Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7

[whitefang]

I should say I still really like Exchange, a crippled OWA in browsers other than IE is really a minor niggle. It's pretty solid, very configurable, and generally coupled with an Outlook client causes few support issues.

The whole point of the "web access" interface of Outlook is to allow people from mobile environments to access their mail (such as telework). It's not a replacement for the Outlook client.

Again, jav has no idea what his talking about. His not a "corporate" person therefore his responses are nothing more than pro-linux crap.

 

[edesignuk]

The whole point of the "web access" interface of Outlook is to allow people from mobile environments to access their mail (such as telework). It's not a replacement for the Outlook client.

Thank you, I do realise that.

You stated earlier that OWA under Firefox is no different than under IE.

2) I'm using Firefox to access Outlook Web and I didn't find any crippled features. Infact, I can't tell the difference between IE and Firefox. Do tell us what features are crippled in Firefox?

This is simply not the case.

 

[jav6454]

Doesn't the university have a confidential policy where you cannot forward intranet email to external sources? And your staff is inept if they can't configure Exchange to allow external clients. But then again, this is no Harvard.

Again I ask, what are the features that are missing from Outlook that is causing an uproar? The only thing missing from Firefox is the WYSIWYG editor and everything else is included. And from a corporate standpoint, a WYSIWYG is hardly useful when you're in a mobile/field environment.

Try engineering field work and research professors. You cannot judge an university based on popularity. That is simply ignorant comment.

The network is secure enough. All you need is go directly to IT to request your email to be forwarded. Again no need for insults.

 

[dejo]

Again, you never worked in a corporate environment nor do you know the industry standards or able to give an opinion to the related area. Therefore, your claims are invalid. Exchange has no competition at the moment.

And you're so knowledgeable about Exchange how? Hmm, let me quote you from another thread you posted in:

2. I'm not that familiar with the inner workings of Exchange but several IT directors and Technical Engineers have repeatedly said "Exchange is better than the competition".

I rest my case.

 

[whitefang]

Try engineering field work and research professors. You cannot judge an university based on popularity. That is simply ignorant comment.

The network is secure enough. All you need is go directly to IT to request your email to be forwarded. Again no need for insults.

So you are saying University of New Orleans is better than or at least on level with Harvard?

The network maybe secure, but gmail and the gmail account may not and forwarding internal emails to an outside provider is a big security risk. Your IT staff should realize this like 99% of the corporate environments out there. But this is expected as it is no Harvard.

 

[whitefang]

And you're so knowledgeable about Exchange how? Hmm, let me quote you from another thread you posted in:

I rest my case.

I never said I was knowledgeable about Exchange as in the internal workings and configurations. But I know many System engineers and directors who recommended it (they know their stuff). I use Outlook, Thunderbird, and Apple Mail. Outlook is superior to both those other apps.

 

[dejo]

I never said I was knowledgeable about Exchange as in the internal workings and configurations.

And yet you claim that that other poster's staff "is inept if they can't configure Exchange to allow external clients". Interesting.

 

[whitefang]

And yet you claim that that other poster's staff "is inept if they can't configure Exchange to allow external clients". Interesting.

I know how to configure something as SIMPLE as allowing other mail clients to connect. The poster's staff obviously doesn't.

 

[stainlessliquid]

Its WAY too early to even be comparing them, right now Snow Leopard sounds like a performance service pack with a new version of Quicktime that should have come out years ago.

Theyll likely add atleast something new other than a new media player if they expect people to upgrade, "marble" might be a nice change in look and functionality or it might be a dud.

 

[polaris20]

Ugh. Haven't used IE in so long that I didn't remember the difference between OWA in IE and OWA in others. OWA in FF is downright hideous in comparison, and there is a definite difference in functionality.

Still gets the job done though, for when I actually need it, which is next to nothing. Generally if I'm not on my computer, I'm responding via Blackberry or iPod Touch, both of which are fine for e-mails.

I would be ticked if that was my sole choice of computer interface though.

 

[whitefang]

Ugh. Haven't used IE in so long that I didn't remember the difference between OWA in IE and OWA in others. OWA in FF is downright hideous in comparison, and there is a definite difference in functionality.

Still gets the job done though, for when I actually need it, which is next to nothing. Generally if I'm not on my computer, I'm responding via Blackberry or iPod Touch, both of which are fine for e-mails.

I would be ticked if that was my sole choice of computer interface though.

What is the definite difference in functionality? Do tell us.

 

[polaris20]

What is the definite difference in functionality? Do tell us.

Lack of formatting ability in FF, which in other mail server products is available in all browsers, such as Zimbra.

Also, see:
http://www.tech-faq.com/understanding-outlook-web-access-client.shtml

Which covers the differences in detail. Granted that is 2003, which we're still currently on.

The problem with MS is that it limits its usefulness in some circumstances by making the user use strictly IE. Another example is in Server 2008 with Terminal Services. The web access to it works very well, but only with IE, which leaves out Linux clients wishing to access MS Office apps over a web connection.

They can of course still access it via regular RDP, but it lacks the elegant nature of the published app over IIS, because it's an entire desktop; not just the app window.

 

[jav6454]

So you are saying University of New Orleans is better than or at least on level with Harvard?

The network maybe secure, but gmail and the gmail account may not and forwarding internal emails to an outside provider is a big security risk. Your IT staff should realize this like 99% of the corporate environments out there. But this is expected as it is no Harvard.

Now you are making no sense. Comparing to different universities just because of an Exchange issue is troll like behavior. Especially if said universities have nothing in common. For your argument to make sense, compare Harvard to Yale or Stanford.

It is true my university is no Harvard, and I have never minded that fact. As far as forwarding, UCC rules are students only (as we are the ones complaining). So, internal emails, for us? How important can does get? University Public relations? Student Council voting? Really important emails (like registration or Bursar) are only accessed via the OWA.

Also, like I said, no need to insult our IT staff when you yourself have admitted not being knowledgeable on Exchange.


Edit - Seems that you have the same views as another user called mosx

 

[whitefang]

Lack of formatting ability in FF, which in other mail server products is available in all browsers, such as Zimbra.

Also, see:
http://www.tech-faq.com/understanding-outlook-web-access-client.shtml

Which covers the differences in detail. Granted that is 2003, which we're still currently on.

The problem with MS is that it limits its usefulness in some circumstances by making the user use strictly IE. Another example is in Server 2008 with Terminal Services. The web access to it works very well, but only with IE, which leaves out Linux clients wishing to access MS Office apps over a web connection.

They can of course still access it via regular RDP, but it lacks the elegant nature of the published app over IIS, because it's an entire desktop; not just the app window.

Zimbra is a DESKTOP product, not a web-application. Also, OWA is a complement to the Outlook desktop product, it is NOT a replacement. It is also intended for mobile environments (OWA) and the formatting you mentioned is done by the WYSIWYG editor. It's a corporate product and corporate products don't need WYSIWYG in a mobile environment. You're using it for the wrong purpose.

Also, why would Office be installed on a Server version of Windows??!?!?!? And why would Linux clients need to access Server 2008?!?!?!? In a corporate environment, what you are talking about makes no sense.

 

[polaris20]

Zimbra is a DESKTOP product, not a web-application.

You're incorrect again. Zimbra is available as a desktop client, similar to Outlook, but the Zimbra server is accessible via a web browser as well.

http://www.zimbra.com/products/

Please look on the left column, you'll see that the web client is most definitely there.

Also, OWA is a complement to the Outlook desktop product, it is NOT a replacement. It is also intended for mobile environments (OWA) and the formatting you mentioned is done by the WYSIWYG editor. It's a corporate product and corporate products don't need WYSIWYG in a mobile environment. You're using it for the wrong purpose.

Then why did MS include such formatting in the premium client, if it's the "wrong purpose"? All those people that like to log in from hotels and make use of the formatting are using it wrong? hehe okay.

Also, why would Office be installed on a Server version of Windows??!?!?!? And why would Linux clients need to access Server 2008?!?!?!? In a corporate environment, what you are talking about makes no sense.

I'm afraid you have a major lack of understanding of MS's server products. You work in a corporate environment, and according to you are technologically inclined, yet you've never heard of Terminal Services? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_services
http://www.microsoft.com/Windowsserver2008/en/us/ts-product-home.aspx

You might want to read up on that a little before commenting on the need for it.

Ever heard of a thin client accessing Citrix (which rides on Terminal Services)? What do you think the thin client is running? Often Linux.

Why would a Linux user needing Office 2007 but otherwise running all their engineering apps in Linux need Server 2008 for? Because they can use Office 2007 by RDPing into the Server 2008 Terminal Server to maintain continuity throughout the rest of the enterprise while not needing a separate Windows box sitting under their desk.

Let me know if any of that is above your head.

 

[whitefang]

Outlook web version is written for IE but it works in Firefox and other browsers, you just don't get formatting, not a big deal. If you wanted formatting, you'd just install the client.

If you stop being inept, you'd realize that all versions of Windows starting from XP supports RDP protocol. Secondly, the person that installs Office on a Server version of windows is incompetent. Thirdly, if you used Linux primarily, why the hell are you using Office?? Why don't you use an open source document format? Go away, troll.

 

[polaris20]

If you stop being inept, you'd realize that all versions of Windows starting from XP supports RDP protocol. Secondly, the person that installs Office on a Server version of windows is incompetent. Thirdly, if you used Linux primarily, why the hell are you using Office?? Why don't you use an open source document format? Go away, troll.

Again, read the links I provided, to explain TS, which you clearly have no understanding of.

Surely you've heard of Citrix? Access Office (or any Windows app you choose to publish) via web or Citrix ICA Client? The latter of which is available on Windows, Linux, and OS X.

You don't really think that runs on an XP install, do you? XP only allows 5 simultaneous connections....a little bit of a problem in a corporate environment.

And I'm afraid you've got a little reading comprehension problem, I never said our entire environment uses Linux, rather certain departments.

 

[whitefang]

Yeah, I didn't know Starbucks ran Linux servers.

 

[jav6454]

Outlook web version is written for IE but it works in Firefox and other browsers, you just don't get formatting, not a big deal. If you wanted formatting, you'd just install the client.

If you stop being inept, you'd realize that all versions of Windows starting from XP supports RDP protocol. Secondly, the person that installs Office on a Server version of windows is incompetent. Thirdly, if you used Linux primarily, why the hell are you using Office?? Why don't you use an open source document format? Go away, troll.

Calling people inept doesn't help your cause also.

 

[polaris20]

Yeah, I didn't know Starbucks ran Linux servers.

And with that you've shown your true colors. If you seriously want to discuss Microsoft technologies, let me know. I have several years experience with many of their products, in addition to Citrix, VMWare, and various Linux distros. If however you'd rather give childish responses such as this, then by all means, post away. You're only admitting your lack of understanding of the subjects while looking immature at the same time.

 

[xUKHCx]

Thread closed due to trolling.