New Ranks & Badges For The Community!
Notice something different? The ranks and associated badges have gone "Star Fleet". See what they all mean HERE

Fully featured Mac desktop client

Idea ID 2781319

Fully featured Mac desktop client

Whilst there are plans to allow native Mac apps to talk to GroupWise for email, contacts, calendar, etc. we still need a fully featured Mac desktop client to replace the one that hasn't been developed since GroupWise 8!
163 Comments
Cadet 3rd Class
Cadet 3rd Class
Yeah, even Micro Focus employees run Windows VMs on their Macs to have the latest GW client. We all would like to see Mac and Linux clients, but it's doubtful it will ever happen. Your best bet would be to try and run it virtually, it doesn't look like MF has either the resources or the expertise to develop proper clients for these platforms.
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
That's encouraging...!!! Why did they buy the product?
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
If one looks at the numbers here - https://www.statista.com/statistics/268237/global-market-share-held-by-operating-systems-since-2009/ It is fairly clear that 75% of the space is taken by Windows and the remaining 25% - 15% by Apple - 10 by Android.
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Upcoming macOS Mojave will be the last release to support 32-bit apps. The old GroupWise 8 Client won't work sometime in the fall of 2019 on updated Macs anymore, taking away features like proxy access.
Cadet 1st Class
Cadet 1st Class
Numbers : Statistics is one element. Reputation another. The question indeed is how dedicated MicroFocus is/will be. On the server side GW strentht was adatibtility with legacy systems through gateways. I still hope for the best?
Admiral
Admiral
Those 15 percent mac users in my expiriece are more vocal having a high vote or are upper management. As @jeremy L states there are sure other reasons customers moved on (we migrated a bunch this year ourselves) but most stay with an on premise solution (mostly local gov) and a few go to cloud (mostly educational environments). Those Mac users In my expiriece want Outlook cause that is available on a Mac, and cause they have Office with it which looks the “same”. This Idea of course is only about why we need a Mac client but sure you cannot see the one seperate from the other. It is all about providing an ecosystem of connected services. MS had done such done verry well with Windows-Office-Outlook-Exchange-O365 etc. For sure a Mac client alone is not going to save GroupWise, the problem is (IMO) the ecosystem MF has allowed to grow with GroupWise-TeamWorks-Vibe-Filr-OES etc (mixing Microsoft counterparts where supported) which do not work nor look as a solution but being just a bunch of products which at the same time duplicate funtionality. A binding factor here is missing: an office solution (wasn’t that MS’s biggest cash cow?) Binding ideas are all scattered trough the different idea portals.
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Wow ... what a discussion ... and it goes way beyond the topic. Over the last decade since Apple incorportated Intel processors, Mac's have been booming business and many many many people go to Mac's for their daily business. So, yes, we would like a new Mac client. And, yes, we would like a better Windows client. And, yes, we would like a better WebAccess. Should I go on ... ? The situation; many customers move to other solutions and away from Groupwise. Why? Obviously the client and web based side of the product. The solution? Create a better client and webbased experience. When I read a lott of comments (not all of them ... way to many) above, MF doesn't work on that part enough. So ... they keep losing customers as a result. Makes no sence to me ... MF ... wake up!! When I look at the many votes this Idea has received and I read the comments I'm a bit surprised that my own Idea "More intuitive GUI for desktop and webaccess clients based on UX design guidelines" has only received 15 votes yet. Basically, I'm asking in this Idea for the same thing anyone wants; an intuitive product that is able to compete with other solutions on the current day and age. Having sayd that, I'm the administrator for GW for many years. As time passes by I get more and more the idea I'm trying to guard a dinosaur. Like also stated in my own Idea, the backend is really good, but the complains are always about the frontend. That's the part users see and work with and most of them hate it. I can't change that with all the technical talk in the world. My collegues don't care about that ... and I think they are right in a lott of ways. I don't agree with everything they say about the product, but they are totally right about the intuitive part. I personally like GW, but I can really see the reasons others don't. I'm more and more looking for other solutions out there so I can give my collegues a better satisfaction. Let's face it, that's also a part of our jobs as administrators ... end user satisfaction adn workflow! In all honesty, if Exchange was a more AD independent product and we didn't have to migrate the whole environment away from OES, we would consider the change. Does this mean that Exchange is the howly grale? No, absolutly not! It also has many flaws. However, I can see Microsoft taking a lott of things from users very serious and they incorporated the UX rules years ago to evolve their product. MF simply doesn't do that. And in the end; defendeing GW should not be our goal ... give the end users a good product should be the goal. And MF's goal should be to make a better product we as administrators shouldn't have to defend! Lastly, I have to agree with Sebastiaan. A lott of ideas for GW are scattered around on this portal ... but most of it comes down to a better solution. So, bind them and evolve the product, MF. We urge you to do this, before you loose us!!
Cadet 3rd Class
Cadet 3rd Class
Honestly, I was curious to see where this thread had gone, and it's just the same circles. MF has no interest here, and if you look at the new features they do add to their windows client, they are rather simple windows client enhancements that other have had for years. Likely a full-pay windows client says, "Outlook has this, add it or we're moving away." My campus moved to O365 and it's been fantastic. No longer the victim in the long saga of GroupWise, and we're seeing amazing new features at lightning speed in the o365 platform. The consequence for MF, as predicted by others, is that GW was the glue that held us together on the other MF products such as OES, ZCM, iPrint, NetIQ, etc. Over the last couple of years, those other MF products have been (or are planned to be) sunset, and I expect we'll say goodbye to everything MF soon. The other products are good in their own respects, but the integration within O365 means ZCM gets replaced with InTune, OES with OneDrive, NetIQ with ADFS, etc. If you're a EDU, the new tiers give this stuff to you, so it makes using MF products less compelling. The best thing you can do for your respective organizations is to chart a course away.
Cadet 1st Class
Cadet 1st Class
Dear Mike Blitz, Dear MicroFocus, The former is a very strong statement. It bears a lot of truth. Groupwise is the "easiest" product in MicroFocus offering. The one with the best TCO. However one need to understand (at MF, at channel and at client level). In my view O365 and Azure are nightmares. But everybody embraces them as they believe they understand the value off the cloud. I repeately notices Outlook users to clean up their mailboxes as they became too big, too slow, too ineffective,... Groupwise could cope with all of this. It need to be explained. My personal Groupwise boxe holds messages way back befor 2000, that is no issue. I can copy & paste the whole infrastructure. However setting up archiving is a challenge. Once it's done it should be fine. Personnaly I hate mails coming from Apple Mail, but Apple guys love them. So both uplifting a Windows client AND an Apple Client should be top-priority. I do understand Micro Focus has to sort out a impressive heritage of good Novell products. The moment they acquired the HPE software portfolio, I fear they shifted their attention towards (in my believe) an illusion. I'am in no way a CEO. But it is my believe their shouls be at least stronger communication ties between MicroFocus and NetIQ and keeping them both a good eye on SUSE. That should we almost an entire EDUCATION LEVEL inside MF. I try to be present at some coming MF events. But it eats up time and more important financial resources. For what? MicroFocus is not in the "Apples Augmented Reality" business. It could "augment' reality by using FOCUS not only in their brandname, but in their approach. I believe it can be done !!! Best regards,
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
The plea to deaf ears... Amazing that no-one from MF even bothers to speak up in these forums..
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.