seem to be either missing the real issue, or guessing. Here's what I know based on direct experience at my company (approximately 99% Windows, 0.99% Macs--including me--and 0.01% Linux).
_ id=2&id=1
Exchange Server supports (at least) MAPI, IMAP, and POP. My company recently "upgraded" to a newer/the lastest Exchange Server and turned off IMAP and POP support.
Mail.app does indeed work with Exchange, but depends on IMAP being "turned on" in Exchange Server. So I can no longer use Mail.app. It does not support MAPI. Period.
The latest Entourage (part of Office 2004), however, does work, so I'm reasonably sure it must be using MAPI. Unfortunately, it's unquestionably the worst app I use on my Mac: slow, burdened with "Microsoft featuritis," and ugly/inelegant.
I could not find any Mac OS X e-mail clients besides Entourage that support MAPI. (Microsoft's previous Exchange 2000 for OS 9 did, but it was dropped in favour of Entourage.)
I was using Snerdware's Groupcal until the server upgrade. It no longer works. There is apparently a WebDAV method that Groupcal requires that is not enabled by default. See:
http://www.snerdware.com/support/index.php?x=&mod
There is no way my company's all-Microsoft IT department is going to do this.
So, in sum, Mail.app, at least up to OS X 10.3.9, requires IMAP or POP support from the Exchange server.
Yeah, I was there. Best Wilco show I've seen since San Francisco 1997 ("Being There" tour). Jay who? One of the great current bands. Points out how screwed up the music industry is--there is no radio format that would play Wilco. Chris
I'm curious: why do so many people insist on writing "MAC" (all caps), when (1) that stands for "Media Access Control;" and (2) "Mac" is short for "Macintosh"?
When Windows users watch me on OS X (933MHz G4), they often comment that it is fast. The particular instances I recall are opening and displaying a PDF; and LDAP address lookup in Mail.app.
Conversely, I find it painful to watch people using Windows. Some of this may be the operating system; but in general I find Windows users less adept, which slows them down. Part of this may be a more awkward user interface, ESPECIALLY the tendency to push people towards a one-window-at-a-time environment. Very little drag and drop or cross-app integration.
Something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread on Apple buying Emagic is the issue of quality. I was a Vision user for years and it was a good application, but crashed far more frequently than any of my other apps. I cross-graded to Logic last fall and, before I upgraded to OS X (stupidly believing Emagic's claims of the pending OS X release of Logic!), had similar experiences. I expect Apple will try very hard to release a more robust and stable application. (And probably one that conforms more to Mac OS X user interface standards.)
I was a devoted QuarkXPress user from version 1; it was so much better (mostly more stable and better at printing) than PageMaker (then from Aldus), even given early limitations such as the inability to copy and past boxes. But three things happened to make me abandon the application. (1) Poor customer service. I got tired of paying US$25 every time I wanted a simple question answered. And though I was honest enough to buy my own copy for personal use, I felt I was always treated with suspicion. While studying in the UK, I upgraded to System 7.5 and found that my copy of QuarkXPress would no longer work. I called support and they threatened to revoke my license since I was not "authorized" to run on the British system. This struck me as draconian. (2) Exhorbitant upgrade pricing. I could "cross-grade" to InDesign for less than the cost of the upgrade to the latest version of QuarkXPress. Quark is the only company I ever saw that considered a PowerPC version of their software an upgrade in and of itself; so one had to buy a "double upgrade" to PPC and the latest version. As I recall this was over US$600. (3) OS X support. For anyone paying attention, as soon as the details of Carbon became common knowledge the troubles Quark would have porting to OS X should have been obvious. QuarkXPress has always used non-standard controls; even version 4 (not sure about 5) used a faked/hacked System 7 scroll bar appearance even on OS 8/9. It seemed to me that there were so many aspects of the program like this that "carbonizing" it would actually require significant rewriting, unlike most apps that used standard toolbox routines. Unfortunately it looks like the hesitation to go to InDesign is going to be a major drag on moving Apple's installed base in one of its most important markets (pre-press) to OS X. But I'm sure it will happen.