exchange minimum requirements...

D

david toub

I suspect that most of us who are having problems with the calendar
and contacts functionality after the Office 10.1.4 update are in
environments that use versions of Exchange earlier than (the minimum)
Exchange 2000 SP3. I believe (pending confirmation from my sysadmin)
that we're running 5.5 SP4. In a previous job, i think we used a more
recent version and with previous releases of Entourage, I at least
could accept/decline a meeting request, something I can't do now in a
different place of employment.

Has anyone gotten the calendar and contacts stuff to work with
Exchange 2000 SP3 and later? I don't quite understand why this is a
minimum requirement, when the classic version of Outlook (2001 and
earlier) worked fine with older versions of Exchange. Shame this was
not highlighted by MS-I think everyone was expecting things to worrk
reasonably well after this update and, while most are no worse off
than before, for many companies running 5.5 SP4, they are no better
either.

The fact is that a lot of firms run older versions of Exchange-they
are NOT going to upgrade just to please Mac users in many cases. Quite
a shame-almost as if MS figured this release might spur upgrades to
the latest version of Exchange. I hope that is not the case, but it
makes one wonder...
 
P

Paul Berkowitz

Has anyone gotten the calendar and contacts stuff to work with
Exchange 2000 SP3 and later? I don't quite understand why this is a
minimum requirement, when the classic version of Outlook (2001 and
earlier) worked fine with older versions of Exchange.
Click to expand...

What would that have to do with it? Outlook 2001 is a port of Outlook 2000
Windows, more or less. Entourage is Entourage, a completely different
Mac-only application. All the Exchange functionality had to be built from
scratch, as quickly as possible for those demanding an OS X native solution.
Shame this was
not highlighted by MS-I think everyone was expecting things to worrk
reasonably well after this update and, while most are no worse off
than before, for many companies running 5.5 SP4, they are no better
either.

The fact is that a lot of firms run older versions of Exchange-they
are NOT going to upgrade just to please Mac users in many cases. Quite
a shame-almost as if MS figured this release might spur upgrades to
the latest version of Exchange. I hope that is not the case, but it
makes one wonder...
Click to expand...

I imagine it could have been a factor: they're a business. Balance that
against the possibility that to make Entourage work with Exchange 5.5 as
well as 2000+ might have taken several more months' work. Instead, they can
now start work on adding a lot more of the desired Exchange functionality
into the next version of Office Mac.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP Entourage
Entourage FAQ Page: http://www.entourage.mvps.org/toc.html

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Entourage you are using - 2001 or X.
It's often impossible to answer your questions otherwise.
 
S

Shawn Veillon

What would that have to do with it? Outlook 2001 is a port of Outlook 2000
Windows, more or less. Entourage is Entourage, a completely different
Mac-only application. All the Exchange functionality had to be built from
scratch, as quickly as possible for those demanding an OS X native solution.


I imagine it could have been a factor: they're a business. Balance that
against the possibility that to make Entourage work with Exchange 5.5 as
well as 2000+ might have taken several more months' work. Instead, they can
now start work on adding a lot more of the desired Exchange functionality
into the next version of Office Mac.
Click to expand...

I don't know why a Mac user would question leaving behind legacy
applications, even server versions. After all, it was Apple who tossed the
floppy drive. Soon, it will also lay waste "classic". Also, like Apple in
this way, Microsoft wanted to get us a "working" (not yet for me) version of
an Exchange client that was native to OS X. It is a first step, not the end
of the project. Apple didn't want to wait until OS X was perfect either,
which is why they left Classic in. All that said, I too am rather
disappointed in this release. Seems I've waited a long time for it, and
when it arrives, it doesn't allow our company to do away with Outlook 2001.
As many people have posted here, Public Folders are very important, and even
something Microsoft pushes as invaluable. Personally, I'm still trying to
get the thing to talk to our Exch2K SP3 server. This surprises me too.
 
Top