C
Craig Deutsch
One of Outlook's really handy features includes the ability to insert a
hyperlink as well as create an alias for it such that the recipient might,
for example, see "Click here" when in fact the actual hyperlink might read,
for example, "http://www.mywebsite.com". The benefits are obvious,
particularly when the referenced URL is really, really long.
Another key feature lies in the ability to insert a picture, a movie clip or
even a sound. All of these features come from a drop-down menu called
"Insert" in the Outlook product, and they work beautifully.
When I was working in Corporate America I found these "Insert" command
features quite handy, and I used them often. However, Entourage lacks them
entirely. Its "Link" command makes accessible only other Entourage-based
contacts, emails and calendar events. While indeed useful at times, they
are not nearly as handy as the features I mention above.
So my question: The Outlook version contains these features, and I assume
that as a business tool for the Mac, Mac users would also welcome such
features in Entourage. Why then hasn't Microsoft included them?
I'm no programmer, and obviously I'm not in Microsoft's Mac BU Marketing
department -- but I have a hard time believing that this was simply
overlooked. My (somewhat cynical) suspicion is that Microsoft executives
from both the Windows and Mac BU sides of the house did a lot of negotiating
when it came to what the Mac BU would be allowed to include in its Office
Mac suite. And my further suspicion is that certain key and handy features
were in fact not allowed to be included in programs like Entourage so as to
sufficiently differentiate the brand and feature sets of the two platforms.
If that is in any way true, then I think it's too bad. The Macintosh user
is not likely one to switch to Windows unless forced, e.g., he has to use it
in an corporate environment. Similarly, those using Macs in office
environments aren't as likely to choose Windows for their home PCs. Why,
then, wouldn't Microsoft be interested in making the Office products
virtually identical so that users would have no question about which
cross-platform package to buy?
Am I missing something or showing my ignorance of a key market factor? The
markets for the two platforms are in many big ways mutually *ex*clusive.
Why not then make the product mutually *in*clusive?
At the end of the day, I have no plans to give up my Mac; it does too many
things very well, and OS X and the hardware are quite reliable. But I will
admit that the Windows Outlook product, particularly in an Exchange
environment, still beats Entourage by some margin. IMO, Microsoft's Mac BU
has a lot of work yet to do with Entourage, not the least of which is major,
annoying bug fixes.
With regard to Mac market share, Microsoft is only interested in it to the
extent that it can sell Office 2004 and other Mac-compatible products. Do
they simply not see that the sooner the two products are almost identical,
the better off both platforms will be?
Craig Deutsch
San Diego
hyperlink as well as create an alias for it such that the recipient might,
for example, see "Click here" when in fact the actual hyperlink might read,
for example, "http://www.mywebsite.com". The benefits are obvious,
particularly when the referenced URL is really, really long.
Another key feature lies in the ability to insert a picture, a movie clip or
even a sound. All of these features come from a drop-down menu called
"Insert" in the Outlook product, and they work beautifully.
When I was working in Corporate America I found these "Insert" command
features quite handy, and I used them often. However, Entourage lacks them
entirely. Its "Link" command makes accessible only other Entourage-based
contacts, emails and calendar events. While indeed useful at times, they
are not nearly as handy as the features I mention above.
So my question: The Outlook version contains these features, and I assume
that as a business tool for the Mac, Mac users would also welcome such
features in Entourage. Why then hasn't Microsoft included them?
I'm no programmer, and obviously I'm not in Microsoft's Mac BU Marketing
department -- but I have a hard time believing that this was simply
overlooked. My (somewhat cynical) suspicion is that Microsoft executives
from both the Windows and Mac BU sides of the house did a lot of negotiating
when it came to what the Mac BU would be allowed to include in its Office
Mac suite. And my further suspicion is that certain key and handy features
were in fact not allowed to be included in programs like Entourage so as to
sufficiently differentiate the brand and feature sets of the two platforms.
If that is in any way true, then I think it's too bad. The Macintosh user
is not likely one to switch to Windows unless forced, e.g., he has to use it
in an corporate environment. Similarly, those using Macs in office
environments aren't as likely to choose Windows for their home PCs. Why,
then, wouldn't Microsoft be interested in making the Office products
virtually identical so that users would have no question about which
cross-platform package to buy?
Am I missing something or showing my ignorance of a key market factor? The
markets for the two platforms are in many big ways mutually *ex*clusive.
Why not then make the product mutually *in*clusive?
At the end of the day, I have no plans to give up my Mac; it does too many
things very well, and OS X and the hardware are quite reliable. But I will
admit that the Windows Outlook product, particularly in an Exchange
environment, still beats Entourage by some margin. IMO, Microsoft's Mac BU
has a lot of work yet to do with Entourage, not the least of which is major,
annoying bug fixes.
With regard to Mac market share, Microsoft is only interested in it to the
extent that it can sell Office 2004 and other Mac-compatible products. Do
they simply not see that the sooner the two products are almost identical,
the better off both platforms will be?
Craig Deutsch
San Diego