Foldershare now and going forward

S

simonc

Some time back I made a post and projection about foldershare and where it is
going. Despite the encouraging responses from Microsoft, I find myself
bitterly disappointed by the lack of any real progress on what is
fundamentally a great product.

I have spent considerable time and cash looking at options to solve real
file sync'ing business problems and Foldershare should be a hands down win.

The grand vision of Live Mesh, Groove and Live Folders are unfortunately
more vision than grand. They each focus on niche areas and none are any real
improvement on the fundemental service of file and folder sync.

I have been a major proponent of most Microsoft software for a number of
years and for a number of reasons despite sometimes many shortcomings. The
problem with Microsofts handling of Foldershare thus far is that there are
lots of ideas in the cloud about where MS wants to go but no-one has had
their feet nailed to the floor to deliver real solutions. All but Groove are
in Beta (there must be a law against endless Beta's) and Groove just isn't
right for large numbers of files.

I think we can comfortably say that there are thousands of users who would
be prepared to pay for a limit removed Foldershare at the very least. A large
percentage I'm sure would pay for a self-hosted/server version. There are
other options out there who are catching up but not quite there yet. BeInSync
comes close except its horrible local database arrangement. Syncing.net is ok
if a little immature and sugarsync have fallen into the foolish "I want your
data hosted on our servers" approach otherwise is close to being a hot
contender.

Being both a businessman and someone who has been in some of the deepest
technical IT trenches, there is an easy business model which is both good for
MS & us, the people who need the enhancements:
- Pay for licenses for numbers of files sync'd or total GB (thus more than
10,000 files supported)
- Add run as service feature, ACL transfer (pro version?), support for W2K3
- Release a server version for the hosted part to enable private sharing
within an organisation

Windows Live feels like the original MSN (pre IE!) - its a bit all over the
place. Instead of creating the vision then trying to drop bits of
functionality in, why not use the previously successful approach of enhance
and release products and collapse them together when established (think
Win3.11 -> Win95......Vista - more and more proven add-ons integrated over
time).

Someone once asked me "how do you eat an elephant?" The answer: "one bite at
a time". Have a grand vision but also take bites before things go bad.

Perhaps not the usual post, nor the most technical - I personally feel
dragged along and I'm actively seeking alternatives. Microsoft - you can make
a difference and a profit easily, please get a grip.

yours faithfully,

simon
 

My Computer

S

StephanSF

Hi Simon,

Thoughtful post with good points. There was a time when I would have
posted something like it, and I may even have posted some suggestions
at one point. However from watching this newsgroup/forum and MS
response to the complaints and suggestions, Im afraid they simply dont
care.

They've taken what was a mature product that people paid for, and
dumbed it down, removed features for no apparent reason, suspended
server operations during business hours.. the list goes on I believe
some of the points you have made have been suggested in the past, and
yet here we are.

What galls me most is this beta business. It's like an excuse they
hide behind. For others who are not aware of the history of
FolderShare, it was a commercial product that many of us paid for to
have some of the restrictions like number of libraries and number of
files, lifted. It worked well and consistently.

Anyway, before I get too upset, thanks for the post, Simon
 

My Computer

C

Christoph Zelazowski [MSFT]

You bring some very good points Simon. Thank you very much for taking time
and providing this feedback. While it may seem like sometimes we (Microsoft)
are not very involved in the newsgroup, rest assured that we do monitor it
very carefully and do listen to everyone's suggestions. The reality is - we
are very busy working on improving the end user experience in general and are
not yet in the position to disclose any specific plans or make promises. But
any feedback we receive is much appreciated and carefully taken into account
in our product planning.

Thanks,
Christoph

"simonc" wrote:

> Some time back I made a post and projection about foldershare and where it is
> going. Despite the encouraging responses from Microsoft, I find myself
> bitterly disappointed by the lack of any real progress on what is
> fundamentally a great product.
>
> I have spent considerable time and cash looking at options to solve real
> file sync'ing business problems and Foldershare should be a hands down win.
>
> The grand vision of Live Mesh, Groove and Live Folders are unfortunately
> more vision than grand. They each focus on niche areas and none are any real
> improvement on the fundemental service of file and folder sync.
>
> I have been a major proponent of most Microsoft software for a number of
> years and for a number of reasons despite sometimes many shortcomings. The
> problem with Microsofts handling of Foldershare thus far is that there are
> lots of ideas in the cloud about where MS wants to go but no-one has had
> their feet nailed to the floor to deliver real solutions. All but Groove are
> in Beta (there must be a law against endless Beta's) and Groove just isn't
> right for large numbers of files.
>
> I think we can comfortably say that there are thousands of users who would
> be prepared to pay for a limit removed Foldershare at the very least. A large
> percentage I'm sure would pay for a self-hosted/server version. There are
> other options out there who are catching up but not quite there yet. BeInSync
> comes close except its horrible local database arrangement. Syncing.net is ok
> if a little immature and sugarsync have fallen into the foolish "I want your
> data hosted on our servers" approach otherwise is close to being a hot
> contender.
>
> Being both a businessman and someone who has been in some of the deepest
> technical IT trenches, there is an easy business model which is both good for
> MS & us, the people who need the enhancements:
> - Pay for licenses for numbers of files sync'd or total GB (thus more than
> 10,000 files supported)
> - Add run as service feature, ACL transfer (pro version?), support for W2K3
> - Release a server version for the hosted part to enable private sharing
> within an organisation
>
> Windows Live feels like the original MSN (pre IE!) - its a bit all over the
> place. Instead of creating the vision then trying to drop bits of
> functionality in, why not use the previously successful approach of enhance
> and release products and collapse them together when established (think
> Win3.11 -> Win95......Vista - more and more proven add-ons integrated over
> time).
>
> Someone once asked me "how do you eat an elephant?" The answer: "one bite at
> a time". Have a grand vision but also take bites before things go bad.
>
> Perhaps not the usual post, nor the most technical - I personally feel
> dragged along and I'm actively seeking alternatives. Microsoft - you can make
> a difference and a profit easily, please get a grip.
>
> yours faithfully,
>
> simon
 

My Computer

S

simonc

Thanks for responding Christoph. I appreciate that you are working hard on
developing FolderShare. I and I'm sure many others appreciate the fact that
you and your colleagues do participate in this forum.

With a very heavy heart and reluctant finger I clicked Uninstall today on
FolderShare in favour of PowerFolder. PowerFolder has really come on and so
far works very well with our 100GB/40,000 files. I only investigated it again
after my previous post and promptly parted with cash. Its not perfect (I'm
not a fan of Java or open source generally for a start) but works well and
has a few key features.

I will be closely monitoring FolderShare developments although will probably
not switch to a new platform now for some time (should anything else develop
further).

I suspect that FolderShare could conflict with Windows Server sales hence
needing a different approach. Please don't let it go the way of Cairo (the
infamous all object-orientated Windows). PowerFolder has just upped the ante
- with a few enterprise features added it could really go somewhere.

The gauntlet has been laid down...

"Christoph Zelazowski [MSFT]" wrote:

> You bring some very good points Simon. Thank you very much for taking time
> and providing this feedback. While it may seem like sometimes we (Microsoft)
> are not very involved in the newsgroup, rest assured that we do monitor it
> very carefully and do listen to everyone's suggestions. The reality is - we
> are very busy working on improving the end user experience in general and are
> not yet in the position to disclose any specific plans or make promises. But
> any feedback we receive is much appreciated and carefully taken into account
> in our product planning.
>
> Thanks,
> Christoph
>
> "simonc" wrote:
>

> > Some time back I made a post and projection about foldershare and where it is
> > going. Despite the encouraging responses from Microsoft, I find myself
> > bitterly disappointed by the lack of any real progress on what is
> > fundamentally a great product.
> >
> > I have spent considerable time and cash looking at options to solve real
> > file sync'ing business problems and Foldershare should be a hands down win.
> >
> > The grand vision of Live Mesh, Groove and Live Folders are unfortunately
> > more vision than grand. They each focus on niche areas and none are any real
> > improvement on the fundemental service of file and folder sync.
> >
> > I have been a major proponent of most Microsoft software for a number of
> > years and for a number of reasons despite sometimes many shortcomings. The
> > problem with Microsofts handling of Foldershare thus far is that there are
> > lots of ideas in the cloud about where MS wants to go but no-one has had
> > their feet nailed to the floor to deliver real solutions. All but Groove are
> > in Beta (there must be a law against endless Beta's) and Groove just isn't
> > right for large numbers of files.
> >
> > I think we can comfortably say that there are thousands of users who would
> > be prepared to pay for a limit removed Foldershare at the very least. A large
> > percentage I'm sure would pay for a self-hosted/server version. There are
> > other options out there who are catching up but not quite there yet. BeInSync
> > comes close except its horrible local database arrangement. Syncing.net is ok
> > if a little immature and sugarsync have fallen into the foolish "I want your
> > data hosted on our servers" approach otherwise is close to being a hot
> > contender.
> >
> > Being both a businessman and someone who has been in some of the deepest
> > technical IT trenches, there is an easy business model which is both good for
> > MS & us, the people who need the enhancements:
> > - Pay for licenses for numbers of files sync'd or total GB (thus more than
> > 10,000 files supported)
> > - Add run as service feature, ACL transfer (pro version?), support for W2K3
> > - Release a server version for the hosted part to enable private sharing
> > within an organisation
> >
> > Windows Live feels like the original MSN (pre IE!) - its a bit all over the
> > place. Instead of creating the vision then trying to drop bits of
> > functionality in, why not use the previously successful approach of enhance
> > and release products and collapse them together when established (think
> > Win3.11 -> Win95......Vista - more and more proven add-ons integrated over
> > time).
> >
> > Someone once asked me "how do you eat an elephant?" The answer: "one bite at
> > a time". Have a grand vision but also take bites before things go bad.
> >
> > Perhaps not the usual post, nor the most technical - I personally feel
> > dragged along and I'm actively seeking alternatives. Microsoft - you can make
> > a difference and a profit easily, please get a grip.
> >
> > yours faithfully,
> >
> > simon
 

My Computer

D

Darian Miller

Thanks for the PowerFolder tip... That looks interesting!

FolderShare works great. It's missing a few key features though:
- Run as a service
- Send only changes (delta-only file chunks)

Downloading demo for PowerFolder now. I really like FolderShare but it
seems like a product in need of a champion or two at MS.

Darian


"simonc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Thanks for responding Christoph. I appreciate that you are working hard on
> developing FolderShare. I and I'm sure many others appreciate the fact
> that
> you and your colleagues do participate in this forum.
>
> With a very heavy heart and reluctant finger I clicked Uninstall today on
> FolderShare in favour of PowerFolder. PowerFolder has really come on and
> so
> far works very well with our 100GB/40,000 files. I only investigated it
> again
> after my previous post and promptly parted with cash. Its not perfect (I'm
> not a fan of Java or open source generally for a start) but works well and
> has a few key features.
>
> I will be closely monitoring FolderShare developments although will
> probably
> not switch to a new platform now for some time (should anything else
> develop
> further).
>
> I suspect that FolderShare could conflict with Windows Server sales hence
> needing a different approach. Please don't let it go the way of Cairo (the
> infamous all object-orientated Windows). PowerFolder has just upped the
> ante
> - with a few enterprise features added it could really go somewhere.
>
> The gauntlet has been laid down...
>
> "Christoph Zelazowski [MSFT]" wrote:
>

>> You bring some very good points Simon. Thank you very much for taking
>> time
>> and providing this feedback. While it may seem like sometimes we
>> (Microsoft)
>> are not very involved in the newsgroup, rest assured that we do monitor
>> it
>> very carefully and do listen to everyone's suggestions. The reality is -
>> we
>> are very busy working on improving the end user experience in general and
>> are
>> not yet in the position to disclose any specific plans or make promises.
>> But
>> any feedback we receive is much appreciated and carefully taken into
>> account
>> in our product planning.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Christoph
>>
>> "simonc" wrote:
>>

>> > Some time back I made a post and projection about foldershare and where
>> > it is
>> > going. Despite the encouraging responses from Microsoft, I find myself
>> > bitterly disappointed by the lack of any real progress on what is
>> > fundamentally a great product.
>> >
>> > I have spent considerable time and cash looking at options to solve
>> > real
>> > file sync'ing business problems and Foldershare should be a hands down
>> > win.
>> >
>> > The grand vision of Live Mesh, Groove and Live Folders are
>> > unfortunately
>> > more vision than grand. They each focus on niche areas and none are any
>> > real
>> > improvement on the fundemental service of file and folder sync.
>> >
>> > I have been a major proponent of most Microsoft software for a number
>> > of
>> > years and for a number of reasons despite sometimes many shortcomings.
>> > The
>> > problem with Microsofts handling of Foldershare thus far is that there
>> > are
>> > lots of ideas in the cloud about where MS wants to go but no-one has
>> > had
>> > their feet nailed to the floor to deliver real solutions. All but
>> > Groove are
>> > in Beta (there must be a law against endless Beta's) and Groove just
>> > isn't
>> > right for large numbers of files.
>> >
>> > I think we can comfortably say that there are thousands of users who
>> > would
>> > be prepared to pay for a limit removed Foldershare at the very least. A
>> > large
>> > percentage I'm sure would pay for a self-hosted/server version. There
>> > are
>> > other options out there who are catching up but not quite there yet.
>> > BeInSync
>> > comes close except its horrible local database arrangement. Syncing.net
>> > is ok
>> > if a little immature and sugarsync have fallen into the foolish "I want
>> > your
>> > data hosted on our servers" approach otherwise is close to being a hot
>> > contender.
>> >
>> > Being both a businessman and someone who has been in some of the
>> > deepest
>> > technical IT trenches, there is an easy business model which is both
>> > good for
>> > MS & us, the people who need the enhancements:
>> > - Pay for licenses for numbers of files sync'd or total GB (thus more
>> > than
>> > 10,000 files supported)
>> > - Add run as service feature, ACL transfer (pro version?), support for
>> > W2K3
>> > - Release a server version for the hosted part to enable private
>> > sharing
>> > within an organisation
>> >
>> > Windows Live feels like the original MSN (pre IE!) - its a bit all over
>> > the
>> > place. Instead of creating the vision then trying to drop bits of
>> > functionality in, why not use the previously successful approach of
>> > enhance
>> > and release products and collapse them together when established (think
>> > Win3.11 -> Win95......Vista - more and more proven add-ons integrated
>> > over
>> > time).
>> >
>> > Someone once asked me "how do you eat an elephant?" The answer: "one
>> > bite at
>> > a time". Have a grand vision but also take bites before things go bad.
>> >
>> > Perhaps not the usual post, nor the most technical - I personally feel
>> > dragged along and I'm actively seeking alternatives. Microsoft - you
>> > can make
>> > a difference and a profit easily, please get a grip.
>> >
>> > yours faithfully,
>> >
>> > simon
 

My Computer

D

Darian Miller

I tried PowerFolder and promptly uninstalled it. I simply could not get it
to sync at all.

Any idea when Live Sync is ready for download/beta?


"Darian Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Thanks for the PowerFolder tip... That looks interesting!
>
> FolderShare works great. It's missing a few key features though:
> - Run as a service
> - Send only changes (delta-only file chunks)
>
> Downloading demo for PowerFolder now. I really like FolderShare but it
> seems like a product in need of a champion or two at MS.
>
> Darian
>
>
> "simonc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

>> Thanks for responding Christoph. I appreciate that you are working hard
>> on
>> developing FolderShare. I and I'm sure many others appreciate the fact
>> that
>> you and your colleagues do participate in this forum.
>>
>> With a very heavy heart and reluctant finger I clicked Uninstall today on
>> FolderShare in favour of PowerFolder. PowerFolder has really come on and
>> so
>> far works very well with our 100GB/40,000 files. I only investigated it
>> again
>> after my previous post and promptly parted with cash. Its not perfect
>> (I'm
>> not a fan of Java or open source generally for a start) but works well
>> and
>> has a few key features.
>>
>> I will be closely monitoring FolderShare developments although will
>> probably
>> not switch to a new platform now for some time (should anything else
>> develop
>> further).
>>
>> I suspect that FolderShare could conflict with Windows Server sales hence
>> needing a different approach. Please don't let it go the way of Cairo
>> (the
>> infamous all object-orientated Windows). PowerFolder has just upped the
>> ante
>> - with a few enterprise features added it could really go somewhere.
>>
>> The gauntlet has been laid down...
>>
>> "Christoph Zelazowski [MSFT]" wrote:
>>

>>> You bring some very good points Simon. Thank you very much for taking
>>> time
>>> and providing this feedback. While it may seem like sometimes we
>>> (Microsoft)
>>> are not very involved in the newsgroup, rest assured that we do monitor
>>> it
>>> very carefully and do listen to everyone's suggestions. The reality is -
>>> we
>>> are very busy working on improving the end user experience in general
>>> and are
>>> not yet in the position to disclose any specific plans or make promises.
>>> But
>>> any feedback we receive is much appreciated and carefully taken into
>>> account
>>> in our product planning.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>> "simonc" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Some time back I made a post and projection about foldershare and
>>> > where it is
>>> > going. Despite the encouraging responses from Microsoft, I find myself
>>> > bitterly disappointed by the lack of any real progress on what is
>>> > fundamentally a great product.
>>> >
>>> > I have spent considerable time and cash looking at options to solve
>>> > real
>>> > file sync'ing business problems and Foldershare should be a hands down
>>> > win.
>>> >
>>> > The grand vision of Live Mesh, Groove and Live Folders are
>>> > unfortunately
>>> > more vision than grand. They each focus on niche areas and none are
>>> > any real
>>> > improvement on the fundemental service of file and folder sync.
>>> >
>>> > I have been a major proponent of most Microsoft software for a number
>>> > of
>>> > years and for a number of reasons despite sometimes many shortcomings.
>>> > The
>>> > problem with Microsofts handling of Foldershare thus far is that there
>>> > are
>>> > lots of ideas in the cloud about where MS wants to go but no-one has
>>> > had
>>> > their feet nailed to the floor to deliver real solutions. All but
>>> > Groove are
>>> > in Beta (there must be a law against endless Beta's) and Groove just
>>> > isn't
>>> > right for large numbers of files.
>>> >
>>> > I think we can comfortably say that there are thousands of users who
>>> > would
>>> > be prepared to pay for a limit removed Foldershare at the very least.
>>> > A large
>>> > percentage I'm sure would pay for a self-hosted/server version. There
>>> > are
>>> > other options out there who are catching up but not quite there yet.
>>> > BeInSync
>>> > comes close except its horrible local database arrangement.
>>> > Syncing.net is ok
>>> > if a little immature and sugarsync have fallen into the foolish "I
>>> > want your
>>> > data hosted on our servers" approach otherwise is close to being a hot
>>> > contender.
>>> >
>>> > Being both a businessman and someone who has been in some of the
>>> > deepest
>>> > technical IT trenches, there is an easy business model which is both
>>> > good for
>>> > MS & us, the people who need the enhancements:
>>> > - Pay for licenses for numbers of files sync'd or total GB (thus more
>>> > than
>>> > 10,000 files supported)
>>> > - Add run as service feature, ACL transfer (pro version?), support for
>>> > W2K3
>>> > - Release a server version for the hosted part to enable private
>>> > sharing
>>> > within an organisation
>>> >
>>> > Windows Live feels like the original MSN (pre IE!) - its a bit all
>>> > over the
>>> > place. Instead of creating the vision then trying to drop bits of
>>> > functionality in, why not use the previously successful approach of
>>> > enhance
>>> > and release products and collapse them together when established
>>> > (think
>>> > Win3.11 -> Win95......Vista - more and more proven add-ons integrated
>>> > over
>>> > time).
>>> >
>>> > Someone once asked me "how do you eat an elephant?" The answer: "one
>>> > bite at
>>> > a time". Have a grand vision but also take bites before things go bad.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps not the usual post, nor the most technical - I personally feel
>>> > dragged along and I'm actively seeking alternatives. Microsoft - you
>>> > can make
>>> > a difference and a profit easily, please get a grip.
>>> >
>>> > yours faithfully,
>>> >
>>> > simon
>
 

My Computer

Top