Anyone use Sharepoint? Is it good?

[blade52x]

Being asked to look into it at work- and so far the program looks like something that is just made for someone who doesn't know how to code - like the whole click and drag and your code is there for a form or login.

Microsoft mentions how it use databases to display forms, blogs, any kind of information pretty much, and all of this I can code myself.

So are there any significant advantages to using Sharepoint?

The only one that seemed to jump out so far was the real time, interactive Excel spreadsheets. Can other MS programs like Power Point slides actually be uploaded to a Sharepoint server and be viewed in the browser?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: I should also state that this isn't for a general website, this is actually being considered as a serious online meeting place for business activity.

 

[mikeblas]

I've never administered a SharePoint site. But I've used several dozen. Perhaps they were poorly configured, but I couldn't find shit on any single one of them. I think SharePoint is just another decent idea that's poorly executed.

 

[movax]

I've never administered a SharePoint site. But I've used several dozen. Perhaps they were poorly configured, but I couldn't find shit on any single one of them. I think SharePoint is just another decent idea that's poorly executed.

QFT. MS does an amazing job of simplifying sharing of documents & such via an intranet/web site, I think.

And of course since it is Microsoft, it plays amazingly nice with other Microsoft products as well. Office apps can save/write directly to the sharepoint server, etc. Real good for MS-based companies with the whole caboodle - Windows, Exchange, etc.

 

[Cobalt2112]

I'm actually implementing Sharepoint ( MOSS 2007 ) at work. You'll need Active Directory, SQL Server 2000/2005 and the SharePoint 2007 software itself. Just in that, it's gonna cost your company 4 to 5 digits in licensing cost.

If you need to collaborate document, projects & schedules, I suggest you find an open-source solution. Plus this thing is a beast at installing and configuring.

If you want to keep the scale down a bit, use SharePoint 2003 which is "free" from Microsoft but it is a bit more limited and primitive.

 

[Cobalt2112]

ThreadJacking Comment: Mike, I didn't know you were in the SCCA? I have an Acura VTEC Type-R here in N.J. I actually flew to San Fran a few years ago to then Candlestick to watch/judge some time trials.

I've never administered a SharePoint site. But I've used several dozen. Perhaps they were poorly configured, but I couldn't find shit on any single one of them. I think SharePoint is just another decent idea that's poorly executed.

 

[PTNL]

SharePoint is a good product that requires some workarounds depending on the version you are running - usually 2003 or 2007. We're running 2003 at work, and there's some aspects like "reverse breadcrumb navigation" that isn't too good in 2003. Also, certain pages may be flagged as not viewable by certain users/groups, but SharePoint-created navigation links pointing to forbidden pages/sites will still appear for the user (ie: the user can see that the page or site exists, but they cannot view the page/site -- kinda ridiculous if you ask me). These two points, however, have been addressed in the 2007 version.

SharePoint also has a hefty price tag, too. Somewhere in the upper 5-digits IIRC.

There's plenty of books on doing SharePoint 2003 and 2007 development, and MSDN has plenty of starter articles to describe how to make modules for SharePoint using Visual Studio.

Active Directory integration is seemless, and it also works well when modifying pre-existing docs directly to SharePoint (though I discourage that practice because new documents being uploaded will not get the user permissions screen that you normally get when uploading files to SharePoint through it's interface). SQL Server 2005 is recommended (though I think it will work with fewer options on 2000). Dot Net 2.0 Framework is obviously a must.

I would *strongly* recommend not to put your production SharePoint installation on a shared server.

Just my $0.02...

 

[mikeblas]

ThreadJacking Comment: Mike, I didn't know you were in the SCCA? I have an Acura VTEC Type-R here in N.J. I actually flew to San Fran a few years ago to then Candlestick to watch/judge some time trials.

My SCCA region is pretty much dead; they have some Solo2 events, but only a couple of races a year and they're nearly ready to close up shop. I run ICSCC mostly, where I was Driver of The Year in 2005, after winning a couple of championships.

Do you run your Acura in ITS? (Is it an Integra?)

I love racing. Next weekend is a double race, plus a BMW-specific event in Spokane. It's all the fun in the world, and I really need a break.

 

[Cobalt2112]

Yeah, it's a '94 Integra. I didn't want to ThreadJack. I think I was in SFO like 8 years ago though. I usually do a local joint called EnglishTown here in Central Jersey.

 

[Deque]

We're starting to use SharePoint a great deal now. We're currently using MOSS 2007 to power our Enterprise Portal for our new business system (Microsoft Dynamics AX 4.0).

You might want to look into getting Windows SharePoint Services 3.0. It's free, assuming you have a valid Windows Server 2003 license. You can find more information at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/sharepoint/download.mspx. You should download it and play around with it.

We use it for a lot of our project sites to track issues, updates, tasks, calendar entries, contact lists, etc. Unfortunately, it's only good if the users use it.

 

[Cobalt2112]

Yes, MOSS is a 5-digit pricetag product. I think our enterprise license cost us almost $65,000. And, you also need NET 3.0 I think.

I just installed it on 4GB QUAD XEON (probably 2 hyperthreaded CPUs) server @ work. ActiveDirectory, SQL Server 2005 and MOSS 2007. Really a pain, specially the Shared Services. But it's just a growing pain.