Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: Review: BusyCal 2.0 remains superior to Apple's Calendar - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Review: BusyCal 2.0 remains superior to Apple's Calendar

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:00 AM

Post your comments for Review: BusyCal 2.0 remains superior to Apple's Calendar here
0

#2 User is offline   kirkmc 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 29-March 04

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:34 AM

I'm very disappointed that you can no longer choose the amount of time to snooze events. That was a big advantage with the previous version.
Macworld Senior Contributor - Macworld's iTunes Guy - Editor of Mac OS X Hints
Read my blog Kirkville, writings about more than just Macs. Twitter: @mcelhearn
My latest book: Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ
2

#3 User is offline   scott2si2 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 25-October 12

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:16 AM

Quote

I'm very disappointed that you can no longer choose the amount of time to snooze events. That was a big advantage with the previous version.


Agreed. Sadly, that's a limitation of supporting Apple Notifications, which doesn't support variable snooze times.
0

#4 User is offline   scott2si2 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 25-October 12

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:18 AM

This review missed one of the greatest benefits of BusyCal: almost unlimited customization via its preferences pane. For example, users will be thrilled to know that they can simply SCROLL up & down through all their events (INCLUDING ALL DAY EVENTS) on ANY view: month, week, or day.
0

#5 User is offline   Flexmeister 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 08-February 11

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:45 AM

I have the last version, and even if my Mac would run Mountain Lion, I wouldn't pay 30$ for this upgrade.

It's a nice enough programm, but at the end of the day, it's still a calendar app that hardly does anything that free, included in the OS iCal doesn't.

For what it is, BusyCal was always expensive. But this kind of money for an upgrade, just so the Gif of the sun is displayed a little bigger... thanks, but no, thanks.
0

#6 User is offline   pcharles 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 919
  • Joined: 23-February 04

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:08 AM

You are kidding right? Busycal may be a very attractive calendar system, with bling, but I fail to see how it is better for anyone who uses calendars in the real work. A.K.A. Internet hosted. They openly admit on their site that it is not fully compatible with these systems, which is frustrating when they expect you to pay and call themselves iCal Pro!

I think they have fixed a few of the problems that plagued Busycal 1.6 and made a pigs ear of both my Zimbra and my Google calendars, but I fail to see what else is superior. OK, the weather icons are cute! I was constantly frustrated by the fact that it just did not work with those systems, particularly with things like invitations. Sure, you can create your own internal calendar so the family can send each other invites, but who does that? How many real companies rely on an application such as this for their day-to-day use?

I am in agreement with Flexmeister. After bashing my head against the wall trying to get Busycal 1.6 to play nice with all my other systems, and stop creating triplicates of every calendar I had, I am loathed to spend $30 on another upgrade when it appears their solution to fixing Busycal's problems was simply to remove a number of features.

Maybe I am missing something, but I just found Busycal, on our campus system, but be a bag of frustration.

I am reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes every time I read a BusyCal review!
2

#7 User is offline   samadore 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 16-February 09

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:22 AM

Cons:
- Move to Mac App Store only distribution
- No upgrade pricing for long-time users (see above) - Mountain Lion only
- No improvement in time zone support
- Control over printing less capable
- No variable snooze
- Rather than go on, I'll let BusyMac outline the loss of features versus 1.6 for you - https://support.busy...m/tickets/10983 (at least they realized it was such a downgrade that they felt morally compelled to list them all)

Pros:
- I can have a turkey leg mark Thanksgiving and a Santa hat mark Christmas

This post has been edited by samadore: 12 November 2012 - 06:25 AM

4

#8 User is offline   pcharles 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 919
  • Joined: 23-February 04

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:25 AM

Quote

Cons: - Move to Mac App Store only distribution


This might actually be a Pro if we assume they abide by the Apple Store upgrade agreements, and make future upgrades free.
0

#9 User is offline   ZombieReagan 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 10-September 08

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:30 AM

Quote

Cons: - Move to Mac App Store only distribution This might actually be a Pro if we assume they abide by the Apple Store upgrade agreements, and make future upgrades free.


Unless they do what other app developers do (especially with iOS apps), and when a new, sufficiently-upgraded version is ready simply remove the current app as end-of-life and then reveal the new version available for separate purchase.
0

#10 User is offline   samadore 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 16-February 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:34 AM

pcharles said:

Quote

Cons: - Move to Mac App Store only distribution


This might actually be a Pro if we assume they abide by the Apple Store upgrade agreements, and make future upgrades free.


The handcuffs the MAS puts on developers outweighs any price benefit which might accrue for me.
1

#11 User is offline   leicaman 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,983
  • Joined: 04-December 03

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:38 AM

No exchange support, and App Store only. How is it really superior to iCal?
Eric

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
0

#12 User is offline   brian 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 02-November 12

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:49 AM

Quote

I'm very disappointed that you can no longer choose the amount of time to snooze events. That was a big advantage with the previous version.


Agree 100%. This was the only real reason to buy BusyCal. Without the Snooze it's just as useless as 10.8's Calendar app.
0

#13 User is offline   franckhertzkzh5 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 04-August 11

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

This review leaves out all the changes/limitations introduced in 2.0: https://support.busy...m/tickets/10983

Can't publish an existing local calendar to google calendar (and one's you have published just vanish from google), can't republish cloud calendars to LAN, local calendars don't connect to iCal. I understand sync services deprecation leads to some changes with LAN and iCal but did Google change something? Why can't we publish to Google calendar anymore?

All in all, I don't see what is compelling about this upgrade to 1.6 users, especially those of us that already bought Fantastical.
1

#14 User is offline   mrtoner 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 14-April 05

  Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:37 AM

Quote

Because Google Calendar has a less robust set of features than iCloud does, the upgrade to BusyCal 2 will require some Google Calendar users to change the way they do things. For starters, you can't create calendars in BusyCal...

No, it's because BusyMac removed a feature that still works quite well in version 1.6.
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users