| shihkjh453 |
03-26-2011 08:47 PM |
Office 2010 Pro 64 Bit Are all (Microsoft and Appl
Apple;s introduction of the successor to .Mac — a k a, MobileMe — raises the question as to what;s taking Microsoft so long to roll out Live Mesh.There aren;t a whole lot of details yet available on MobileMe, Office 2010 Code, other than that it will allow cloud-based synchronization of data and devices. (And will make use of Microsoft;s ActiveSync technology, which Apple licensed from Microsoft in order to bring push e-mail to the iPhone, Office 2010 Professional Plus X64, creating its “Exchange for the rest of us.”)From initial reports, MobileMe sounds like a combination of a Windows Live (the various Webified versions with the .Mac point products), Live Mesh (the Mobile Me sync service) and SkyDrive (the Mobile Me cloud-based storage). It is slated to be available to customers in July for a (pricey) $99, Office Home And Business 2010 Keygen, which includes 20 GB of storage.Given that Live Mesh is only in very early test at this point, Office 2010 Pro 64 Bit, there;s no word on how Microsoft is planning to package/price the service. Windows Live services are currently free, Office Standard 2010 Serial, as is the beta of Windows Live SkyDrive, which includes 5 GB of free storage. Microsoft has not provided even a calendar year target as to when it will make Live Mesh available commercially.Meanwhile, Live Mesh is not Microsoft;s only synchronization/collaboration service under development. Microsoft;s Sync Framework, a mobile-client test version of which is due in the third quarter, is another.Last week, at Microsoft;s TechEd Developer Conference, I tried to get Microsoft execs to articulate more clearly the overlap/connections between Live Mesh and the Sync Framework. I realize that Live Mesh, as far as Microsoft has been willing to explain it, is more of a consumer-focused platform that will have a developer aspect (via the forthcoming Live Mesh software developer kit).But why didn;t Microsoft;s Live Mesh team use the Sync Framework as an underpinning? Wouldn;t that have helped Microsoft get Live Mesh to market more quickly — a la Apple — than it will be able to do by creating the entire Live Mesh stack from scratch? No word was forthcoming from the Softies. All I could get out of them was Live Mesh is the P2P, out-of-the-box sync solution and Sync Framework is the customizable, developer-focused sync solution. The only place (so far) where the two meet: FeedSync.Microsoft is (in)famous for pitting its own development teams against one another, allowing the “best” solution to win. I wonder whether this is what is happening with Live Mesh and the Sync Framework. If not, why didn;t the Live Mesh team make greater use of what;s available and coming with the Sync Framework? Theories? Thoughts? |
