Talk:Microsoft SharePoint Workspace

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

how groove will work

For the lame windows office user, can someone please explain how groove will work for me. For instance, do I need to purchase an account? Is there free server space somewhere that I can use. Are there file size limitations? etc. The microsoft descriptions are far to vague and theoretical. The product sounds like it will revolutionize people's relationships, but seriously, exactly what do I need to know?

Watch th demo video on the Official Microsoft Groove page.

Criticisms of Groove 2007

The "Criticisms of Groove 2007" section is NOT NPOV and needs cleaning up with sources citing.There is a complaint further down which also states this.

And also, the Subversion reference is valid, Subversion clearly is an alternate collaboration product (or actually, many). --VirianFlux 21:25, 22 March 2007 (GMT) (not signed in)

'Grooviquette'?

This product has barely been released... I can't imagine many people are already using a colloquial term like 'grooviquette' when talking about it. I propose removing this section. CarrerCrytharis 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Barely been released"? As a Microsoft Office component, certainly, but it was a standalone product for a long time before the Microsoft buyout. Simxp 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to Subversion be removed. Subversion has nothing to do with this product, it is only a RCS not a collaboration product.

Criticisms

OK, I'm too new to Wikipedia to take a bold action like this, but it seems the "criticisms" section is purely editorial (non-neutral and non-verifiable). Is this the kind of thing one should feel free to edit out? --24.34.151.67 16:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire section. It was totally unreferenced, and written in an unencyclopediac, editorial, PoV tone. It can be readded with enough referenced and proper criticisms. Or criticisms be inlined. --soum (0_o) 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the "Vendor Lock-in" section is just as non-NPOV. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but just saying it doesn't make it so. If it's really an issue there should be some supporting evidence. I'm removing that section. 196.40.38.33 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Groove for a few years now, and the vendor lock-in is really a problem, causing Groove to become a dead-end for all data we've put in there, unless we wrote our own application to talk to Groove's API (which is a neck-breaker for non software developing companies and private users). Maybe this is better in newer versions, but as far as I know Microsoft's policy of interoperability with others, I highly doubt that. Groove has it's advantages, but people should know what to expect when they start using it. Anyone got any suggestions how to get that back into the article, properly written as NPOV? ...because this is what makes Wikipedia so great: You get an honest (user)view of things - not the saleman's. The rooker (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Grooveicon.png

Image:Grooveicon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Screenshot

This article would really benefit from a screen shot with some data in, it would help clarify would the app does. The one at the moment is better than nothing, but not that useful really. Quietbritishjim (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tools : please explain

Someone who knows the software should re-write this section, which I personally found incomprehensible.

"Tools that members use in a workspace often drive the nature of the person-to-person collaboration that ensues. In Groove 2007, the SharePoint Files tools can be used to take Sharepoint 2007 document libraries offline."

In the first sentence, does this mean that the nature of the collaboration is influenced by the tools that they happen to make available in a given workspace? Is this in fact talking about the unique power of the workspace configurator to influence the extent of the collaboration?

Secondly, by "taking offline" do we mean "make unavailable" or "make available even when not online"?

Matt Whyndham (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SkyDrive Pro

Per Start screen, stating that SharePoint Workspace was discontinued and replaced by SkyDrive Pro is an assertion that shows bias towards Microsoft's marketing per WP:NPOV. The article should be updated to reflect the fact that it was merely re-branded and updated a bit instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Everything correct, except the fact that it is not a re-branding. SkyDrive Pro is indeed different. What made you think it is a rebranding in the first place? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This and this; SkyDrive Pro is an extension of the SharePoint syncing functions that SharePoint Workspace was used with. Also, notice that its executable (in the first link) mentions Groove, meaning that its essentially the same program. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Actually, I did notice that there are some sentences in those sources that if taken out of context, can give the same impression that you intend. For example, "The SkyDrive Pro client application behaves like the old SharePoint Workspace client application". Anyone who reads this sentence alone definitely thinks it must be a rebranding. The mention of GROOVEEX.DLL is sure to reinforce this belief.

But if one reads the two articles from top to bottom, he or she'd realize that while SharePoint Workspace was a collaboration software based on SharePoint Server, SkyDrive Pro is a cloud storage service (not software). Michael Kophs defines SkyDrive Pro as "...a cloud storage solution like SkyDrive [...] for the business" and says "SkyDrive Pro runs on the newest SharePoint Online (currently in Preview) and SharePoint 2013 on-premises". Even if you haven't tested SkyDrive Pro first hand these articles tell you that although the end result of SkyDrive Pro and SharePoint Workspace may sometimes be the same things, they are essentially different thing, miles away from a rebrand. If I were to use simile, I'd compare them with personal cars and trains: Both can transport a man, but they are entirely different things.

Still, if you are not satisfied, you can always call in a WP:3O or a WP:RfC.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft SharePoint Workspace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]