ZDNet Australia: Sharepoint vs. Domino -- for once, slashdotters hitting the mark

May 25 2006

My inbox lit up like a firecracker tonight, with tons of people linking me to the ZDNet Australia review of Notes/Domino 7 vs. SharePoint Portal Server 2003.  I don't have the background on the ZDNet review yet -- as in, why did they choose to evaluate these two products head-to-head, and not consider some of the key differences between them (like, oh, document-level security, workflow, multi-platform support, offline, etc.).  The article made slashdot. Readers there have taken up some of these points, and, more importantly, posted a bunch of insightful comments about "Scarepoint" .  Some good arguments both ways in the comments on ZDNet's site as well -- interestingly, it looks like the ZDNet team started out participating in the discussion...maybe they'll be back.

Extra points to the slashdotter whose reaction to yet another link to the Notes entry on the "Interface Hall of Shame" was:

The "interface hall of shame [mac.com]" site is ludicrously out of date. It refers to Notes release 4.6, for God's sake! That was released in what, 1996? We're up to version 7 now! It's a little silly to keep harping on an interface that hasn't even been used in 10 years.

And criticizing Lotus Notes because you don't like the interface of a Notes application is somewhat like criticizing Linux because you don't like the GIMP. Applications can be well or poorly designed in any environment.

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  In the news  Add/View Comments [18]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Pedro Quaresma  | 5/26/2006 5:06:13 AM

    Nevertheless, it is noticeable every day that the fame of Notes having had an "ugly interface" in the past* is still having an effect on people's minds (and probably decisions too) nowadays.

    * - And not always in the past. I know more companies in Portugal using Notes/Domino 5 than versions 6, 6.5 and 7 added together! :(

  1. 2  Mike Brown  | 5/26/2006 6:07:39 AM

    Slanted in Sharepoint's favour, right from the get-go:

    "Microsoft's SharePoint Portal Server 2003 ships in two versions, providing a distinct advantage over most of its competitors"

    Errm... why, exactly, is that a distinct advantage to anybody (except Microsoft)? No justification given.

    And "solid platform"? Where's the justfication for that? Listed under "futureproofing", to boot! That's right; MS has no history of abandoning products and crapping all over customers that used them, if it feels like it. (Exchange Public Folders, anyone?)

    ZDNet didn't even review the correct products: Quickplace Vs Sharepoint would have been more appropriate.

    Cheers,

    - Mike

  1. 3  Flemming Riis  | 5/26/2006 6:17:27 AM

    -Errm... why, exactly, is that a distinct advantage to anybody (except Microsoft)? No justification given.

    think they mean there is a free version (still requre windows cals) and a "full" version that is seperated licensed

    Its impossible to do a 1-1 on these 2 products.

  1. 4  Kevin Mort  | 5/26/2006 7:34:50 AM

    @2:

    [ZDNet didn't even review the correct products: Quickplace Vs Sharepoint would have been more appropriate.]

    Exactly!!!! That was my the essence of my /. post on the subject. They aren't even comparing the proper products in my view.

    What they show of Sharepoint is much more like Workplace or QuickPlace than Domino per se.

    I guess the goal was to find a way to compare two products where the MS app comes out ahead...by any means available.

    Slashdot score: -5 for flamebait.

    K.

  1. 5  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 5/26/2006 7:49:51 AM

    @2 - Mike, that's what I asked at the Sickos site yesterday. Have they not heard of Quickplace? I find it extremely funny that ND7 scored that close to Sharepoint! ND7 isn't even IBM's answer to SP yet it was a 3 star versus 4 star in the end! Have they ever heard of Quickplace?!? It looked like they were comparing the canned document manager NSF to SP. I would love to see a comparison to a product that is actually intended to compete against Sharepoint.

    Oh, and let's not mention the server farm required ZDNet. And what about redundancy/clustering?

  1. 6  David DeWell http://workdomosphere.blogspot.com | 5/26/2006 10:47:16 AM

    @2 and @4 - I would say even Quickplace and Sharepoint are not quite a good comparison. Sharepoint can truly do quite a bit more than even Quickplace.

    Maybe Websphere and Sharepoint would be a better comparison. Specifically Websphere Portal Server.

  1. 7  R. J. Lesch http://www.rhs.com/thenewblack | 5/26/2006 11:36:14 AM

    We modified the standard Notes 6 Document Library template to replace the Sharepoint "Shared Documents" feature:

    { Link }

    I concur with the poster to the Slashdot thread who said, "Lotus notes was more difficult to build an application but once we had built that application it did exactly what we wanted it to do and we could introduce our own work flows etc. That was something that sharepoint never gave us the ability to use/do."

    This was our experience. The result is sweet and worth the effort.

  1. 8  Randy Shimizu  | 5/26/2006 11:49:13 AM

    It's really a ridiculous to compare the 2 products. Sort of reminds of when consumer reports compare 2 bicycles and one is $100 more expensive than the other. So naturally the lower priced model will get lower rating.

  1. 9  Paul Gagnon www.nortonlamb.com | 5/26/2006 11:50:56 AM

    ZDNet is biased.

    Doesn't ZDNet derive much of it's advertising revenue from Microsoft ads in it's publications? Thought so.

    "Never bite the hand that feeds you" comes to mind.

    I'd like to see Sharepoint Portal Server vs. IBM Webshere Portal Server/Workplace Collaboration and-or Sharepoint Portal Services vs. IBM Workplace Services Express. But we all know that would hardly be fair to Microsoft. ;)

  1. 10  Bruce Elgort http://www.bruceelgort.com | 5/26/2006 1:48:20 PM

    @All,

    How many of you have actually tried Sharepoint? :-)

  1. 11  Silvia Garcia  | 5/26/2006 2:11:54 PM

    Unfortunately, and altought Sharepoint and Domino are different products, it is not the first time I heard comparations between then. That comparation is not fair, but of course, Microsoft is going to push it....

    Portal is not an alternative to Sharepoint, since it too expensive. WorkPlace Express would be a more "fair" comparation, but still, it does not "fit" on the comparation. What people loves about Sharepoint is how easily it integrates on Office, and how easily you create a shared space. On other enviroments (including Workplace) the integration is not so tight.

    I think that the only way to fight with sharepoint is with some improvements on QuickPlace. New versions of Lotus Notes (hannover) will have to implement a tinny integration with Quickplace, allowing Productivy Suite (ODF) to be stored/retreived directy on a QuikcPlace enviroment, as Office can do with Sharepoint. Also, I would even include QuickPlace "basic" services on Domino (out of the box). So, having, as Microsoft, two versions, one basic (quickplace basic services, for free) and other advanced (Quickplace with tiger integration with Portal or even WorkPlace itself).

    Another good idea would be to add more templates to Domino product. I would love if domino would be shipped with some templates our the box (ie, some OpenNtf templates), allowing a intranet to be done easy and fast (ie, helpdesk databases, expense&travel, vacation request, documentation), and that is even reinforced with a enhanced "document library" integrated with hannoved open-doc (i.e, and advanced Doc. Library or even a Quickplace).. I neved understood why product had not more "out-of-the-box" templates included to add more value and help people understand how powerul it is.

  1. 12  Andrew Price www.healthspace.ca | 5/26/2006 9:53:25 PM

    @11 Excellent ideas imo. :)

  1. 13  Charles Robinson  | 5/27/2006 9:16:00 AM

    @10 - I'm working on setting up a test environment just to see what it's really all about. We don't have a need for a web-based portal, though, so I don't see what use Sharepoint is for us. We don't use Quickplace or Websphere Portal, either.

  1. 14  Giulio http://www.BuzzNotes.com.au | 5/28/2006 6:51:46 PM

    Vendor bias aside. I wasn't impressed with this "hardware" like review of complex applications. I know there would be inaccuracies on both sides. The real issue is the level of igorance in the analysis. If you're gonna do a review of such "big" products, then it should be done by getting people in who can demonstrate the performance and review that result instead. Like get dev/user teams who can build 2 or 3 types of applications to see how well these products can solve a range of problems, not just "integrate with MS-Office".

    I think David was out of his depth on this one. Reviews like this can't be done in a couple of paragraphs. There is just too much there to give a balanced review.

  1. 15  Randy Shimizu  | 5/28/2006 9:31:25 PM

    This more than bias. It's about comparing products with similar functionality. Let's face it Sharepoint is not a email product and Notes is not a portal product.

  1. 16  Giulio http://www.buzzNotes.com.au | 5/28/2006 9:48:44 PM

    @15. Fully agree. I was more disturbed by the whole amateur aspect of doing reviews on functionally heavy products with a flippant test.. I would love to see an agreed set test on comparable products.

    Basically let the MS and IBM camps face off and look at the results. Each test should have an agreed certain scale of business function and requirements, and get a specific deadline and then serve up the results. Or has someone already done something like this ? The tests wouldn't have to cover everything in one go. Just specific areas. Very much the boxing analogy that IBM/Lotus... Round 1, Round 2, etc....then let people vote on their preference ? (OMG it's like a IBM vs MS "Idol")LOL...

  1. 17  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 5/30/2006 9:22:47 AM

    @11 Having been around since the Nifty 50 in V3 days, I can gander a guess at why there aren't many template applications bundled with the base Domino install. At the end of the day, the template apps were nice to look, but no one ever used them for anything more than inspiration. There was nothing in any of those apps that we didn't think we could do better.

    @16 That type of face-off has been a dream of mine for years, but it's something that MS would never engage in. You might be able to get a business partner from each side to work on it, but that partner would have to win or risk getting black-balled by MS. Although Lotusphere would be the perfect place for it, it might be better to happen some place else. Neutral ground, standard RELEASED non-beta software on CDs to start off with, same hardware for everyone (although one side might need more servers), same OSes for all players. On your mark, get set, go!!!!

    Sean---

  1. 18  David Vasta david.davidandkelly.com | 5/30/2006 9:30:32 AM

    @Bruce - I have and reall didn' think it was worth 8K for the server. Oh well.

    I have a post about it on my site going over some of the same things you all are talking about.

    It was a poor use of space and time to compaire the two and the article is so slanted it almost fell off of my computer.

    -David