Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Different Perspective On Snow Leopard's Exchange Support

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the your-jeans-are-100pct-patches dept.

Communications 276

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.'"

cancel ×

276 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gentoo?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327565)

I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?

My new mac (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327643)

My dad just got me a mac for my freshman year of college. I am used to linux, but this machine has a system directory called gprn/. Any idea what that is?

Re:My new mac (3, Funny)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328517)

GNU Porn?

Re:Gentoo?? (4, Funny)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327649)

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

If this is his experience level . . . (2, Insightful)

1alpha7 (192745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327601)

"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 . . . (0, Flamebait)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328205)

Partially, yes since he has a mac.

HELP! Multiple Bootcamp Partitions? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328233)

Does anyone know how to create 2 bootcamp partitions: 1 for Windows XP and 1 for Windows Vista?

I want to set up my Mac so that I can boot 1 of 3 OSes: MacOS, Windows XP, and Windows Vista. My Mac has only 1 hard drive.

Thanks, in advance. I know that I am off topic, but I cannot find the answer to my question anywhere on the Internet.

Re:HELP! Multiple Bootcamp Partitions? (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328369)

Boot them all at the same time with vmware.

Re:HELP! Multiple Bootcamp Partitions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328407)

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?

Re:If this is his experience level . . . (1, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328331)

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

Re:If this is his experience level . . . (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328359)

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

"dumb down?" (0, Flamebait)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327611)

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?" (5, Funny)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327647)

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?" (2)

HazMat 79 (1481233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327799)

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?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327833)

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?" (1, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328011)

"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?" (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328433)

127.0.0.1

Have fun and don't hold back.

Re:"dumb down?" (2, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327683)

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?" (1, Insightful)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327867)

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?" (4, Informative)

kickme_hax0r (968593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327927)

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

Re:"dumb down?" (3, Informative)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327931)

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?" (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328137)

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?" (0)

c_forq (924234) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327939)

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?" (1)

i'm lost (1247580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327945)

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

Re:"dumb down?" (4, Funny)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328075)

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?" (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328013)

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?" (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328053)

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?" (1)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328323)

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?" (1)

stei7766 (1359091) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328557)

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?" (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328345)

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?" (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327733)

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.

Fixed and soon to be fixed. (2, Interesting)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328483)

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:"dumb down?" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327857)

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?" (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327873)

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.)

Apple is already familiar with the other side... (3, Interesting)

Cordath (581672) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328123)

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.

Re:Apple is already familiar with the other side.. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328189)

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:"dumb down?" (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328163)

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.

Exchange it for a real MTA (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328593)

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:"dumb down?" (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327917)

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

Re:"dumb down?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328153)

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?" (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328531)

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

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

How does this *free* Mac users? (4, Insightful)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327615)

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? (4, Insightful)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327639)

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? (3, Insightful)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327755)

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? (3, Informative)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327961)

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? (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328425)

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? (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328027)

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? (5, Informative)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327669)

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 [wikipedia.org] ).

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

Apple is not donig "Exchange". (2, Funny)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327865)

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". (5, Interesting)

chihowa (366380) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327955)

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". (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328091)

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". (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328143)

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". (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328403)

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:How does this *free* Mac users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328365)

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 [wikipedia.org] ).

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? (3, Insightful)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327741)

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? (2, Interesting)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327905)

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? (2, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328089)

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? (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328501)

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? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328631)

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? (0, Troll)

gilbert644 (1515625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327901)

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? (1)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328161)

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? (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328439)

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? (1)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328587)

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? (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328395)

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? (1)

good soldier svejk (571730) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328493)

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? (1)

angelbunny (1501333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328519)

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? (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328561)

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.

One thing that's incorrect (5, Informative)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327635)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328305)

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.

pointless bs article (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327659)

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

Many times (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327697)

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.

And the other office formats (0, Troll)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327781)

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.

Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses (2, Interesting)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327745)

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 (1)

BobReturns (1424847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327831)

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

Re:Microsoft is the big winner here, RIM loses (3, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327993)

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 (3, Insightful)

SaDan (81097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328339)

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 (3, Interesting)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328005)

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 (1)

SaDan (81097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328349)

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 (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328467)

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.

Fix SMB first (2, Funny)

onlyjoking (536550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327753)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29327785)

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 (4, Interesting)

mortonda (5175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328077)

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 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328411)

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 [colostate.edu] . One of the few good things about Vista is that Microsoft finally changed the default to require the use NTLMv2.

Re:Fix SMB first (1)

good soldier svejk (571730) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328577)

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

RoughlyDrafted cut'n'paste article (-1, Troll)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29327803)

Daniel Eran Dilger noted on roughlydrafted.com that the newly released Apple [INSERT GADGET NAME HERE] would need to be fueled on pain, angst, the destruction of the ecology, the torture of kittens and the tears of widows and orphans, plus Apple Store employees roaming the streets raping children -- but put together a devastatingly convincing and very lengthy explanation as to why Apple's actions were the only humanly acceptable option for the consumer, the technology industry and the future of humanity, that Jobs' Nobel Peace Prize was ridiculously overdue and that black was in fact white and up was in fact down. And that all problems were clearly Microsoft's fault.

Illustration: Apple iButtPlug [today.com] .

Windows Enthusiasts? (2, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328041)

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? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328347)

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 [winsupersite.com] . It's super!

Can Apple do their own MSTSC next? (3, Insightful)

weave (48069) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328057)

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? (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328147)

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? (1)

weave (48069) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328251)

Nope. [microsoft.com]

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? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328179)

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? (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328375)

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 [microsoft.com]

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

Why has this taken so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328061)

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? (1)

SaDan (81097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328373)

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.

FOSS fans can be strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29328073)

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 (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328311)

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.

Microsoft just got 1-Uped (5, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328155)

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 (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328193)

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 (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328271)

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.

regarding your sig (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29328591)

both, but only if you're a quantum computer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>