Where is the Killer Calendar? 725
AnonaCow writes "Firefox and Thunderbird rock my world, but Mozilla's Calendar (Sunbird) has a long way to go. This maybe mundane, but what software does the slashdot community use to schedule? How do you keep track of your various appointments? What about your 'To Do' List?"
So far... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:4, Insightful)
Decidedly low-tech (Score:3, Insightful)
I've found over the years that if I start compiling things into a "to-do" list or a schedule, then I'm more inclined (not less) to miss things or not do things, because they have officially become more of a nuissance by being on a list of things I feel obligated to do. When I just keep track of things mentally instead, then it doesn't feel like it's hanging over my head all the time and I feel like I can do it whenever I damn well please, which makes it more likely to actually get done.
Re:One I programmed myself (Score:5, Insightful)
NOTHING! (Score:1, Insightful)
MOD UP! (Score:1, Insightful)
Using a computer for a "to-do" list or calendar is just using technology for the sake of using technology. Pen and paper works fine. It has the advantage of being more portable than the smallest PDA as well.
iCal + iPod + iSync = trifecta (Score:3, Insightful)
but iCal synched with iPod is bliss.
Additionally, you can post your iCal schedule online and share it with
What do I use? Pens and a whiteboard... (Score:3, Insightful)
So to organise anything, I use a whiteboard with pens. Why? Its better than any digital application as it works without power, doesn't require me to sit down to use it, and most importantly, it requires gross motor control, something that I still have.
When you're able to write your todo list in 10cm letters at any time, able to check it off in many ways, and even the ability to doddle when bored, you'll see that there isn't a single application that can ever come close to a whiteboard.
NeoThermic
The one final and best solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Sunbird & iCal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:iCal (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this assumes you have a OS X machine around... But try it out sometime at an Apple store or something if you don't have a Mac zealot friend
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For OS X: Entourage 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of interest why?
One of the things I hated when I had to use Windows (in business) was that unlike the OS I loved (RISC OS which doesn't have the concept of the MDI and everything is opened in its own window) it had big monolithic apps rather than lots of little ones that worked together.
One of the things I like about OS-X (and the earlier MacOSes) is that they have relatively small apps that do work together.
Isn't the point of the GUI to be able to have several apps open at the same time? So as I've said above out of interest why do you prefer one monolithic app?
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
This machine I'm typing on has a cool 128 MB of ram. Loading an application that requires 25 software libraries to do something as simple as sort a list or add a funky widget toolbar is not something this machine can withstand with ease. Running thin, streamlined apps is something that keeps my machine enjoyable to use.
That said, the Open Source world is far from listening to our calls to reduce bloat; instead they drive forward, coding the same application over and over, disorganized libraries, untracable dependencies, all and all just masses of code lumped together. While this bulk of code has thousands of useful features, many of them are hidden from sight behind a terminal which scares people away, and the few that make it through to the desktop are often behind clunky software libraries that people are constantly at war building and defending.
I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll because I really love and enjoy Linux and the BSDs that gracefully allowed Mac OS X to come into being, but I seriously hope that we get better at organizing our efforts as developers and software engineers and not continue forever honing our programming skills. While an app may not be perfect, it can Just Work, and we can fix the bugs as we go. For the critial apps, good design begets good implementation. We should embrace these lessons as we look to the future.
Try and try and try (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Dayplanners-- useful for a few days and then I forget it somewhere and then its not so useful.
2. PDA-- small and stylish (at the time), but too slow to input anything.
3. Software-- great when you're at home, but locked into the computer which makes it not so portable.
Finally I wound up relying on my brain to keep track of everything. It's portable, doesn't take up much space, somewhat stylish (if you're into that kinda thing), never runs out of memory, input is quick, output is quick unless hampered by beer or boobs.
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all very astonishing of you, considering that later in this thread you admit that you have never actually used Outlook2k3...
iCal is ok but...... (Score:4, Insightful)
ical is also not equipped for work groups, strictly a single user experience. At the office (1000+ workstations) we have been using groupwise for years and years and years. It is not without its ups and downs, but for email and calendar/scheduling it is a decent mule.
Psion Agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
As a 5-year-old release, the Agenda version I'm using is probably getting hard to synch up with desktop- or network-based apps, but I've never really seen much point in doing that. I can check it whether I'm at the office, at home, or anywhere else, after all.
Re:MOD UP! (Score:2, Insightful)
On the contrary, I think it is one of the best uses of technology.
Pen and paper works fine. It has the advantage of being more portable than the smallest PDA as well.
Lets see.
Elaborate please, why is this technology for the sake of using technology?
My Brain (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I work, the users have pushed their PST files onto the local fileserver, and the nightly backup (out the building's T1) has become so large that it runs into the next work morning, clogging the link so people can't login.
I use have to use Outlook every day and my conclusion is that it is for people who don't care about reliability. The users have gotten a vague feel for this fact and have developed workarounds: People in our Chinese locations routinely request return receipts. Anything really important doesn't go over email anymore, making conference calls with Europe & the far East very common, and the workday stretches out to all manner of odd hours.
For the record, I use Kmail & Kalandar at home. Not quite as automatic as Outlook (when it works, that is, and when you can trust it, which is never), and a little more work to set up, but not lacking any feature I really need.
Re:NOTHING! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to sound harsh, but based upon your comments I get the sense that you probably haven't managed a project or otherwise been responsible for the work of others.
wbs.
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NOTHING! (Score:2, Insightful)
how about integration with other programs (Score:3, Insightful)
How about integration with other calendar programs.
iCal, Netscape Calendar, and Outlook- none of them actually work with each other (sorry, they DO NOT despite what anyone has told you; for example, an iCal calendar item's title won't show up properly in Mozilla Calendar.)
It's pretty astounding that a simple file format like a frigging CALENDAR can't be standardized across calendar programs which all claim to be able to use the same...uh...standard file format.
Most of the dependency on Outlook would be eliminated if all these programs generated the same invitation format emails.
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
iCal in theory, will always be less bloated than outlook, simply because it has a more limited feature set --- read into this however you may.
By its own nature, all iCal has to do is provide a rudiementary scheduling interface. Although the UI is beautiful and the program very useful, the future set is very basic. For people like myself who do not require the full capabilities of outlook and exchange, iCal is more than adequate. On top of iCal's very basic architecture, of course, you get neat features tacked on top such as automated reminders and web publishing.
If you work in a big company and use exchange, quite simply, that extra code bloat in outlook is going to pay off bigtime, because you're actually going to be using that "bloat" to boost productivity. If you need the advanced workgroup features of outlook/exchange, chances are you're already using it.
At the moment, for windows, Outlook 2003 appears to be the best calendaring/email application out there, regardless of wether or not you use it to its fullest extent. Although I love iCal for its simpliity and ease of use, I give major props to the MS development team for creating a damn good application. Considering the extra capabilities outlook brings to the table (wether or not they're actually necessary), Microsoft managed to do it with virtually no bloat. Outlook 2003 truly is an elegant application.
Re:When (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So far... (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy. Your method sucks at the office, when you need to schedule a meeting of about 10 people at a time when everybody is free (you need to look at THEIR calendars) and find a conference room that is available for that time period, then track RSVP's. And you have to assume that everybody else actually writes all their own appointments on their calendars.
That's a LOT of phone calls, walking around to cubicles, and collecting post-it notes. And then you're gonna wind up fighting over a room anyway with the other folks who got there first.
Re:Outlook 2003 - Stop the FUD. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop the insanity!
I've got Outlook 2003 open to an Exchange 2003 server right now. My mailbox is about 1.3GB. I've got a few add-ons, too, such as the LookOut search tool. It's using 25MB RAM.
It loads very fast, too.
For what the application does (it's not just e-mail) I think 25MB is certainly very resonable. Where's all that bloat you mac users like to spread around about Microsoft and Windows and Office?
Not liking the company is not a reason to lie about the applications they create. I hate Microsoft just as much as the next guy, but I really like Outlook and I look forward to when an OSS replacement app matches it. Evolution is very close, and I think in a few more revisions it'll be there. But it doesn't mean Outlook is crap. It's not.
And why do you need all that free RAM anyways? I have memory in my computers to use it. Sure, every software developer could write software that uses almost NO memory. But then they'd all run like shit, too. No, I'd rather use all my RAM up if that means my apps run faster. Because, you know. THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR.
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:3, Insightful)
How may ways do you want to define where the signature file is today?
Re:Outlook 2003 (Score:3, Insightful)
Bugzilla, unfortunately carries the string 'Bug' in its title, and gets branded as a bug-only tool. I much prefer Mantis, and both tools contain a "Feature" item in the dropdown... report your "items" as a feature, and let someone else implement/comment on them. Not everything listed in Bugzilla has to be a "bug" in the system. Lack of a key feature can be seen as a bug by some users.
But my post was actually "bait" to see if the OP had actually mentioned these feature requests anywhere but his rantings on Slashdot. If nobody with the power to implement them sees or hears about them, how does he know anyone wants them?
I see this all the time with bugs that go unreported. It goes something like this:
Unfortunately, that's the reality of the matter. If nobody wants to help by reporting bugs, adding their comments and feature requests, providing testing resources (especially on hardware or software that developers such as myself do not have access to), or by sending in patches... things don't improve.
Many people complain that "Linux usability sucks", but they do nothing to try to solve it. The problem lies in both courts... developer AND user.