[The Sand]

All very good points made my lifesaver1...

Really, we have to take into consideration those whose choice was taken from them.

It’s nice when you do have the choice… your computer is not broken and can or cannot upgrade to Office 2010. If you need to purchase another computer and you want Office - you are getting Office 2010 – and what “bit” you decide on for the future of that system should not be dependent upon whether RIM can sync your phone.

This happened to me – my XP computer broke the first week Vista was released – so ready or not here I come… it was ugly. I shut my door and people brought me food and water… and I remember the companies that were ready – and those that said they were but screwed up my system – I fired them and never looked back. People remember the companies that “take care of business” so you can take care of yours.

Somebody that has to buy “new” now and owns a Blackberry needs a solution. They need a workaround...

Let’s just try and find a doable solution - does CompanionLink provide the missing link and get 64 bit Outlook synced??? Please post if you know for sure… if it does, maybe the forum administrators can post it in the sticky threads...

Thanks,
Sandy

[lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by JSanders

What the sam hill are you talking about?

RIM blamed the customer for upgrading? Where did you see that?

And, btw, RIM did warn its customers about the same time, maybe within a few days of the release of Outlook 2010, that it would not immediately be compatible with DM, then revised that to state it would be available in August and the 64bit version in 2011. Exactly what you say they did not do.

To your last point first: In response to a post I made on July 1 about problems syncing with Outlook 64, you responded that, "RIM's relief on DM sync to Outlook 2010 is coming. When I don't know, but I know it's on the way. Sooner than later, I hope." Then, I believe on July 9, RIM posted an obscure technical bulletin on its website stating that it would be available for 32 in August and 64 sometime in 2011 (a rather vague timeframe at best). I found this via a Google search and that was actually as a result of a PC World article, which I posted here. I was chumming the Internet for solutions.

The MS Office 2010 upgrade was available in beta in November 2009 and retail in the second week of June I think. This thread was started by people using the public beta version in November and trying to figure out why they couldn't sync. Posting a technical bulletin on the issue the following July is hardly good customer service, in my view. Good customer service would have been to text the customer base in November/December 2009 and advise them that if they are contemplating an upgrade to MS Office 2010 and want to sync, they should hold off while RIM develops a solution. That would have avoided immeasurable frustration of customers.

As for RIM blamed the customer for upgrading, this is something of a conflation of my earlier points. I was primarily responding to CannuckBB's post bashing an individual who upgraded to Outlook 64 and was then upset that it didn't work with DM. "I have no patience for people who rush to the newest and shiniest toy and ***** when it's not working with critical applications." However, RIM is implicitly blaming the customer here. They have publicly taken no responsibility for failing to respond in a timely manner to the issue and leaving customers in the lurch.

It is convenient, I think, to suggest that by figuring out this problem after the final edition of Outlook 2010 was out, then posting a technical bulletin (really a response to customers advising RIM of the problem), then resolving it only partially in August, they were responsive. My view is that they should have been aware of this in November/December 2009 and notified customers then. Clearly RIM is not taking responsibility for this themselves (i.e. blaming themselves). The implication is that it is the customer's fault for assuming RIM would be aware of how its software performed with the most ubiquitous software its customers use for calendaring and syncing with their product.

[CanuckBB]

There are tons of apps that won't work with new OS or versons of other apps. It is up to the users to make sure everything is compatible before undertaking a major upgrade.

You may wish yo complain that RIM took too long to release a new version of DM, fair enough. Keep in mind that Outlook 2010 was a radical change from earlier versions. Given the time frames, RIM did start to upgrade using the beta. But you would want to wait until RTM to start final QA. Until RTM, specs can change. Once Office goes RTM, you need to redo all your testing for new functionality, then full regression testing to make sure nothing else is broken. Then you send to beta. RIM did state August for the 32 bit version, which is the most widely used.

I'm holding off installing Windows 7 on my users' systems. I even backlevel the new ones that come preloaded. My reason is similar to yours. I'll want to use W7 64bit. But one of my LOB app is not compatible. I also have a number of printers that don't have compatible drivers. I still have a SQL2000 server because I have one app that was never upgraded to 2005, let alone 2008.

That's the reality of business. Upgrading is often dependent on apps.

Regarding the 32 vs 64 question. There is a clear advantage to using Windows 64bit. Office, not so much. Life is a series of compromises.

[CanuckBB]

Originally Posted by lifesaver1

The MS Office 2010 upgrade was available in beta in November 2009 and retail in the second week of June I think. This thread was started by people using the public beta version in November and trying to figure out why they couldn't sync. Posting a technical bulletin on the issue the following July is hardly good customer service, in my view. Good customer service would have been to text the customer base in November/December 2009 and advise them that if they are contemplating an upgrade to MS Office 2010 and want to sync, they should hold off while RIM develops a solution. That would have avoided immeasurable frustration of customers.

Why do you think it is not up to the customer to ensure compatibility?

[The Sand]

I can tell from CanuckBBxxx8217;s post that you arenxxx8217;t a xxx8220;customerxxx8221; or a xxx8220;userxxx8221; you are an IT guy that takes care of the userxxx8230; which means your conclusions formed by thoughts/experiences accumulated over years from working in tech, are going to be different than xxx8220;the user.xxx8221;

The user is the guy who went in and bought the Torch, brought it home to sync to his new 64 bit Dell running 64 bit Officexxx8230; and canxxx8217;t figure out why it doesnxxx8217;t work. That is the user.

IT guys spend most of their day protecting that guy from himselfxxx8230;

But that guy exists and has money to spendxxx8230; and if RIM wants to keep taking it they better deliver a 64 bit Office sync sooner than 6 months outxxx8230;

6 months is ridulous. Period.

Sandy

p.s. In addition, Sony Pictures Entertainment had the Office 2010 available for their employees early June xxx8211; before the public. It was the official xxx8220;download,xxx8221; you had to wait for the DVD which you could select to have sent to youxxx8230; And if xxx8220;SPExxx8221; can get it donxxx8217;t tell me RIM who integrates it into their DM didnxxx8217;t have access to it before Junexxx8230;

[CanuckBB]

You're, I'm in IT guy. And I might be more forgiving because I have a background in application development and QA.

I'm sure RIM had access to Office early. I'm sure they started to re-code from the beta. But complete testing does not really start until RTM. That was March. To be redone when the product retails, that was June. A couple of months to go through the test bucket is not too much time. Remember they have to test against XP, Vista and Win7, in the case of Viste and Win 7, both 32 abd 64 bit. With Office 2003, 2007 and 2010. In all combiinations. That takes time.

Now they have to review the code to make it 64 bit. And retest against at least Win7. Office 2003, 2007, 2010, 32 and 64 bit.

When you're going to get a new computer, with a new OS, and software, you should make sure everything will still work. Remember when XP came out? How we aere all checking if old printers and scaners would still work? It's no different with software.

And I'm sure SPE did a lot of compatibility testing before releasing it to their employees. And wouldn't have it it broke some critical component.

[The Sand]

They don't do any testing - it's for "home" use.

Regarding the testing RIM and others have to do, I get it - and a few months, while not optimum, is in your words “forgivable.” But next year is hard to swallow. It shows RIM is still not really focused on the consumer market.

I do like RIM and my BB... I am hoping they up the time frame here for the 64 bit desktop release.

Sandy

[CanuckBB]

Think about it. Now that they have a working product, they use that as a base and convert to 64 bit. 4-6 months programming and testing is not such a long time.

I do feel more for the home user. But we've had too many individuals complain about it when in a corporate setting. To that, I have no patience or compassion.

[The Sand]

Maybe 4 (which is pushing it) but 6 is too long...

I am a "home user" and have no corporate setting... just because I know when SPE had Office available doesn't mean I work there.

Why would somebody complain in a corporate setting when IT takes care of everything... they need to take it to IT - not here...

It comes down to money... if RIM wants those home users running 64 bit "happy," so they contine to use BB year after year... they need to move on this.

Every post I made on this is from a home user - a BIS user - perspective. Someone everyday who has to figure out all their own tech troubles, on their own - which isn't easy. Sometimes I think RIM forgets about us...

Sandy

[lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by CanuckBB

Why do you think it is not up to the customer to ensure compatibility?

Interesting question. I do think there is some obligation on the part of the customer in that regard. But where would the customer be able to learn this information? That is to say, and I do not know the answer, was there a place on the RIM website where one could easily find out that DM was compatible with certain versions of Outlook (but not 2010)?

I Googled to find the following page today. I note that nowhere on the home page is there a caveat that it will not sync with Outlook 64. In fact it says, "Syncronize your organizer: BlackBerry Desktop Software is compatible with Microsoft® Outlook®, Windows® Calendar, IBM® Lotus Notes®, and Yahoo!®. Keep your organizer information in sync so you don't miss a thing." I would say that is misleading at best and if I were to read that, I would assume it was compatible with the most recent versions of Outlook. You?

Regarding your points about how long it takes to test, etc., I lack your technical knowledge. I'm just an end user. I note that CompanionLink resolved this long ago and is presumably benefiting by substantial income from offering a solution that RIM does not. Why would a company like RIM not be able to at least match their speed? In any case, if RIM could have notified its users, I think that would have been best. For me personally, the upgrade to Office 2010 was discretionary, not a requirement. Had I known about the compatibility problem, I'd have put it off. However, I would note that the only other program I'm having a compatibility issue with, and it is quite minor, is Adobe Acrobat Professional.

[lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by lifesaver1

I Googled to find the following page today.

Sorry. Here's the page:

BlackBerry - Desktop Software for PC

[CanuckBB]

Originally Posted by lifesaver1

Interesting question. I do think there is some obligation on the part of the customer in that regard. But where would the customer be able to learn this information? That is to say, and I do not know the answer, was there a place on the RIM website where one could easily find out that DM was compatible with certain versions of Outlook (but not 2010)?

I Googled to find the following page today. I note that nowhere on the home page is there a caveat that it will not sync with Outlook 64. In fact it says, "Syncronize your organizer: BlackBerry Desktop Software is compatible with Microsoft® Outlook®, Windows® Calendar, IBM® Lotus Notes®, and Yahoo!®. Keep your organizer information in sync so you don't miss a thing." I would say that is misleading at best and if I were to read that, I would assume it was compatible with the most recent versions of Outlook. You?

I went to RIM's web site and jeyed in "desktop manager outlook compatibility" in the search bar. The first page to come up was this one: BlackBerry - Desktop Software System Requirements

Note that for DM6 id specifically mention 32bit only, and the DM5 tab only lists 200, 2003 and 2007.

While I like google, never assume that it indexes every page on the web

Regarding your points about how long it takes to test, etc., I lack your technical knowledge. I'm just an end user. I note that CompanionLink resolved this long ago and is presumably benefiting by substantial income from offering a solution that RIM does not. Why would a company like RIM not be able to at least match their speed? In any case, if RIM could have notified its users, I think that would have been best. For me personally, the upgrade to Office 2010 was discretionary, not a requirement. Had I known about the compatibility problem, I'd have put it off. However, I would note that the only other program I'm having a compatibility issue with, and it is quite minor, is Adobe Acrobat Professional.

I can't comment on CompanionLink's testing methodologies. I just know from experience that most large development houses take a long time to test, and always test with at least the RTM version.

Nokia also too a while to release a 2010 compatible version of OVI Suite. It came out last month.

[The Sand]

Nobody was ready for 64 bit... I checked and users are mad on Nokia's forum (who are always mad, waiting for Nokia to care - which will never happen) iPhone 4 has trouble with 64 bit Office as well as 64 bit Windows 7 and Android/HTC isn't getting it done either...

So trying to find a device that can deliver a 64 bit sync right now would be hard.. if you own any of the above phones you just have to find a way to make it happen until these companies wake up and realize people are buying 64 bit.

If you spend any time on these forums it's quite obvious there is a universal theme - "unhappiness" with the software - it's a real problem no matter the version of Outlook or the bit. Nobody is really meeting the consumers needs in this area...

Sandy

[CanuckBB]

That's due to a few things. Office I can understand. It makes no real difference. Windows, OTOH, 64 bit is needed for memory access. However, OEMs are still shipping systems with 32 bit.

Let's also keep in mind that we here are the minority of users.

[lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by CanuckBB

I went to RIM's web site and jeyed in "desktop manager outlook compatibility" in the search bar. The first page to come up was this one: BlackBerry - Desktop Software System Requirements

Interesting. I think though that the page I noted is RIM's primary page for DM. I don't think the average person would drill down assuming that this page is not fully accurate or comprehensive.

[CanuckBB]

Originally Posted by lifesaver1

Interesting. I think though that the page I noted is RIM's primary page for DM. I don't think the average person would drill down assuming that this page is not fully accurate or comprehensive.

What you landed on is the 'marketing' page. While not lying, it is not detailed enough. We can argue forever as to what is sufficient disclosure. Atthe end of it, RIM did deliver for the majority mass market, around the same schedule as a lot of other software companies.

Was it good enough? maybe.

Now to be fair, towards the botton of the page you looked at is a link to the page I dug up. The link is titled system requirements.

[The Sand]

CompanionLink has already changed their website to reflect they are capable of Outlook sync with DM version 5.0 - they are working on 6.0 right now and will post when they are ready...

So if you are using CompanionLink to sync Office 2010 64 bit I would not upgrade the DM from 5.0 to 6.0 yet.

CompanionLink will get the iPhone and BB synced to Office but it appears Android (HTC and the like) is only a Google sync.

I don't see Nokia listed on CompanionLink but I have been able to get my N900 synced to Office 2010 all along using PC Suite - Ovi Suite is a train wreck.

Sandy

[The Sand]

Here is a little excerpt from the CompanionLink website:

How we work

We provide a complete service and not just a toolkit or API. The mobile industry evolves much faster than anyone can keep up with. Anyone except us. As experts in synchronization, we're in a unique position to stay current with the latest technology. Our team continuously maintains your custom solution so your product always works with new technology.

CompanionLink... rock on with your "synchronized" bad self... rock on!

Sandy

[lifesaver1]

It appears that CompanionLink has increased their price? I had checked it awhile ago and found it to be $50, but checked today and it is $70. So resolving RIM's delays by paying CompanionLink is a bit more expensive it seems. Sad really.

[The Sand]

These people exist because others, who should, can't get it done - which means they know how to "hustle." So I am not surprised they are taking care of the overwhelming demand right now and upped the price... but I agree with you, it's "sad" we have to pay them anything...

I called CompanionLink today to see if they could possibly get done for me what Go Daddy and they like want to charge me quite a bit for (If you want to sync your calendar/contacts with just "one" other person you are a "group" and get slammed.) They couldn't, but it was nice talking to them.

They are beta testing 6.0 now and think it will be ready very soon... I said, "Sooner than next year" and he said yes and laughed.

Sandy