
Groove Virtual Office - colin-de-vries
http://grv.microsoft.com/default.htm
======
bztzt
Groove actually still exists, though it's gone through a bunch of branding and
strategy contortions:

Groove 2006 -> Microsoft Office Groove 2007 -> SharePoint Workspace 2010 ->
SkyDrive Pro -> OneDrive for Business (the current product)

~~~
to3m
For another view on this process, see Joel Spolsky:
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html)

~~~
mehrdada
This blog entry is a bad one. Synchronization is a real problem. Dropbox and
others are doing it quite well and will benefit from it. Microsoft's solution
was subpar, but it is not a problem misidentification issue at all.

~~~
zengr
Cannot agree more with you on this. When I read this, Dropbox is the first
thing which came to my mind.

"When did the first sync web sites start coming out? 1999? There were a
million versions. xdrive, mydrive, idrive, youdrive, wealldrive for ice cream.
Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just
not a killer application. I'm sorry. It seems like it should be. But it's
not."

------
smegel
To whoever changed the submission title, the whole point of this post has now
been lost.

Just cut it out already.

~~~
dang
I changed the title because it violated the HN guidelines about titles: it
editorialized, it was linkbait (Microsoft's forgotten subdomain!), and it was
misleading (how do we know what Microsoft forgot? how do we know there aren't
many of them?).

HN calls for people to make up their own minds about content. It's not for the
submitter to spin "the point" for everybody. Other websites allow that; HN
does not. In my view, that is one of the best decisions PG ever put into the
design of this site. It's controversial only because people don't notice all
the good it does, which is enormous: it's one of the biggest factors in the
quality of the front page.

 _the whole point of this post has now been lost_

I disagree. It doesn't take much to see that this is a legacy Microsoft
website that is still up. HN's title policy does lead to hard calls sometimes,
but this wasn't really one of them.

~~~
andybak
> I changed the title because it violated every HN guideline about titles: >
> it editorialized

Only in the sense that the title was both the crucial to the content.

> it was misleading

I really don't understand why you think so.

> and it was linkbait.

Then the whole post should have deleted. Changing the title made it completely
pointless.

> It doesn't take much to see that this is a legacy Microsoft website that is
> still up.

It really does. I was baffled until I read the comments.

> Please don't be rude to other users on Hacker News, even if they're a
> moderator.

I don't feel 'cut it out' could be deemed rude by any reasonable standard.

~~~
dang
Ok, I'll take out the last bit about rudeness since it was at worst a
borderline case and a distraction anyway.

I'm also going to follow your suggestion and bury this post, since there's
little if anything of substance here.

------
asuffield
My current employer has a bunch of sites like that as well - abandoned
projects from years ago that have since been replaced by new things, but the
website files are still there and the virtualhost block for it hasn't been
removed.

The scary part is that these sites still manage to make a few sales each year.

