Dear MS Mac team, have you ever heard of a Pocket PC?

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-930299.html?tag=fd_top">http://news.com.com/2100-1040-930299.html?tag=fd_top</a><br /><br />Ok, the news first: "Microsoft plans to release on Monday the first significant update to the Mac OS X version of Office and will also introduce a version of its instant messaging program designed for the latest Mac operating system."<br /><br />This is what caught my eye: "Software that will allow a Palm handheld to synchronize directly with Office will be made available as a free download July 15."<br /><br />If I recall correctly, Palm has been able to sync with Microsoft Entourage, the Outlook equivalent, since mid-2000. Someone forward this the Microsoft Mac development team along with a gratis iPAQ or something and let them get busy! Thanks to Robert Anderson for the link. So help me if I see <b><i>any</i></b> sort of connection between a Palm and the X-Box before there is something for the Pocket PC, I'll scream... again. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif" />

[ricktakagi]

I couldn't believe that they would include a palm conduit but not a PPC conduit? What are they thinking? I have been a mac fan for years and thought that I had glanced over the PPC version in the article but no!

I use a PPC in my everyday life and would love to use it in conjuction with my mac. I hope that someone will give a hint to the mac team and put something together in the future.



Rick Takagi

Join us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pshug/

[Ed Hansberry]

I will admit it is much easier for them to do a Palm conduit vs a Pocket PC conduit. I think they use the standard Palm conduits and just write the conduit for the MS software. For Pocket PC they essentially have to to Mac ActiveSync from the ground up - unless they wanted to piggy back on the work that http://www.pocketmac.net/ is doing, which I think would be a good idea. But it is seemingly being ignored. :(

[entropy1980]

MS needs to really put together some sort of "Mactive Sync" the multimedia advantage of PPC is perfect compliment for the multimedia centric MAC users...

[ricktakagi]

I wish that Pocketmac would release a demo. I would be willing to pay the 50.00 if I had faith in it but I hear mixed reviews.

Rick Takagi

[Inaki C]

The Mac software to sync Palm with MS Office is a software licensed from a third company.
Anyway, it would be easy for MS to port AS to Mac. Why they dont is probably because there is not enough demand for it.



A former Mac user.

[ricktakagi]

I think many Mac users would start using a PPC if a solid conduit were available. As it stands, there is no reason for a mac user to switch from a palm. I think a conduit could only benefit the PPC platform at a fairly small price.

Rick Takagi

[Chimaera]

One problem with porting ActiveSync to Mac would be problems with installing new software to the Pocket PC. Most Installations are stored in .exe format, which a mac cannont run. Like the software already available, Microsoft could write a program to rip the installation files out of the .exe, but probably do not wish to do that. Another would be that the PPC owner would have to already own a PC, to install whatever software made the PPC recognize the mac.

[entropy1980]

One problem with porting ActiveSync to Mac would be problems with installing new software to the Pocket PC. Most Installations are stored in .exe format, which a mac cannont run. Like the software already available, Microsoft could write a program to rip the installation files out of the .exe, but probably do not wish to do that. Another would be that the PPC owner would have to already own a PC, to install whatever software made the PPC recognize the mac.
This is why we need more wide spread cab file installation thereby allowing all computers that can transfer the file to the PPC able to install the app directly via the PPC itself.Tthere is no reason (except synchronization with some apps) that cab file installation shouldn't be almost by default, software writers can always make Mac compatible conduits after the fact if the program requires it to synchronize.

[marlof]

That is a good thing about PocketMac: they also offer a CabExtractor. :) (see http://www.pocketmac.net for more details).

[Ed Hansberry]

Anyway, it would be easy for MS to port AS to Mac.
There is the whole driver issue though - USB/Serial, etc. That is not an easy port, more likely a ground up rewrite - all the more reason to use the work done by pocketmac. :)

[Will T Smith]

Anyway, it would be easy for MS to port AS to Mac.
There is the whole driver issue though - USB/Serial, etc. That is not an easy port, more likely a ground up rewrite - all the more reason to use the work done by pocketmac. :)

From the standpoint of the ActiveSync, the connection is just a read/write file. ActiveSync implements the communication protocol, not the transport layer. Check Microsoft's hardware site. Full Mac drivers are available for Microsoft Keyboards & Mice.

Honestly, Activesync is NOT a particularly sophisticated bit of technology. From the efforts of PocketMac, a very small company, it is evident that such an implementation would not be a large effort. Certainly it would be easy for Mega-Microsoft to dedicate some resources to Mac-ActiveSync.

My personal guess is that this is an organizational issue. The ActiveSync conduit is likely folded into the the PocketPC team as a whole. All of Microsoft's Mac Assets are folded into their Mac division. With little working Mac knowledge and no resources, an ActiveSync port is probably a bit difficult from their standpoint.

Internal Politics can often stand in the way of development. There is probably not one VP in the world who wants to divert funds to another division, especially if it's THEIR funds. At the same time, allocating Mac development resources to another division probably offends the Mac VP on several levels.

At some level, WinCE was invisioned as a technology to leverage and enhance Windows desktop. I'm sure that philosophy is fairly well entrenched. Any support for Mac whatsoever seems to take on the proportion of the old "Favored Nation Trading Status" for China. In some respects Mac is STILL the enemy. Even though they do business with the enemy.

In my opinion, PocketPC can gain a lot more from Mac support than Mac can gain from PocketPC. Certainly, current PocketPC users who use both Mac & Windows could benefit from a native Mac version. We could ALL benefit from more sophisticated synching capability that is provided by third party software.

Microsoft, Please get wise about ActiveSync and PocketPC. PocketPC is a platform to itself, not a Windows colonist. Make ActiveSync cross-platform and improve it A LOT. Make it more reliable, robust, and extensible. Thank You.

[Ed Hansberry]

Anyway, it would be easy for MS to port AS to Mac.
There is the whole driver issue though - USB/Serial, etc. That is not an easy port, more likely a ground up rewrite - all the more reason to use the work done by pocketmac. :)

From the standpoint of the ActiveSync, the connection is just a read/write file. ActiveSync implements the communication protocol, not the transport layer. Check Microsoft's hardware site. Full Mac drivers are available for Microsoft Keyboards & Mice.
Then why are the USB drivers included with ActiveSync? Why do new Pocket PC's come with USB driver updates if they were released after the AS 3.5 at www.pocketpc.com? And I would think a keyboard USB driver would be simple compared to a USB driver that enables the kind of two way communication that AS allows - TCP/IP passthrough for example.

On top of all of that, USB in AS isn't USB at all, it is USB on top of Serial, which is a hold over from the RAS days of Windows CE Services 2.x and why Pocket PC USB speeds are usually a fraction of true USB speeds.

I absouletly thing MS should address the Pocket PC Mac market, but I also understand that it isn't a "simple port" or that you could just grab the USB drivers from the keyboard/mouse team and plug it in.

[ricktakagi]

What a great conversation. I think the statement that MS could benefit from a AS port to the Mac is a solid one. I guess we'll have to see what the future brings.

This could be a mute point if Apple decides to come out with their own PDA. I'm guessing that most mac users would steer towards whatever product came out from Apple.....maybe.

I might have to drop 50.00 bucks on PocketMac and see what happens.

Rick Takagi

[Charles Pickrell]

I think it would be wiser for Microsoft to make a cash investement into PocketMac. This would help enable the company to get Mac support for Pocket PC while at the same time Microsoft can say they don't officially support the Mac on Pocket PC.

[alex_kac]

If it makes any difference - even I who develop apps for the Pocket PC am switching back to the Mac for my daily use with Office X for Mac, etc... I do think that Microsoft could have a bigger market for Pocket PCs used with Macs.

I'm currently using Pocket Mac and find it working quite nicely. Of course, its got its issues, but Terence is working quite well getting them ironed out.

[ricktakagi]

I think that's a great idea Charles. It's interesting to see what sort of reaction this topic has had. I'm sitting in a Starbucks right now using my Ibook which is slowly creeping more and more into my everyday life.

Rick Takagi

[Inaki C]

Ed, well, I mean easy for MS, not for me. :-)

In general I see sort of a lazy behaviour from the side of MS towards the Pocket PC. So it is not strange to find some obvious 'holes' in the package,
like the lack of support for Mac. After all most Pocket PC users today are no more that guinea pigs in the hands of MS. We should not complain or we would receive a painful shot !

I interpret this laziness in two ways: they are going to perform a radical change to this technology (I suspect the new guy in charge of PPC might be involved) or they are using a very limited budget for this platform.

Definitely there are many things that have been essentialy the same since version 2.10, with some minor changes and many patches. Perhaps a strong competitor is what MS needs to kick up the development of Pocket PC. Palms does not seem to be that competitor at this time.

Hmmm, a company with experience in operating systems, used to design and manufacture its own hardware,....I think there are no more than 3 of them, besides MS.