The only real difference this time around is that they've stopped giving out the GM version prior to release day, since 10.3 ended up on bittorrent. It was no different with 10.4.

Of course, that's only relevant to the problem if there were changes made in the GM version from the previous that broke MS. If that had been said, I think people would have been more understanding.

You don't have to back-ported all version 6's work into 5.1.2. All we are asking for is to make v5.1.2 as Leopard compatible. Or you can provide a lite upgrade path for v5.1.2 users to get Leopard compatibility. You have been promising Leopard compatibilty since v5, but you never said users will be *FORCED* to pay to upgrade to v6 just to get Leopard compatibilty (no matter if they like the new features in v6 or not).

As this thread is becoming one of the longest thread in your user forum, you should really look into this matter carefully. A company reputation takes years to build up, but it could be destroyed in one day.

A couple of items for everyone this morning:

- We *do* hear you. Every morning I read the postings, and many others at Mark/Space do. And you're not a vocal minority but rather a group who uses and needs the software to work.

- We are working *very* hard to get the updates out to you. 90 days is a window that covers all eventualities. If we said 10 days, but released on the 11th day would we still be liars, trust-breakers and customer haters? I don't know how the response would be, but we would certainly have let you all down based on the expectation we've set.

- There were MAJOR changes to sync in Leopard, including changes between the last developer seed and the GM. We couldn't test any calendar sync until about mid-September (iCal's sync was rewritten) and around that time Address Book sync was broken for a couple of weeks. Since sync is our way of life, we really couldn't do any testing until VERY late in the Leopard development cycle. And the changes have impacted us in some subtle ways. Even now, as we test some fixes to calendar sync, we're being hit with issues that are unexpected (and much different from the way things have *always* worked).

- While many think that having developer seeds early makes things a cake-walk for us, it isn't always that easy. This time around, especially, was difficult (see above). We could not count on Leopard seeds to be *anything* to base a release upon - we *had* to wait until the GM shipped and we could run the full suite of tests. Any software vendor who said they were Leopard compatible before they fully tested prior to last Friday was playing their cards in hope they had a winning hand. Most did, but not all.

We're not making excuses but working *very* hard to remedy this situation. As much as you want it to work, we do as well.

b

So Brian,

Thanks for the update. Communication is always appreciated!

Could you please respond to the request for *some* sort of compatibility upgrade for v. 5 users? I assume you can understand our frustration about the situation?

I can see how the changes you made between 5 and 6 might make it difficult, at best, to make both versions Leopard compatible. That said, might there be a possibility of creating a v. 6 "lite" that locks out the new features, but gives v. 5 users Leopard compatibility, at some reduced fee?

I don't think we deserve it for free necessarily, but $25, when I don't need/want the new features, just seems unreasonable. I know you may very well disagree, and you are doing this to make a living after all, but I think you need to do *something* to try and reestablish some trust and good will with your formerly-satisfied customers!

Thanks for listening, and sorry if your rear has been feeling a little charred this week!!

Sincerely,
John

These are all perfectly valid and acceptable explanations for the lateness of the update.

For the next time around, I think the lesson is that the earlier this stuff comes to light, the more understanding people will be.

I think even an occasional snippet during the development period saying "Dagnabit Apple! We can't test a gorram thing until they get sync fixed!", followed by a "Lord only knows what's gonna be in the GM version and what it's gonna break!" would have done a lot to keep people informed. In absence of information, supposition takes over. We don't need a daily developer's blog. The occasional update, however, would be most welcome.

In this case, you guys are victims of your own success. You're product has worked so well that a great many people have come to depend on it, thereby becoming very upset when it doesn't work. A warning saying "This might break," followed by a "These things are broken, we're fixing them as fast as we can. Hopefully within a week or so, but it could be up to 90 days." would probably work better in the future.

This would be great indeed.

Unfortunately, we're in a bind when it comes to talking about Leopard before it is release and before we're released from our non-disclosure agreement with Apple. It is *really* difficult to say things in a way that protects my own, and Mark/Space's participation in the developer program.

I do appreciate that you understand the position here.

b

Well, let's see. 90 days for MS 6.1 Leopard compatibility. Starting from scratch to identify & merge all 6.x changes relevant to Syncing back into 5.x... and when would you like to see this? Another 90 days? It might be a little easier because they'll understand the issues -- but a little harder because of the different codebase.

No matter what the business justifications here, they'd better not even think of taking any resources away from getting 6.x working; so I hope all you 5.x die-hards are a patient lot.

dbutenhof,

You must not have understood my post. I said that I realized working on Leopard compatibility for v. 5 was likely not realistic, so I asked about the possibility (which many others have mentioned as well) of some sort of v. 6 "lite". And no, I obviously don't expect that to take away from the immediate effort to get v. 6 working in Leopard for all the existing registered users of v. 6.

All of this is simply an attempt to get M/S to show us a little more respect, as well as an effort to find a compromise that works for us all...

I'd back off it wasn't so obvious that there are countless others that feel as I do! I'm going to be persistent until either a compromise is found, or I/we find some other option for syncing.

D'oh! Forgot about the NDA.

This is why every upgrading guide or article I have read has admonished people to check to insure their vital 3rd party software is compatible before biting the bullet. A little time spent on Apple's Discussion forums will yield easily another half dozen or so reasons for people to hold off on Leopard for the time being. Tiger still works just fine (heck, some people are still on Panther).

I would recommend adding some of the items from your 6:07 AM post to the official Leopard statement.

Oh, I understood your post quite well. I wasn't responding to you; there are several others quite explicitly calling for a 5.x patch. After reading through the thread I guess I just picked one reply at random talking about supporting non-upgraders when I hit "reply", and happened to get yours. A "sub-optimal" choice, I can see now. Sorry.

Yes, your "compromise" is probably less unreasonable. It'd undoubtedly be generous of them to think about something like that after they're done and a fully Leopard compatible MS has shipped. At that point, it's purely a business (and, yeah, customer relations) decision for them. None of my business or concern since I do have 6.0 -- and I've never regretted the upgrade. (Then again, I do have a Treo 700p, which undoubtedly benefited more from the upgrade than some models.)

So, again, sorry for targeting the wrong reply. "Ooopsies."

As a long-time M/S customer, and brand new forum member, I write to express my appreciation for this situation.

For years I have grumbled and fumbled with the clunky, inconsistent challenge of syncing. Something that apparently 'should' be straightforward has plagued me through various Mac OS' and Palm devices. I realize m/s is not the main culprit here (Palm is MIA and Apple could/should have gobbled up M/S).

Anyway, I am done! After reading through the fury of this thread (which I shared) I heard a little voice that said "Time to get a new iPhone."

To fume and wait for this update (with little confidence it will go any smoother than the upgrade to 6) is absurd. Life is too short to get resentful over such stuff. Thank you for tipping the balance and letting me know it's time to say good-bye to the Palm OS.

I'm not sure MS 5 users care whether this solution is a patch or a light version of MS 6. From what I've read, users mostly want to be able to synchronize calendars and addresses under Leopard, and find the recently announced price tag of $25 to do this a bit steep.

What bothers me most here is not the price but the time of the announcement: if MarkSpace had said when releasing MS 6 that it (and not previous versions) would be Leopard compatible, I would have taken the time to consider the price in light of the future Leopard upgrade. But the way it was done feels like a use of an existing captured market: wait until Leopard comes out, then tell users they should have upgraded to be able to use the software again in the next couple months. I don't see how an NDA would prevent MarkSpace from letting us know of their plans in advance.

Hey all,

I spoke with our product manager yesterday to make sure my comment would be correct, so I'll give you the word now:

We will *not* be updating 5.1.2 to be compatible with Leopard. Version 6 is our current shipping product and is the basis for which we will update for Leopard and future enhancements.

b

Brian,

Are you reading these comments or not??? We *know* you're not updating v. 5 for Leopard compatibility. We've heard you loud and clear on that, and I think most of us understand why.

What we *really* need to know is if you're going to do us right and offer some sort of "lite" version of 6 for registered v. 5 users who don't need or want the upgrade otherwise...

You're comment above probably means that the answer to that is "no" as well, but would you please be clear and direct in your comments to us? I'm not the only one who has suggested this, and I believe we deserve a reply, including the rationale behind it! In other words, just saying "no", without any response to the many comments here from angry users, isn't going to help. Don't you want to do a little damage control here?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
John