Outlook Connector comparison (in German)

[Andreas Gungl]

Hello Giovanni,

the result of your tests are quite interesting although we've choosen 
Toltect long ago. Konsec wasn't available at that time (i.e. it was delayed 
again and again) so we went with what's been available.

Nevertheless Toltec was a good choice IMO, it works reliable and when we had 
problems we got immediate help from Toltec. I see this as a plus for 
Toltec, if you contact them providing reasonable details of a bug, they 
react in a pretty short time.
Well, I've no experience regarding Konsec, others may have made similar 
experiences with them.

Anyway, actually I'm writing because I'd be interested in a comparison in th 
quality area. Performance is one thing, correctness is another on. Have you 
tested to create e.g. events with more difficult than commonly used 
recurrence seetings? How do the connectors deal with such things? How do 
the connectors deal with data created by handhelds or from Linux clients or 
from web frontends like Horde? Do they show the data correctly? Is their 
data shown correctly in the other clients?
IMO correctness is a bit more important than the plain amount of transfered 
data or only the upload time. Sure, if a product is slow, that will make a 
difference to the users. But if something doesn't work at all, the 
performance simply looses it's value.

Best regards,
Andreas

Am Donnerstag, 16. März 2006 16:44 schrieb Giovanni Baroni:
> Maybe someone can grab here some Information in evaluating a Connector
> für Outlook and Kolab Server.
>
> http://activmedia.ch/groupware6.php
>
> We did there just a few compares.... this isn't a complete test!
>
> Feedback appreciated (maybe also to put online)
>
> For this case with choosed the Konsec Konnektor.
> This doesn't mean that Konsec is in general the better solution.
> We've done very good experiences with the Toltec Connector in the past.