3 ms·

So essentially Microsoft's chat app is not good at chat, but you use it for file-sharing instead because Microsoft's file-sharing app is not good at file-sharin

by ptx 7y ago

So essentially Microsoft's chat app is not good at chat, but you use it for file-sharing instead because Microsoft's file-sharing app is not good at file-sharing?

addicted 7y ago
It's good at chat. It's not good at persistent chat rooms. It's great for ad hoc groups of people to chat or for direct chat. It's also great for meetings. Where it gets cumbersome is in the persistent chat room management. And as someone who is not a fan of chat rooms as a replacement for emails (I can't even filter or categorize information) I'm glad about that part.
- WiseWeasel 7y ago
  Email is great and all, but not for regular topical discussions that may interest dynamic groups of people. A persistent, shared and searchable history and threading enables more effective discussion on a larger scale than practical with email.
  - addicted 7y ago
    Fair enough. Teams sucks for the case where you have a limited topic that you want adynamically changing user list to be able to access for an extended period of time. I’ll take that in return for it not trying to replace email, which, at the very least has folders, and rules, and starring (nearly every implementation has some version of this), multiple clients, the ability to access from non GUI clients, etc. I really don’t understand at what point we decided that email sucked and really what we needed was a proprietary solution that are up a ton of RAM and hardly had any ability to customise or optimize in ways thateven non technical people have successfully managed wth email. For all the non email like features, I.e. instant chatting with an individual, or a group of people, Teams works great.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
WorldMaker 7y ago
It's okay at chat, but the big deal is that it's Microsoft's best client for SharePoint. It finally makes a lot of SharePoint features make sense and puts them in a way that is easy to use without paying a consultant design firm an arm and a leg on customizing the widgets on team SharePoint portals in such a way that mere mortals can find the important stuff like the team's document libraries, Wiki, or OneNote Notebook. (It really is amazing how much Teams has lit up "we have the ability to do that now" for SharePoint features that have existed almost forever. I was particularly amused when someone asked me why so many Teams features have SharePoint URLs when SharePoint didn't support them and then showing them the three or four step process to do it on SharePoint that has been there all along.)

by ptx 7y ago

So essentially Microsoft's chat app is not good at chat, but you use it for file-sharing instead because Microsoft's file-sharing app is not good at file-sharing?

addicted 7y ago

It's good at chat. It's not good at persistent chat rooms. It's great for ad hoc groups of people to chat or for direct chat. It's also great for meetings. Where it gets cumbersome is in the persistent chat room management. And as someone who is not a fan of chat rooms as a replacement for emails (I can't even filter or categorize information) I'm glad about that part.

WiseWeasel 7y ago
Email is great and all, but not for regular topical discussions that may interest dynamic groups of people. A persistent, shared and searchable history and threading enables more effective discussion on a larger scale than practical with email.
- addicted 7y ago
  Fair enough. Teams sucks for the case where you have a limited topic that you want adynamically changing user list to be able to access for an extended period of time. I’ll take that in return for it not trying to replace email, which, at the very least has folders, and rules, and starring (nearly every implementation has some version of this), multiple clients, the ability to access from non GUI clients, etc. I really don’t understand at what point we decided that email sucked and really what we needed was a proprietary solution that are up a ton of RAM and hardly had any ability to customise or optimize in ways thateven non technical people have successfully managed wth email. For all the non email like features, I.e. instant chatting with an individual, or a group of people, Teams works great.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

WorldMaker 7y ago

It's okay at chat, but the big deal is that it's Microsoft's best client for SharePoint. It finally makes a lot of SharePoint features make sense and puts them in a way that is easy to use without paying a consultant design firm an arm and a leg on customizing the widgets on team SharePoint portals in such a way that mere mortals can find the important stuff like the team's document libraries, Wiki, or OneNote Notebook. (It really is amazing how much Teams has lit up "we have the ability to do that now" for SharePoint features that have existed almost forever. I was particularly amused when someone asked me why so many Teams features have SharePoint URLs when SharePoint didn't support them and then showing them the three or four step process to do it on SharePoint that has been there all along.)