On 11/28/2007 14:13 PM, "Karl Kuehn" <email@hidden> wrote:
>> The calendaring is quite limited. For example, every event I put
>> into a
>> specific iCal calendar looks the same. I can't say, assign a
>> different color
>> or category to meetings from different people. So, unlike say Outlook,
>> Entourage, etc., I can't visually differentiate items.
>
> This is a bit of a red herring, because you can have as many
> calendars as you want. So you just create two or three calendars and
> you are set. You can turn this problem around on Outlook/Exchange as
> having really bad support for multiple calendars. Really these are
> just different ways of accomplishing the same things.
For local only? Sure. But for Server calendars? How do I, with one user ID
have separate calendars for meetings with my Boss vs. Lunch dates vs. events
related to my son vs. doctors appointments vs. etc., yadda?
I'm not seeing a way to do that on *the server*, and quite frankly, once you
get past 3-4 calendars, that model is unusable. I have 46 categories, and of
those, about 20 that I use for meetings. How do you set up twenty separate
calendars under a single login on iCal server?
>
>> The UI for creating events is counter intuitive. When I hit cmd-n, I
>> want a
>> window for the new event, not some rather hard to click on item. I
>> can't
>> easily move an even to a different calendar.
>
> I too am a bit skeptical of the pop-up window, but I think that with
> just a little tweaking (like being editable without hitting the edit
> button) that it turn out to be a good compromise. As a non-CalDAV
> system I have been using iCal for a long time, and it does work very
> well (10.5 included).
It's hard to hit the widget right, and why would I want to set up an event
on a calendar and ONLY enter the name? That's the default. You only enter
the name. Kind of useless. It's an event that one can reasonably assume
needs more information than a title. What great advantage is there in making
me do extra work?
>
>> Nothing HUGE, but they add up to not being a great product. The
>> separation
>> between iCal/Mail/ Address Book, while okay for non-groupware use, is
>> annoying for groupware use. Linking to emails, other people, etc,
>> has real
>> value. Having all the information I need in one place has real value
>> in a
>> groupware use model.
>
> I think this is another place where people are having more of a "this
> isn't Outlook/Exchange" reaction, rather than an fair evaluation of
> the product. iCal, Mail, and AddressBook may be separate apps, but
> their integration makes the experience seamless.
No, it doesn't make it "Seamless". It makes it "smooth". There's a
difference.
> I get very annoyed
> with Outlook/Exchange when I want to work with both email and my
> calendar at the same time. Having everything in a single window makes
> comparing data really really difficult for me, others find the split
> difficult.
Then Apple is gradually disagreeing with you, note the additional Mail
features in Mac OS X 10.5.
>
>> Other than perhaps Evolution, iCal is the best of the bunch, and
>> it's just not very good.
>
> I would argue that iCal is good-to-great, but still needs work, and
> that the rest of the bunch is a long way off from it. I have not
> evaluated Evolution, so can't speak to that one.
If you only ever need one calendar, and have very simple needs, iCal is
okay. If you have a more complicated calendaring/groupware life, it kind of
blows.
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
