Microsoft will update Entourage to support Microsoft Exchange Server in Summer '03.
A definite benefit for many
Read all about it
Chad4Mac
A definite benefit for many
Read all about it
Chad4Mac
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Entourage to get Exchange Server support
- Thread starter Chad4Mac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use Mac OX Mail over Entourage, but I used to use Entourage on a regular basis before Jaguar was released. For me, Mail is so much easier.
If you are connecting to Exchange Server, this is a huge benefit for Entourage users. It also shows Microsoft's commitment to Mac OS X and it's Mac Office X.
Chad4Mac
If you are connecting to Exchange Server, this is a huge benefit for Entourage users. It also shows Microsoft's commitment to Mac OS X and it's Mac Office X.
Chad4Mac
WOOHOO!
Yeah! This was one of the only two missing apps for our department to make the full-time jump to OSX....can you guess the other??
Hint - I am a graphic designer.
Yeah! This was one of the only two missing apps for our department to make the full-time jump to OSX....can you guess the other??
Hint - I am a graphic designer.
Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
I never realised there was 'Outlook' for mac, but began using it a few months ago in OS9, and now in classic in OSX.
I was, before this, using entourage in OS9 and connecting to the exchange server running on NT. It was still client side, and the connection was very unreliable. We never really got to the bottom of the problems, and the only solution would be to restart all the mail services on NT and then my mail would log on correctly. This really pissed of the I.T. department because I am the only Mac in an office with 100's of PC's. With the server upgrade from NT to Windows 2000, entourage would not work at all.
When I discovered 'Outlook' for mac I installed it instantly and was bolwn away by how well it worked. It is all server side and behaves (doesn't quite look like) Outlook on a PC. Everything is housed on the server and mail is delivered rather than requested. It has no OSX version!
My question is, will this new entourage update they are describing have a client side or server side relationship with exchange. If it does not work like OS9 'Outlook' for Mac, then it will not be of any use to me.
Anyone understand my ramblings?
I never realised there was 'Outlook' for mac, but began using it a few months ago in OS9, and now in classic in OSX.
I was, before this, using entourage in OS9 and connecting to the exchange server running on NT. It was still client side, and the connection was very unreliable. We never really got to the bottom of the problems, and the only solution would be to restart all the mail services on NT and then my mail would log on correctly. This really pissed of the I.T. department because I am the only Mac in an office with 100's of PC's. With the server upgrade from NT to Windows 2000, entourage would not work at all.
When I discovered 'Outlook' for mac I installed it instantly and was bolwn away by how well it worked. It is all server side and behaves (doesn't quite look like) Outlook on a PC. Everything is housed on the server and mail is delivered rather than requested. It has no OSX version!
My question is, will this new entourage update they are describing have a client side or server side relationship with exchange. If it does not work like OS9 'Outlook' for Mac, then it will not be of any use to me.
Anyone understand my ramblings?
Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
I understand your ramblings. And I sympathize, I went through the same with some peopl ein the office using Entourage/Outlook Express and some using Outlook. There was an obvious difference in performance. I have a feeling that in order to really have full Exchange Server functionality, like the update is supposed to give, would require a server-side relatioship like the one you described.
Am I talking out of my ass? Does anyone know more than me?
I understand your ramblings. And I sympathize, I went through the same with some peopl ein the office using Entourage/Outlook Express and some using Outlook. There was an obvious difference in performance. I have a feeling that in order to really have full Exchange Server functionality, like the update is supposed to give, would require a server-side relatioship like the one you described.
Am I talking out of my ass? Does anyone know more than me?
Re: Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
Yes. I believe you are - no offence.
Many people tend to confuse mail functionality with exchange functionality. Normal mail functionality comes in 2 types.
POP - This is the old school (but very common) way to get mail, which is to download it from a mail server and store it on your local computer (server does not support folders, only a mail box)
IMAP - Mail is usually kept on the mail server and can support folders.
Exchange servers are far more comlicated than this, supporting Mail(with folders), contacts, global address books, calendars (that can be shared) etc etc. But importantly this is usually stored entirley on the server - so if the server goes down you have nothing. (Most exchange clients can be configured to keeping a cached local copy though, but this is not on by default).
This technology is particulary handy if someone needs to add things to your calendar or your secretary needs to read your mail to filter out the crap - as users can share any of these features with each other.
Exchange server also supports POP and IMAP for basic mail - (which is the confusing part for most ) people who connect to exchange servers are not necessarily talking the exchange language.
Exchange support is only included in the following applications for Mac:
Entourage 2001 (OS 9 Only)
Outlook 2001 (OS 9 Only - but works in classic under 10.2)
Exchange Client (Really old now)
(Noteably all Microsoft products)
Microsoft (being typically microsoft) have not released the technology for anyone to create an exchange client. If they had, you could bet OS X Mail, iCal, iSync and Address Book, would support it.
Yes. I believe you are - no offence.
Many people tend to confuse mail functionality with exchange functionality. Normal mail functionality comes in 2 types.
POP - This is the old school (but very common) way to get mail, which is to download it from a mail server and store it on your local computer (server does not support folders, only a mail box)
IMAP - Mail is usually kept on the mail server and can support folders.
Exchange servers are far more comlicated than this, supporting Mail(with folders), contacts, global address books, calendars (that can be shared) etc etc. But importantly this is usually stored entirley on the server - so if the server goes down you have nothing. (Most exchange clients can be configured to keeping a cached local copy though, but this is not on by default).
This technology is particulary handy if someone needs to add things to your calendar or your secretary needs to read your mail to filter out the crap - as users can share any of these features with each other.
Exchange server also supports POP and IMAP for basic mail - (which is the confusing part for most ) people who connect to exchange servers are not necessarily talking the exchange language.
Exchange support is only included in the following applications for Mac:
Entourage 2001 (OS 9 Only)
Outlook 2001 (OS 9 Only - but works in classic under 10.2)
Exchange Client (Really old now)
(Noteably all Microsoft products)
Microsoft (being typically microsoft) have not released the technology for anyone to create an exchange client. If they had, you could bet OS X Mail, iCal, iSync and Address Book, would support it.
Re: Re: Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
Well duh. I know all this. All you did was explain the functions of the server-side way of doing things. And the IMAP/POP descriptions, come on.
It's a good thing that Exchange supports POP/IMAP as well as native Exchange language, otherwise I think you would have a large number of corporate and education places jumping out. Can you imagine a university saying to all staff, faculty and students, "In order to have email here, you must use Outlook. If it is not available, too bad, you can't do your job, teach or contact your teachers then. Oh, and the cost must come from your budget or pay for it yourself if you are a student. No other email clients will be supported. This is effective for all 38,000 of you." If the edu paid for it all, OMG.
Oh, BTW, the only Exchange support included in Entourage 2001 [or Entourage vX, for that matter], which I used until Sept 2002, was that your address book was local and on the server, but there was no global address lookup feature [unless the IT drones left on LDAP, which many would not, and go out of their way to turn it off], and no shared calendering. Those two things are really what makes Exchange Exchange. Not the server side stuff. If that was it, just use the IMAP and back-up your other stuff like you should. But Exchange is Exchange because of the shared calenders and global look-up. That's why they call it EXCHANGE
And the only reason that M$ waited this long is to show that they can squeeze Apple and the Mac platform, and to have a reason to complain about "low sales of Ofice vX." Boo-Hoo. That's bull****. They helped create the lull, IMHO.
If they ever say that they had this long time for Exchange features for MacOSX cause it was so hard, they are lieing. They claim to have the best tech and best solutions and the best programmers and the best delvelopers, but they can't make a simple Exchange client when they own the freaking technology? What ever. If that is the case, they are much more stupid than I thought. Sad really.
oh, offense
Well duh. I know all this. All you did was explain the functions of the server-side way of doing things. And the IMAP/POP descriptions, come on.
It's a good thing that Exchange supports POP/IMAP as well as native Exchange language, otherwise I think you would have a large number of corporate and education places jumping out. Can you imagine a university saying to all staff, faculty and students, "In order to have email here, you must use Outlook. If it is not available, too bad, you can't do your job, teach or contact your teachers then. Oh, and the cost must come from your budget or pay for it yourself if you are a student. No other email clients will be supported. This is effective for all 38,000 of you." If the edu paid for it all, OMG.
Oh, BTW, the only Exchange support included in Entourage 2001 [or Entourage vX, for that matter], which I used until Sept 2002, was that your address book was local and on the server, but there was no global address lookup feature [unless the IT drones left on LDAP, which many would not, and go out of their way to turn it off], and no shared calendering. Those two things are really what makes Exchange Exchange. Not the server side stuff. If that was it, just use the IMAP and back-up your other stuff like you should. But Exchange is Exchange because of the shared calenders and global look-up. That's why they call it EXCHANGE
And the only reason that M$ waited this long is to show that they can squeeze Apple and the Mac platform, and to have a reason to complain about "low sales of Ofice vX." Boo-Hoo. That's bull****. They helped create the lull, IMHO.
If they ever say that they had this long time for Exchange features for MacOSX cause it was so hard, they are lieing. They claim to have the best tech and best solutions and the best programmers and the best delvelopers, but they can't make a simple Exchange client when they own the freaking technology? What ever. If that is the case, they are much more stupid than I thought. Sad really.
oh, offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
Sad indeed. This is why MS sucks so freakin bad. Exchange has some cool features and it could be useful, but they have to keep it all wrapped up and secret so nobody else can make better client for it that actually works. I wish more people understood why open standards are good and microsoft is bad. The world would be a better place.
At least we still have monkeys.
Sad indeed. This is why MS sucks so freakin bad. Exchange has some cool features and it could be useful, but they have to keep it all wrapped up and secret so nobody else can make better client for it that actually works. I wish more people understood why open standards are good and microsoft is bad. The world would be a better place.
At least we still have monkeys.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronising - unforuntately not everyone understands that just because you have an exchange server doesn't necessarily mean you're using exchange. It was a point that I thought needed clarifying.
In reply to your post though, our organisation has chosen to turn off the POP and IMAP support on our exchange system.
The theory behind this is that they are forcing people to use Exchange as a method of controlling mail - backup, user profiles etc.
I think you will find this to be an extremely common policy - particularly for large coorporate and government. The educational department I work for has over 75,000 employees, all on Exchange.
So if you weren't initially talking out your arse, you are now.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronising - unforuntately not everyone understands that just because you have an exchange server doesn't necessarily mean you're using exchange. It was a point that I thought needed clarifying.
In reply to your post though, our organisation has chosen to turn off the POP and IMAP support on our exchange system.
The theory behind this is that they are forcing people to use Exchange as a method of controlling mail - backup, user profiles etc.
I think you will find this to be an extremely common policy - particularly for large coorporate and government. The educational department I work for has over 75,000 employees, all on Exchange.
So if you weren't initially talking out your arse, you are now.
Yeah, a lot of people waste money on exchange server because they don't take advantage of it's features.
Personally I still think imap + ldap is a better way to go, and I personally prefer Mail, iCal, and address book.
Personally I still think imap + ldap is a better way to go, and I personally prefer Mail, iCal, and address book.
iPODs!?
Sorry for the double post...and for this being off topic...but i dont know where else to post this...
There is a 'New' tag on the iPods at apples web site...but...nothing is different about them...Whats Up!?
Thats at: http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCustom?qprm=78313
by the way.
Sorry for the double post...and for this being off topic...but i dont know where else to post this...
There is a 'New' tag on the iPods at apples web site...but...nothing is different about them...Whats Up!?
Thats at: http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCustom?qprm=78313
by the way.
Re: iPODs!?
only says it on the business apple store. if you go to the regular apple.com store link it's not new anymore. lloks like they haven't updated that in a bit, everyting's still in Garamond and not the new Myriad font.
only says it on the business apple store. if you go to the regular apple.com store link it's not new anymore. lloks like they haven't updated that in a bit, everyting's still in Garamond and not the new Myriad font.
Re: iPODs!?
go to forums.macrumors.com, log in if you haven't, and click on a room like "hardware and software discussion (you aren't allowed to post in news where it belongs, but arn should see it) and click "post new thread" in the upper right hand corner.
go to forums.macrumors.com, log in if you haven't, and click on a room like "hardware and software discussion (you aren't allowed to post in news where it belongs, but arn should see it) and click "post new thread" in the upper right hand corner.
Re: Re: iPODs!?
it's in the normal store too. http://store.apple.com right up top.
or is that just normal? it says "new," but now i think of it, that's a heavily abused term.
it's in the normal store too. http://store.apple.com right up top.
or is that just normal? it says "new," but now i think of it, that's a heavily abused term.
Exchange....my A$$
From what I hear this is just a move on Microsoft's part to undermine the New Appleworks that should have exchange capabilities as well.
WAKE UP people.... Microsoft never does anything kind, out of good will for anyone outside of itself.
If you happen to be on the receiving end of the goodies then consider yourself lucky.
From what I hear this is just a move on Microsoft's part to undermine the New Appleworks that should have exchange capabilities as well.
WAKE UP people.... Microsoft never does anything kind, out of good will for anyone outside of itself.
If you happen to be on the receiving end of the goodies then consider yourself lucky.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
My wife's school has Exchange and their admin is a butt. They only have limited web access from home, no exchange client support. Their server went down one day (one of a dozen times this year) due to a virus and it took 2 weeks to get it back up. They lost a bunch of email and crap. Sure this server does a lot, but A) it's microsoft so it's got enough security holes to drive a bus through, and B) it's Microsoft so it's proprietary.
Communigate Pro all the way baby (except for calendaring).
My wife's school has Exchange and their admin is a butt. They only have limited web access from home, no exchange client support. Their server went down one day (one of a dozen times this year) due to a virus and it took 2 weeks to get it back up. They lost a bunch of email and crap. Sure this server does a lot, but A) it's microsoft so it's got enough security holes to drive a bus through, and B) it's Microsoft so it's proprietary.
Communigate Pro all the way baby (except for calendaring).
Re: Re: WOOHOO!
I think the other app is Quark for OSX. If I'm correct, just drop my cookie in my email box. Oh, and we use Mercury for our college wide email server. Works quite nice for a FREE PRODUCT!
cheers!
John
I think the other app is Quark for OSX. If I'm correct, just drop my cookie in my email box. Oh, and we use Mercury for our college wide email server. Works quite nice for a FREE PRODUCT!
cheers!
John
Re: Is this update like 'Outlook' for Mac OS9
Our company also turns off IMAP and POP support for Exchange but recently we opened up IPAM so Entourage can connect to it for the moment.
Our company also turns off IMAP and POP support for Exchange but recently we opened up IPAM so Entourage can connect to it for the moment.
P
paulc
Guest
It's the MAIL!
OK, there may be some misconceptions here; let me explain.
An Exchange server can handle mail with three protocols, POP, IMAP and proprietary ms. By default, it does (natch) the ms only way, via proprietary code. IF you want to be able, as a client, to access and GET MAIL using a non ms e-mail program, the admins HAVE to enable either POP or IMAP.
And herein lies the rub. Most all of the big corporate systems I have seen, by policy, do NOT allow POP or IMAP access. Even though I've read that it CAN be made available for an individual mailbox; they simply will NOT allow it (claiming security issues, which is one of the best jokes in the industry!).
Now the ISSUE is that nowhere in this announcement do they say ANYTHING about using the "new" capabilities to come in Entourage to access mail on an Exchange server.
Given that any announcement from ms goes through many lawyers before being made public, generally speaking they should be taken at face value. i.e. if they do NOT say that it can access mail on an Exchange sever via ms mail code, then it can't. Which, if correct, means that this "new" capability is essentially meaningless. At least where admins will NOT allow open standard protocols (POP, IMAP) to be used.
BTW, the Outlook OS 9 software DID allow retreival of mail from an Exchange server via proprietary ms code.
OK, there may be some misconceptions here; let me explain.
An Exchange server can handle mail with three protocols, POP, IMAP and proprietary ms. By default, it does (natch) the ms only way, via proprietary code. IF you want to be able, as a client, to access and GET MAIL using a non ms e-mail program, the admins HAVE to enable either POP or IMAP.
And herein lies the rub. Most all of the big corporate systems I have seen, by policy, do NOT allow POP or IMAP access. Even though I've read that it CAN be made available for an individual mailbox; they simply will NOT allow it (claiming security issues, which is one of the best jokes in the industry!).
Now the ISSUE is that nowhere in this announcement do they say ANYTHING about using the "new" capabilities to come in Entourage to access mail on an Exchange server.
Given that any announcement from ms goes through many lawyers before being made public, generally speaking they should be taken at face value. i.e. if they do NOT say that it can access mail on an Exchange sever via ms mail code, then it can't. Which, if correct, means that this "new" capability is essentially meaningless. At least where admins will NOT allow open standard protocols (POP, IMAP) to be used.
BTW, the Outlook OS 9 software DID allow retreival of mail from an Exchange server via proprietary ms code.
FINALLY!!!!!
After having 3 mail clients in the past (Outlook Express, Entourage, Exchange) they are finally going to have one that does it all. I was wondering what they were thinking when they originally released Entourage w/o Exchange support.
Luckily, my company allows IMAP over Exchange so I've been able to use Apple's Mail. But it can't handle the calendar/meeting requests.
After having 3 mail clients in the past (Outlook Express, Entourage, Exchange) they are finally going to have one that does it all. I was wondering what they were thinking when they originally released Entourage w/o Exchange support.
Luckily, my company allows IMAP over Exchange so I've been able to use Apple's Mail. But it can't handle the calendar/meeting requests.
This is a great news, and it's about time.
I use OS X for everything except calendar/mail/contacts, for which I use a PC, since there's currently no adequate Mac alternative.
Outlook 2001 sucks - it's HTML support is very poor, and in Classic it's even worse.
It does worry me that MS's press release makes no reference to Exchange mail support - it just talks about contacts and calendars, however, it seems almost inconcievable that you would release an Exchange client that does not support mail, so I assume the reason it's not mentioned is because this is not considered "new" functionality - IMAP is already supported in both Exchange & Entourage.
I hope they take this opportunity to tidy up the Entourage interface - it's slow & unresponsive, and the list views are very basic (all white background with no rules).
I use OS X for everything except calendar/mail/contacts, for which I use a PC, since there's currently no adequate Mac alternative.
Outlook 2001 sucks - it's HTML support is very poor, and in Classic it's even worse.
It does worry me that MS's press release makes no reference to Exchange mail support - it just talks about contacts and calendars, however, it seems almost inconcievable that you would release an Exchange client that does not support mail, so I assume the reason it's not mentioned is because this is not considered "new" functionality - IMAP is already supported in both Exchange & Entourage.
I hope they take this opportunity to tidy up the Entourage interface - it's slow & unresponsive, and the list views are very basic (all white background with no rules).