PocketRocket
09-22-2002, 07:30 PM
:wink: Hi All:
The killer app for me - on both the PC and PocketPC - would be Outlook with relational database storage structure - or if you prefer thinking of it this way: Access with all the functionality of Calenders and Outlook built-in. The latter IS possible - using one to many links from contacts to events and to email - but only if you can write VB code. I can't.
As things stand, I have to make a compromise: I either:
1. use a free-form database but loose the linked calender/email features
2. use outlook but loose the free-form database
3. get locked into a proprietary 3rd party vertical solution
I choose #2, but it wasn't a happy compromise. Not a day goes by when I don't miss the flexibity of having a relational database and having to squash the data into a flat file format. I tried to improve on this situation on the desktop by using custom designed outlook forms with many links and many custom fields - a kind of pseudo-database structure.
But now I want to start using a PocketPC, I have to abandon those forms and revert to using standard (ie. default/built-in) forms and fields. Why? Because Pocket Outlook (and even LookOut) doesn't support custom fields/forms. So now I'm even more cramped. Hell, LookOut doesn't even support Default Contact Fields: "User Field 1-4". So I doubt Pocket OL does. (Could someone confirm this?)
At least if I had those "User Field 1-4", I could add really useful information such as "type". Let me illustrate:
I have 4 different businesses. Within each business, a contact can be a Partner, Client, Vendor, or Investor. In turn, each of these categories can be either Prospective, Active, Dormant, or Extinct.
Now, if I use categories alone for this then I have I need 64 categories:
Business 1: Partner: Prospective
Business 1: Partner: Active
..etc.
That's pretty unwieldy.
If however I am blessed with just ONE user definable field - say default "User Field 1" - then I can use this for one of these 3 elements (Business, Type of Contact, Status of Contact) - and so cut down to 16 categories.
If I have use of 2 user fields, then I need only 4 categories, 3 user fields and I don't need any categories.
For this to work, of course, Pocket Outlook or Lookout would need to support contact filtering that Outlook on the desktop does (View: Current View: Define Views: Modify: Filter), but surely MS could get that together.
Bottom Line: Granted what I really need is an Access/Outlook hybrid. However, in lieu of that, even the addition of JUST A FEW user controllable fields and filters would make a huge impact on organizability for me.
An Access/Outlook hybrid would be so useful to so many folks I know, that the only reason I can think MS hasn't made it is to keep 3rd party integrators in business - but since when has MS followed that attitude? So it's a mystery.
I would be delighted for any knowledge that prooves otherwise, but as things stand today, I believe my only option is to use Pocket Outlook and hundreds of categories, or Pocket Lookout and hundreds of folders.
:idea: PocketRocket
The killer app for me - on both the PC and PocketPC - would be Outlook with relational database storage structure - or if you prefer thinking of it this way: Access with all the functionality of Calenders and Outlook built-in. The latter IS possible - using one to many links from contacts to events and to email - but only if you can write VB code. I can't.
As things stand, I have to make a compromise: I either:
1. use a free-form database but loose the linked calender/email features
2. use outlook but loose the free-form database
3. get locked into a proprietary 3rd party vertical solution
I choose #2, but it wasn't a happy compromise. Not a day goes by when I don't miss the flexibity of having a relational database and having to squash the data into a flat file format. I tried to improve on this situation on the desktop by using custom designed outlook forms with many links and many custom fields - a kind of pseudo-database structure.
But now I want to start using a PocketPC, I have to abandon those forms and revert to using standard (ie. default/built-in) forms and fields. Why? Because Pocket Outlook (and even LookOut) doesn't support custom fields/forms. So now I'm even more cramped. Hell, LookOut doesn't even support Default Contact Fields: "User Field 1-4". So I doubt Pocket OL does. (Could someone confirm this?)
At least if I had those "User Field 1-4", I could add really useful information such as "type". Let me illustrate:
I have 4 different businesses. Within each business, a contact can be a Partner, Client, Vendor, or Investor. In turn, each of these categories can be either Prospective, Active, Dormant, or Extinct.
Now, if I use categories alone for this then I have I need 64 categories:
Business 1: Partner: Prospective
Business 1: Partner: Active
..etc.
That's pretty unwieldy.
If however I am blessed with just ONE user definable field - say default "User Field 1" - then I can use this for one of these 3 elements (Business, Type of Contact, Status of Contact) - and so cut down to 16 categories.
If I have use of 2 user fields, then I need only 4 categories, 3 user fields and I don't need any categories.
For this to work, of course, Pocket Outlook or Lookout would need to support contact filtering that Outlook on the desktop does (View: Current View: Define Views: Modify: Filter), but surely MS could get that together.
Bottom Line: Granted what I really need is an Access/Outlook hybrid. However, in lieu of that, even the addition of JUST A FEW user controllable fields and filters would make a huge impact on organizability for me.
An Access/Outlook hybrid would be so useful to so many folks I know, that the only reason I can think MS hasn't made it is to keep 3rd party integrators in business - but since when has MS followed that attitude? So it's a mystery.
I would be delighted for any knowledge that prooves otherwise, but as things stand today, I believe my only option is to use Pocket Outlook and hundreds of categories, or Pocket Lookout and hundreds of folders.
:idea: PocketRocket