The Entourage team has blogged recently about the release of Entourage 2004 SP2:
What's new in Entourage 2004 SP2
SP2 details: Enforcing Exchange Permissions within Entourage
Entourage 2004...
Updated Jul 01, 2019
Version 2.0
Blog Post
The ones we have tracked so far are as follows:
1. Entourage does not like certificate changes longer than 3 links long. MacBU said they are working on a fix for this.
2. Sync time is still VERY slow. On average you can sit and watch the system synch 5 messages at a time. MacBU said to point the client directly against our back-end servers, but we don't allow direct HTTPS to them (that would be plain stupid in an enterprise enviornment where an IIS vulnerability could come out).
3. Syncing a 75 meg mailbox with 20K items in the sent items seems to stall out at around 8K items. The product never finishes synching a normal mailbox.
4. Messages sent from OWA, show up very funny in the sent items of Entourage (try it an see).
5. Synched messages display the time that they were synched in the folder, not the time they were dropped onto the server - so sent items when using multiple clients looks VERY off.
6. If you move a user between servers - there is a chance for data loss (even in SP2) as the client detects the change and tries to re-synch.
Other functional issues but not necessarily bugs:
No direct support for PSTs other than to import. This causes Entourage's local mail database to become one HUGE file. Kind of defeats the purpose for having multiple PSTs on the PC side.
Overall performance of the client is still very lackluster.
Aside from potentially using the Office 2004 SP2 Resource Kit, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of affecting admin control over deployments.
Overall Entourage 2004 SP2 is a VERY poor client. There are WAY too many bugs in this version for it to be SP2 - and the MacBU needs to include more than 40 people total in its BETA cycles.
The NIH has been waiting breathlessly for this client to replace Outlook 2001 which our researchers use heavily (in classic mode on OS X unfortunately). However this client seems to be such a major step backward in terms of performance and functionaly - so we have nothing to offer them at the moment.
Why oh why couldn't MSFT have carbonized Outlook 2001? It was a GREAT client in comparison, not to mention it supported PC PST files.
1. Entourage does not like certificate changes longer than 3 links long. MacBU said they are working on a fix for this.
2. Sync time is still VERY slow. On average you can sit and watch the system synch 5 messages at a time. MacBU said to point the client directly against our back-end servers, but we don't allow direct HTTPS to them (that would be plain stupid in an enterprise enviornment where an IIS vulnerability could come out).
3. Syncing a 75 meg mailbox with 20K items in the sent items seems to stall out at around 8K items. The product never finishes synching a normal mailbox.
4. Messages sent from OWA, show up very funny in the sent items of Entourage (try it an see).
5. Synched messages display the time that they were synched in the folder, not the time they were dropped onto the server - so sent items when using multiple clients looks VERY off.
6. If you move a user between servers - there is a chance for data loss (even in SP2) as the client detects the change and tries to re-synch.
Other functional issues but not necessarily bugs:
No direct support for PSTs other than to import. This causes Entourage's local mail database to become one HUGE file. Kind of defeats the purpose for having multiple PSTs on the PC side.
Overall performance of the client is still very lackluster.
Aside from potentially using the Office 2004 SP2 Resource Kit, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of affecting admin control over deployments.
Overall Entourage 2004 SP2 is a VERY poor client. There are WAY too many bugs in this version for it to be SP2 - and the MacBU needs to include more than 40 people total in its BETA cycles.
The NIH has been waiting breathlessly for this client to replace Outlook 2001 which our researchers use heavily (in classic mode on OS X unfortunately). However this client seems to be such a major step backward in terms of performance and functionaly - so we have nothing to offer them at the moment.
Why oh why couldn't MSFT have carbonized Outlook 2001? It was a GREAT client in comparison, not to mention it supported PC PST files.