3 ms·
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. Whe
by 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 agoEmail 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 agoFair 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]