How to import Outlook Express Address Book Groups and Folders to .

First of all, to the consumer, its of absolutely no relevance how large
corporations work. That's the corporations problem. The thing in
dispute here is whether or not we, as the consumers, are JUSTIFIED in
expecting 2 Microsoft applications that do basically the same thing
being able to share data. Whether Microsoft is a multi-national billion
dollar company or 2 ppl in a garage tapping away at a computer, WE as
the consumers would still have the same EXPECTATION. Outlook and
outlook express ALREADY share data, so why did they leave out groups?

Microsoft is RENOWNED for keeping its file formats etc to itself. Yet
funnily enough there are programs out there that can both READ and
WRITE microsoft files(office etc). There are programs that can convert
to and from various other formats including those used by Microsoft. So
if programmers who have NO contact with the MS programming teams around
the world as you put it can figure out how to get stuff like this done
then why shouldn't we expect two teams (as you say) in the SAME company
to not do the same?

There are examples of disparate teams all over the world working on
different projects. Do you think all the Linux developers live in the
same town? Look at SourceForge http://sourceforge.net , thousands of
projects , thousands of people working on them from disparate
geographic regions. Heck , There are a number of software packages,
some written by Microsoft (MS SourceSafe) itself that are supposed to
allow distributive code development. In this day and age geographic
location is of no consequence. I live in the Caribbean , yet being a
software developer myself I work with systems and teams in the US,
Finland and other Caribbean territories. THAT's the power of the
INTERNET, information exchange.

Microsoft itself SELLS a Group Collaboration Tool called Microsoft
Sharepoint
(http://www.microsoft.com/office/shar.../overview.mspx)
which, in THEIR OWN WORDS
"enables enterprises to develop an intelligent portal that seamlessly
connects users, teams, and knowledge so that people can take advantage
of relevant information across business processes to help them work
more efficiently"

or what about ANOTHER Microsoft Product, LiveMeeting
(http://www.microsoft.com/office/live...o/default.mspx)
which "enables you to collaborate online with colleagues, customers,
and partners in real time, in groups of two or even thousands—with just
a PC, and an Internet connection."

Why should we use these products when , as you would have us believe,
it can't be done?

Also, its not as if its a huge amount of data that would be required to
implement it either. All that would be needed is a document from the
Outlook Express Team outlining the format of their Contacts Groups
implementation. This document should already exist as part of their
project documentation anywayz and the relevant sections should be less
than 10 pages, if so long. So all they'd have to do is EMAIL it
(probably using Outlook hehe) to the OUTLOOK Team for them to add their
existing import filter. End of story.

What I don't understand is why you're making excuses for something like
this when in truth the critique is necessary for better products to come
forth. Who knows , maybe why its not possible is that no one at MS
thought of it and it was an honest oversight; and those users who
wanted it were content to sit on their laurels and say "oh, thats how
big corporations are...".

The fact that we've accepted the mediocrity that Microsoft occasionally
puts out has resulted in it taking far too long for them to come to an
acceptable standard/solution.

Stop making excuses for mediocrity.


--
CymBaPosted from http://www.pcreview.co.uk/ newsgroup access

CymBa CymBa.1rryqi@ wrote:

There are examples of disparate teams all over the world working on
different projects. Do you think all the Linux developers live in the
same town?

No, and that's why programs written for one flavor of Linux don't always
work on another flavor of Linux.
--
Brian Tillman

There is only one LINUX. Linux kernel development is handled by Linus
Torvalds and his team whom are not in the same geographic area. They
then put the kernel up to be used by companies and individuals that
create DISTRIBUTIONS or what u are referring to as 'flavours'.

Each company then decides what THEY want to put in their distro to give
to THEIR target audience. So when a program doesn't work on a particular
distro its because the creator of the distro most likely didnt include a
component or the right version that the program needs with it. This
component just needs to be downloaded and installed.

So the difference between distros comes about because those companies
chose NOT to collaborate. Not because they can't. There have been
efforts to maintain a standard base distro from which all distros
derive and it works for awhile but what usually happens is that some
companies want to be able to differentiate themselves further and break
the standard. But that's politics and business not because its
'physically impossible for the teams to collaborate' as u seem to want
to suggest.


--
CymBaPosted from http://www.pcreview.co.uk/ newsgroup access

CymBa CymBa.1rtnsb@ wrote:

There is only one LINUX.

There is one Linux _kernel_. There are multiple flavors of Linux (Red Hat
Linux and Yellow Dog Linux are two) that have additional layers.

I'm not going to argue with you any more. We just have a different idea
about what's reasonable.
--
Brian Tillman