Office:mac vs. Office Windows

[Craig Deutsch]

As some of you know, I read these posts regularly, occasionally post
questions and, when I can do so with relative confidence, make contributions
in the form of solutions. I¹m not always spot-on, but I try.

However, there's something that's become quite obvious to me as I read
through the thousands of posts on this and other boards, and I cannot seem
to understand why more isn't done about it - at least that I as part of the
mainstream user community sees.

I've used the Mac OS faithfully (at home) for 18 years. At work I've always
been forced to use Windows. I accept that. However, we know that Microsoft
manufactures Office for both platforms, and indeed, that for the Mac is now
in its fourth generation.

That said, why is it that Office:mac (and in particular Entourage) still has
so many deficiencies relative to the Windows (and in particular Outlook)
product, and why does Entourage for Mac have so many challenges relative to
using Exchange Servers -- Microsoft's own product? Anyone who has also used
Outlook and/or Exchange knows that while Entourage is basically a good
product, it in fact is not Outlook. Some will argue that it shouldn't be.
OK - and part of that is probably by design - yet it appears to me that the
Mac BU made certain assumptions about Mac users that just isn't true. In a
past career I sold Apple computers and software both to consumers and
businesses and IMO, the average Mac user has always been more savvy and
discerning about his computer and software than is a comparable Windows
user.

Yet at the end of the day, it seems to me that Apple has done a rather
decent job in the last few years of creating demand for its platform,
particularly in the small business community where it has severely lacked.
And indeed, Office is one of the best business software suites available for
the Mac, since Apple's individual solutions aren't, IMO, robust enough,
particularly if cross-platform integration is required. Why, then, do these
hundreds of anomalies persist in the fourth generation of a product, at
least the last two of which were released after OS X.

In fairness to the technical differences between the platforms, and with an
acknowledgment that I'm ignorant to some of the complexities of coding
software, I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that proficient Windows
Office users would never really like the product deficiencies in Outlook
that are present in Entourage; I know I don¹t. Yes: Entourage has certain
features sets that are not available within Outlook (like Projects), but
let's be realistic: I'd much rather have more of the Outlook features such
as things discussed and inferred ad infinitum on this board than to have a
"new feature" that, at least IMO, is used by the vast minority of Office:mac
users.

Can one (or more) of the MVPs (or anyone, really) weigh in with an open,
honest opinion on this? My purpose is not to incite a riotous cascade of
death threats but it seems to me that there must be a few hundred
thousand Office:mac users out there, and I have to assume that Microsoft can
fix all the Entourage and/or Exchange Server-related issues if it wanted to.
And if it needed more help from Apple, I can¹t imagine that Apple would tell
MS to pound sand ‹ even if the overall relationship isn¹t as rosy as it once
was.

I've inferred from this Entourage board and from several other sources on
the subject that there are a lot of frustrated Entourage users who have in
good faith dumped Apple's mail in favor of a more robust, capable product.
But if they're also Windows users, and in particular former Exchange Server
clients, they're often disappointed even though on balance Entourage is a
good product. Am I all wet on that?

Yes, budgets and the market weigh in on to what degree features are included
and fixes are made. But are these fixes really that difficult? If
Microsoft would rather have Mac customers buying its product over a host of
competitors' offerings, why then isn't Office:mac, now in its fourth
generation, fully the product that does as well as its Windows brethren?
Seems to me Microsoft would thereby ensure that its customers go nowhere
else.

In this case, the Mac and Windows markets are almost mutually exclusive, and
while it might not own the OS, if Microsoft can convert more and more
customers with a wildly successful, rock-solid, fully
cross-platform-compatible Mac offering, wouldn't that just be a good way for
Microsoft to "own" some of the Apple experience?

If you made it this far, thanks for reading this.

Craig
San Diego

 

[Bob Greenblatt]

Craig and others,

There¹s no conspiracy. It¹s simply a matter of time and budget. Check out
this news release from MacWorld SF. Scroll down about half way.

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


I suggest that you simply ³stay tuned.² It looks to me like some relief is
on the way.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that proficient Windows

Office users would never really like the product deficiencies in Outlook
that are present in Entourage; I know I don¹t. Yes: Entourage has certain
features sets that are not available within Outlook (like Projects), but
let's be realistic: I'd much rather have more of the Outlook features such
as things discussed and inferred ad infinitum on this board than to have a
"new feature" that, at least IMO, is used by the vast minority of Office:mac
users.

My belief has always been that more people are using macs as home users or
academic users than as corporate users--and while everyone using macs in the
corporate context might want Exchange support, a vast minority of Mac users
are using them in corporate contexts. Exchange is only a corporate
feature--Projects can be used in any context. I think if Exchange isn't the
highest priority on the list, that makes perfect sense for the market they
have.

I think the predominance of business users here is misleading but easily
explained--because forums are filled with people who have problems--and two
of the trickiest things are Exchange and PDA syncing.

This is based merely on my own impressions of the relative proportions, and
on once finding a page on the mactopia site, which may be gone now, that
pretty much said "our market is the home user." Every Mac user I know could
conceivably find Project very useful--none of them have ever heard of
Exchange. Bob's answer suggests the emphasis might be changing.

My two cents.

DM

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

[Added a PS.]

My belief has always been that more people are using macs as home users or
academic users than as corporate users--and while everyone using macs in the
corporate context might want Exchange support, a vast minority of Mac users
are using them in corporate contexts. Exchange is only a corporate
feature--Projects can be used in any context. I think if Exchange isn't the
highest priority on the list, that makes perfect sense for the market they
have.

I think the predominance of business users here is misleading but easily
explained--because forums are filled with people who have problems--and two
of the trickiest things are Exchange and PDA syncing.

This is based merely on my own impressions of the relative proportions, and
on once finding a page on the mactopia site, which may be gone now, that
pretty much said "our market is the home user." Every Mac user I know could
conceivably find Project very useful--none of them have ever heard of
Exchange. Bob's answer suggests the emphasis might be changing.

PS. Let me define corporate as "large corporations." MacBU, based on
templates or something, appears to have added small/home business owners to
their perceived core market.

 

[Kevin Mills]

I like the idea of the projects and the general approach with the current
Entourage. I would rather skip so much of the PC features. The approach of
personal organization and personal productivity are much more enjoyed in the
real world. I use a Mac in the Corporate world when possible. I have
programs that sync my Blackberry with my Entourage. My Mac works, I am
productive. With the PC there is so much to keep me from working like having
to reboot often.

[Added a PS.]

My belief has always been that more people are using macs as home users or
academic users than as corporate users--and while everyone using macs in the
corporate context might want Exchange support, a vast minority of Mac users
are using them in corporate contexts. Exchange is only a corporate
feature--Projects can be used in any context. I think if Exchange isn't the
highest priority on the list, that makes perfect sense for the market they
have.

I think the predominance of business users here is misleading but easily
explained--because forums are filled with people who have problems--and two
of the trickiest things are Exchange and PDA syncing.

This is based merely on my own impressions of the relative proportions, and
on once finding a page on the mactopia site, which may be gone now, that
pretty much said "our market is the home user." Every Mac user I know could
conceivably find Project very useful--none of them have ever heard of
Exchange. Bob's answer suggests the emphasis might be changing.

PS. Let me define corporate as "large corporations." MacBU, based on
templates or something, appears to have added small/home business owners to
their perceived core market.

 

[denke]

Craig didn't say that there's a conspiracy, though I think one can be
excused for wondering how much benefit Microsoft would see in making
Office:mac as powerful or reliable as Office for Windows. Anyone who
buys Office for Windows has to have Windows too.

I agree that Entourage in particular, while colorful, is wimpy compared
to Outlook, and I'm not even talking about Exchange issues. I work in
an office where everyone has Outlook and few use it for anything but
email. I use the Calendar, Contacts, Tasks, Notes, and Journal. I can
turn almost anything into anything else by just dragging and dropping
into the Folder List OR the Outlook Bar. Almost everything can be
linked by dragging and dropping. Lists can be sored, resorted, grouped,
and regrouped on the fly with trivial ease. The Toolbar can be
customized. Almost anything can be done with the keyboard, minimizing
the need to switch constantly between keyboard and mouse. Calendar
dates and times are FAR easier to enter and change. It takes one click
to make a new Journal entry for notes on a phone conversation with a
Contact. I could go on and on. Outlook is more powerful, easier to use
(!), and less buggy than Entourage. And this is with Outlook 98!

 

[Craig Deutsch]

Denke, thank you. I think you articulated some of the "usability" aspects
of Entourage vs. Outlook considerably better than I did.

 

[denke]

Thanks. See also the "Missing Exchange Features" thread at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...tourage/browse_thread/thread/2a0772cdb2df286b"