Entourage vs. Apple Mail

[Paul Berkowitz]

Y'know, I don't buy it even at that price; there's nothing in the MS
Office package that I need or want.

You spend quite a proportion of your time being nostalgic for Claris
Emailer, Michelle. As you well know, Entourage (and OE before it) was built
by much of the same team that built Emailer, and to some extent was built on
its heritage, but taken much further. It's only because the company that
hired Jud Spencer, Dan Crevier, and and Dave Cortright (but not you) is
called "Microsoft" that you won't give it the time of day. They're the same
great developers and managers they always were. And so is their product -
only 50 times as good as Emailer ever was. But if you don't need it (without
even trying it), that's OK too. Have fun scripting Mail. You could have a
lot more fun scripting Entourage, which is a proper scriptable app. Even now
that Dan has gone elsewhere.

 

[Michelle Steiner]

Y'know, I don't buy it even at that price; there's nothing in the MS
Office package that I need or want.

You spend quite a proportion of your time being nostalgic for Claris
Emailer, Michelle.[/QUOTE]

Not quite a proportion; just a passing thought every so often.

As you well know, Entourage (and OE before it) was built by much of
the same team that built Emailer, and to some extent was built on its
heritage, but taken much further.

Yup; but frankly, I wouldn't have spend $99 on Emailer either. And the
additional features (e.g., PIM) aren't on my list of features I want or
need.

It's only because the company that hired Jud Spencer, Dan Crevier,
and and Dave Cortright (but not you) is called "Microsoft" that you
won't give it the time of day.

Wrong. If Microsoft made a product I had a use for, and it was superior
to the competition, I'd buy and use it. That's the reason I have a
wireless Intellimouse Explorer and am using the Microsoft driver for it.

Oh, the reason they didn't hire me was that I never applied for the job.
Oh, Dan Crevier was never a Claris employee; he was an independent
contractor, hired to write the Applescript implementation for Emailer,
and was (still is, for all I know) a personal friend of Jud's. Jud is
the one who persuaded him to go to work for Microsoft after Jud went
there--which, by the way, was way before Claris became Filemaker, Inc.,
and dropped Emailer. Jud left after Emailer 2.0 shipped, before we
started to work on 2.1.

But I'm sure that those facts don't mean anything to you.

 

[Michelle Steiner]

Michelle, at this point, I must ask - why are you here?
You seem intent on just inciting people with your jabs and flames.
It's not the place for this - we're all here to help or to get help.

Excuse me? If you think that my saying that I don't have a need for
Microsoft Office is a flame, you have a problem.

And in that one message, you have done more inciting and flaming than I
have. I don't see you helping anyone, so why are you here?

 

[Michelle Steiner]

Michelle, at this point, I must ask - why are you here?

This thread is cross-posted, notice, so "here" is also
comp.sys.mac.comm for this thread. She isn't actually hanging out on
the Entourage group. [/QUOTE]

That's true; and I actually didn't notice that it is being cross posted
until you mentioned it. I'll remove the entourage group from any
further replies.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

Thanks Daiya - I never look at that, and frankly, I hate cross-posting!!!

Well, for a question about the pros and cons of two programs, it makes a lot
of sense to request opinions from two different groups, where people, um,
will likely offer different perspectives.

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

Jud is
the one who persuaded him to go to work for Microsoft after Jud went
there--which, by the way, was way before Claris became Filemaker, Inc.,
and dropped Emailer. Jud left after Emailer 2.0 shipped, before we
started to work on 2.1.

I didn't know that.

But I'm sure that those facts don't mean anything to you.

Actually, they do. Thank you for filling me in. If it's of interest:

After a few years, Jud became tired of administration, and stepped down from
being Development Manager to become a (very senior) developer on Entourage
full-time, no admin responsibilities. The person promoted to Development
Manager of the whole of Microsoft MacBU at Silicon Valley Campus was - Dan
Crevier, who thus became Jud's boss. Dan stayed there for several years,
remaining Entourage's most prolific developer and still AppleScript
implementer, as well as Dev Manager. Over a year ago, Dan left MacBU for
Redmond and the Windows side of Microsoft, where's he's now elevated to
something called a "Software Architect". (He just released some new
technology on Windows code-named "Max": http://www.microsoft.com/max/ .) In
the meantime, Jud is still an (even more) senior developer on Entourage, in
charge of many new developments.

I understand you don't have any need for the PIM side of Entourage, although
I imagine you must use Apple's Address Book if not iCal?

If you don't include the Entourage newsgroup in your reply, I won't see it,
by the way.

 

[Michelle Steiner]

I understand you don't have any need for the PIM side of Entourage,
although I imagine you must use Apple's Address Book if not iCal?

I use the address book; you can't use mail without it because mail
doesn't have an integral address book. I also store phone numbers and a
few street addresses there, and since I do keep the phone numbers there,
I synch them with my cell phone. But if Address Book didn't have the
facilities to store phone numbers, I wouldn't be synching the computer
and address book, and if it didn't have street address fields, I'd be
using something else too--maybe a pen and paper solution. It's a
convenience, is all.

I had the opportunity to work on Claris Organizer after we finished
MacWrite Pro (a year or so before we acquired emailer), but turned it
down because it's not a program that I would have used in my daily life.
I worked on Claris Impact instead, and when that was finished, we were
just getting started on Emailer, and I asked to be put on that team; I
was the second SQA person on the Emailer team.

If you don't include the Entourage newsgroup in your reply, I won't
see it, by the way.

OK, I'll include it in this message, just so you can see it.

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

If you don't include the Entourage newsgroup in your reply, I won't see it,
by the way.

If she has excluded the Entourage newsgroup after looking at the
headers, she will maybe answer in comp.sys.mac.comm since your response
will go there too. But you knew that.

leo

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

During the period when they made Entourage X available as a stand-alone (@
$99), they didn't sell very many - apparently not enough to justify the
separate packaging. (When they sell Word and Excel separately, they charge a
lot more, just $100 less than the full Office price.) If you were at
Macworld SF 2004, they were giving them away free. ;-)

There are so many people who need Word, Excel and/or PowerPoint and get the
whole suite, effectively getting Entourage "for free" that they've reverted
to this format only. I don't think they can justify selling Entourage alone
at a price that makes it economical for them. My understanding is that they
view the Student and Teachers Edition as a sort of "Home Users" edition, but
I guess unless they make that licensing explicit you're sort of stuck. Maybe
they allow "part-time studies" as valid?

Honest resellers will always ask for a copy of a student ID, which I do
not possess.

I have no desire to purchase a software product from a dishonest
reseller.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

 

[Craig Deutsch]

<<Honest resellers will always ask for a copy of a student ID, which I do
not possess.>>

That I find an interesting statement, Donald. What you've directly implied
is that neither Apple nor amazon.com are honest resellers; neither asks for
verification of student status.

I'm more inclined to think that Microsoft has, either through an act of
commission or (more likely that case) one of commission, somehow blessed
these transactions in the interest of market share. They simply must know
what's going on; after all, hundreds or even thousands of copies of Educator
Office didn't just fall off a truck full of stolen goods and land in
amazon's or Apple's warehouses.

Further, and from a marketing perspective, the marginal revenue of an
additional user at $149 is certainly better than losing a customer to an
uncomfortably high price tag of, say, $399. And if even half of those users
grow to love the product, buy upgrades and even recommend the product to
other Mac users, MS stands to lose nothing.

It's a volume game, and MS is, I'd bet, hedging that it can win over the
minds of users, particularly those who otherwise wouldn't have considered
the product.

While I don't work for the Mac BU, I'd have to assume that some of the
strategy lies with some market research that show a certain (healthy)
percentage of Mac purchasers work in environments where Windows (and thus
almost assuredly MS Office) prevail. If that new Mac purchaser is used to
working on the PC and Office, it's not a big hurdle to sell the advantages
of Office on the Mac. However, because the Mac is likely a home PC, the
standard price tag of some $400 is not in most purchasers' budgets: Perhaps
another reason for the student discount strategy.

At the end of the day, it's about market share and accurately calculating
the average customer's propensity to buy a product. If Apple's market share
is growing, even marginally, why wouldn't Microsoft want a good piece of it?

 

[Boettcher, Scott]

I didn't realize that this newsgroup was here for people to come and tell
everyone (over and over) how much they don't like/need/use a product?

You seem very bitter, Michelle. Just an observation.

Actually, I'm here to answer the occasional question that I might have an
answer for, but more importantly, to find answers to questions and problems
I'm having with my clients.

Have a great day.

SB

 

[Mike Rosenberg]

I didn't realize that this newsgroup was here for people to come and tell
everyone (over and over) how much they don't like/need/use a product?

It's already been pointed out this this thread is crossposted to
microsoft.public.mac.office.entourage and comp.sys.mac.comm, and
Michelle is reading it in the latter group, as am I.

 

[Michelle Steiner]

I didn't realize that this newsgroup was here for people to come and
tell everyone (over and over) how much they don't like/need/use a
product?

Haven't you figured out yet that there's more than one newsgroup
involved? And how do you define "over and over"?

You seem very bitter, Michelle. Just an observation.

No, a projection, not an observation.

(comp.sys.mac.comm removed from followups; I don't need to hear any more
from you)

 

[Boettcher, Scott]

Haven't you figured out yet that there's more than one newsgroup
involved? And how do you define "over and over"?

Yeah, Michelle - about four posts ago...

No, a projection, not an observation.

No, really, an observation.

(comp.sys.mac.comm removed from followups; I don't need to hear any more
from you)

Bless you.

SB

 

[Scott Wilkie]

Let's not forget the powerful feature in Entourage, where it can randomly
and indiscriminately place your events and invitations into TWO separate
calendars, but then allows no way for you to view them together or keep them
in sync! Most disturbingly, a Microsoft employee actually stated out loud,
in writing, on this forum... that it never occurred to anyone on their
project management team that somebody would need to see both calendars at
the same time. Staggeringly simple-minded. This has caused untold grief at
our company since the SP2 update.

If I weren't forced to use Entourage because of my company's exchange
server, I'd run from it as from a burning building.

Michelle, if you have the choice, use Apple Mail. It worked flawlessly on my
system for 2 years, and it integrates perfectly with iCal and Pages.
Entourage's single GIANT database file that can't be searched and is saved
in a Microsoft proprietary format does not justify the (minimal) benefits
described below.

sw

 

[Mike Rosenberg]

Honest resellers will always ask for a copy of a student ID, which I do
not possess.

_NO_ vendor, as far as I know, ever asks for a student ID when someone
buys the student and teacher edition of MS Office. I know people who
have purchased this edition from several Apple Stores, several CompUSA
locations, Amazon.com, MacMall, and others. Not one has requested ID.
There's no indication whatsoever that Microsoft requires a valid ID.

 

[Nathan Herring [MSFT]]

Let's not forget the powerful feature in Entourage, where it can randomly
and indiscriminately place your events and invitations into TWO separate
calendars, but then allows no way for you to view them together or keep them
in sync! Most disturbingly, a Microsoft employee actually stated out loud,
in writing, on this forum... that it never occurred to anyone on their
project management team that somebody would need to see both calendars at
the same time. Staggeringly simple-minded. This has caused untold grief at
our company since the SP2 update.

Scott, if it's my post to which you're referring, you're misquoting me. I
said that I had never expected that someone using an Exchange account would
only want to use the local calendar.

I do not remember seeing anyone saying "that it never occurred to anyone on
their project management team that somebody would need to see both calendars
at the same time". It is quite the contrary. On the other hand, we needed to
get the enabling functionality built first (i.e., existance of multiple
calendars) before we could tackle some of the display issues.

If you are referring to another post, could you please provide references?
Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would stop maligning us for
something we never said.

If I weren't forced to use Entourage because of my company's exchange
server, I'd run from it as from a burning building.

Michelle, if you have the choice, use Apple Mail. It worked flawlessly on my
system for 2 years, and it integrates perfectly with iCal and Pages.
Entourage's single GIANT database file that can't be searched and is saved
in a Microsoft proprietary format does not justify the (minimal) benefits
described below.

I don't understand the "can't be searched" comment. Entourage provides both
a simple and advanced Find functionality that lets you search entire
identities.

-nh

 

[Scott Wilkie]

OK Nathan, then let's use your exact words:

I have to say that the desire to do that was new to me (at least with
regards to people using an Exchange account), but I am not on the program
management staff.

Not asking you to speak for the program management staff, just your honest
opinion: You don't find it completely embarrassing that NOBODY there would
expect that a user might want to use only the local calendar?!? Or at least
want a single comprehensive calendar view (list views don't count, as
they're basically useless for "looking" at a calendar). ESPECIALLY with
SP2's erratic placement of events into either calendar, and not correctly
updating invitations or modifications to events? I can name 30 people in my
company alone that have this problem.

On my personal machine, I've traced this back to an issue where, prior to
the SP2 "update," I had events in a certain category sync'd with Exchange.
Now, since the update, I have NO WAY of rescinding this; those events (that
used to reside in my Local calendar) are now forced into the Online
calendar. More infuriating, if those events are moved to the local calendar,
any updates received will create new events in the wrong calendar.

Sorry Nathan, you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that this glaring
issue is a minor, excusable oversight.

This, on the other hand, is something we're aware of. We did, however, need
to get the enabling technology out the door to support our Exchange
customers, so it's one step at a time.

OK, again... I want to make sure that I'm understanding your exact words
correctly:

So it's OK to radically change the way the program works, adding an
additional calendar without notifying users of the irrevocable change in
operation once the database is converted? And the programmers were actually
AWARE that there would be no way to view all events at one time, but it was
more important to enable Exchange technology and make people use separate
calendars until they can fix the viewing problem?

OK Team, we've got the engine and the gas pedal working great! Let's get
that "out the door" to our customers, then we'll get right to work on
perfecting a brake pedal for the next update. You know... one step at a
time.


And in regard to the database being unsearchable... sorry, I misspoke. I
meant to tell Michelle that it is unsearchable using Apple's integrated
Spotlight Search Engine, that has been hailed in reviews as revolutionary,
and is able to search EVERY other file on my computer. So Michelle, if
you're still listening... the Entourage database is completely searchable...
as long as you don't want the search results to relate to any other files on
your computer. Hope that clears it up.


In closing, let me state that it is not my intent to flame about this.
However Nathan, you seem focused on defending Microsoft's indefensible
position with these multiple calendars that were forced on users with no
warning. This has basically screwed a few dozen people at my company, and
until your program management team resolves it, we spend wasted time every
day manually resolving conflicts between our new "bonus" calendar installed
by the SP2 Update. It has resulted in missed appointments, double-booked
group meetings, etc, etc. Aggravating, and never a problem before the SP2
update.

Until it's resolved, consider yourself _self-maligned_. Your own words do
more damage than I ever intended to do. I just came here looking for
answers, and a simple acknowledgement that "we know it's a mistake and we're
working hard to fix it as quickly as possible" would have gone a long way
toward that cause.

sw

 

[Nathan Herring [MSFT]]

We know that these are issues and we're working on addressing them.

Specifically:
* The calendar/contact split was not adequately advertised in ReadMe or ORK
was a bug.
* That if you had calendar/contact synching by Category didn't split the
calendar accordingly on upgrade is a bug.
* There are some ease-of use issues when you're trying to use a Calendar not
associated with your account (e.g., the local Calendar when receiving
Exchange-based invitations and updates).
* That there is no unified Calendar view.

I've written some comments inline.

-nh

OK Nathan, then let's use your exact words:


Not asking you to speak for the program management staff, just your honest
opinion: You don't find it completely embarrassing that NOBODY there would
expect that a user might want to use only the local calendar?!? Or at least
want a single comprehensive calendar view (list views don't count, as
they're basically useless for "looking" at a calendar). ESPECIALLY with
SP2's erratic placement of events into either calendar, and not correctly
updating invitations or modifications to events? I can name 30 people in my
company alone that have this problem.

I do not believe that "nobody here would expect that the user might want to
use only the local calendar", so it's hard for me to find that non-existant
state "completely embarrassing". I just did not personally expect that
people would want to use the local calendar for Exchange-based invitations.
Exchange has a permanent Calendar folder for such events, and to use a
different folder breaks the Exchange paradigm. That isn't to say it isn't
worthwhile, but we'd have to _add_ customizability.

As for "erratic placement of events", it should be deterministic.
* If the invitation came in from Exchange-mail, it'll go onto the Exchange
calendar.
* If it was just created, then if the current account is an Exchange
account, it'll go onto that Exchange account's calendar, and otherwise onto
the default mail account's calendar (which is either Exchange or the local
calendar for non-Exchange accounts)
* If it was opened from an .ics or .vcs file, it should go onto the default
mail account's calendar.
If it is not doing that, it's probably a bug. If you think that the design
is "erratic", was there some alternate design that wouldn't require extra
custom settings (like a per-Account setting of "Use this calendar")? Custom
settings didn't make it into the schedule.

It's pretty obvious that one might want a single comprehensive calendar
view; it just didn't make the schedule.

On my personal machine, I've traced this back to an issue where, prior to
the SP2 "update," I had events in a certain category sync'd with Exchange.
Now, since the update, I have NO WAY of rescinding this; those events (that
used to reside in my Local calendar) are now forced into the Online
calendar. More infuriating, if those events are moved to the local calendar,
any updates received will create new events in the wrong calendar.

The category synch issue is clearly a bug.

Do you receive updates to that event on your Exchange e-mail? Or elsewhere?
In the case of the former, per above, we'd expect the event to live in your
Exchange calendar. In the latter, we should be looking at your default mail
account, and if it's Exchange, using that calendar. If it's not working
according to that logic, it's a bug.

Sorry Nathan, you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that this glaring
issue is a minor, excusable oversight.



OK, again... I want to make sure that I'm understanding your exact words
correctly:

So it's OK to radically change the way the program works, adding an
additional calendar without notifying users of the irrevocable change in
operation once the database is converted? And the programmers were actually
AWARE that there would be no way to view all events at one time, but it was
more important to enable Exchange technology and make people use separate
calendars until they can fix the viewing problem?

Largely correct. Lack of notification was bad form. Database upgrades have
always been (and probably will always be) irrevocable, so there's nothing
new there -- back up your data before upgrading! You can view all of your
events using a custom view, but since that's in table format rather than
calendar format, it's not quite the same.

OK Team, we've got the engine and the gas pedal working great! Let's get
that "out the door" to our customers, then we'll get right to work on
perfecting a brake pedal for the next update. You know... one step at a
time.

I do not understand how you can consider this to be a reasonable analogy. I
don't worry about Entourage hopping the curb and killing pedestrians.
Furthermore, the event add/update problem only affects an incredibly small
section of Exchange customers: Exchange users who don't use their Exchange
calendar or wish to use their Exchange calendar for non-Exchange accounts.
Even multiple calendar users can switch back and forth between calendars to
view events. It's not a showstopper for either subset of users, whereas not
having a brake pedal is a showstopper for every driver.

And in regard to the database being unsearchable... sorry, I misspoke. I
meant to tell Michelle that it is unsearchable using Apple's integrated
Spotlight Search Engine, that has been hailed in reviews as revolutionary,
and is able to search EVERY other file on my computer. So Michelle, if
you're still listening... the Entourage database is completely searchable...
as long as you don't want the search results to relate to any other files on
your computer. Hope that clears it up.

Spotlight support is in the works. Support for it and other new-to-Tiger
technologies were announced at MacWorld 2005, though they have been delayed
due to some interoperability concerns.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jan05/01-11Macworld2005PR.mspx

In closing, let me state that it is not my intent to flame about this.
However Nathan, you seem focused on defending Microsoft's indefensible
position with these multiple calendars that were forced on users with no
warning. This has basically screwed a few dozen people at my company, and
until your program management team resolves it, we spend wasted time every
day manually resolving conflicts between our new "bonus" calendar installed
by the SP2 Update. It has resulted in missed appointments, double-booked
group meetings, etc, etc. Aggravating, and never a problem before the SP2
update.

Could you explain this a little more; we'd like to understand the scenario a
little better so that we know we're really addressing your problems:

* How do group meetings get double-booked? If you're talking about resources
(rooms, a/v equipment) using the auto-accept and auto-decline agents on
Exchange, it shouldn't matter what calendar is being used in Entourage. Are
you talking about invitee's free time not being reported correctly due to
events on their local calendar?

* How do appointments get missed? Entourage should alert you for
appointments for both the local and Exchange calendar.

* What are the conflicts you are seeing? Are users accepting events for
which they are not free, because there's another event accepted on a
different calendar? Something else?

Until it's resolved, consider yourself _self-maligned_. Your own words do
more damage than I ever intended to do. I just came here looking for
answers, and a simple acknowledgement that "we know it's a mistake and we're
working hard to fix it as quickly as possible" would have gone a long way
toward that cause.

sw

Personally, I think explaining what is going on is an honorable thing, so I
don't feel like I've maligned myself at all. The bugs I've mentioned are
mistakes, but the design choices we made involved tradeoffs. These tradeoffs
aren't always easy to evaluate, even after the decision was made, the work
completed, and the product shipped. I'm still pretty sure that the design
was not a mistake, even if it had negative consequences for some users -- by
far, more people were helped.

That said, let me reiterate what I said at the top: We know that these are
issues and we're working on addressing them.

 

[mmmmark]

Unfortunately, Microsoft does not publish that agreement anywhere online for
would-be buyers to read and understand BEFORE they buy. While that does not
make it ok to break an agreement, it doesn't quite seem like good informed
consent and good business practices.

-Mark