"I agree with you that Outlook runs ok standalone, but if you are using it within even a small organisation, then you need ES. Not just any IMAP server, but ES. "
""Damn, the downloads have gone down. People are losing interest in Mozilla." "Quick! Increment the version number!" "There's a surge in downloads. It worked! We made Slashdot's front page again!""
"I think you may have accidentally posted to slashdot when you really ment to post to your AOL buddies on the I LUV Windows list. "
Or he was just commenting that Linux (or Unix) was a no brainer for a project like that.
You guys get too defensive of Linux, it's not necessary. It's earned itself a good rep. That doesn't go as far when you act as though everything's a fight with Windows.
I had similar problems when shopping for a laptop. The issue wasn't so much that the vendors sucked, it had more to do with all the compromises made to make the things portable. You can't ask for a top of the line processor, top of the line video card, a display that handles 1600 by 1200 @ 16ms refresh rate, and then have 8 hours of battery life. Saavy?
"NG knows more about this than I do, however I can give you a small list based on downloading and firing it up here.
- No calendar - No Todo list - No Notes - No Synchornization features with my PocketPC or phone - The filerting system is NOTHING like the Rules Wizard. It's good at blocking messages, but it's nothing like the Rules Wizard when it comes to being productive, such as automatically moving messages you send to somebody into a special folder. - No "test your settings" button when trying to log on. (normally I wouldn't mention that, but it was a pain in the ass getting Mozilla to talk to my mail server.) - I can't copy a message from one account to another. Very lame. - There doesn't appear to be any automatic archiving features worth mentioning. - No Spell Check ?!?"
Well, according to a recent story, the Spell Check thing's been rectified.
Outlook has its issues. For example, if I use the voice recorder on my PocketPC, it doesn't send that recording to Outlook when it syncs. That's lame. I've also had issues getting Outlook to play nice with other MS apps. Sometimes they're too helpful and everything gets messed up.
With that said, yes I have gotten a lot of good out of Outlook. I wish it was better and I wish it was cheaper, but I don't regret the cost. I've had alternatives like Mozilla/Netscape all this time and they simply weren't enough. As you've pointed out, there's a lot of features there missing from Mozilla. Seth's comment that "Outlook has no value" is far too easy to dispute. I take it from his anonymous and very brief rebuttal that he doesn't have any steam left in this discussion.
"Why don't you do the world a favor and go shoot yourself? You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. "
I think my two years of experience both using and maintaining Outlook 2000 qualifies me as 'knowing what I am talking about'.
Too bad the moderator who modded me as overrated didn't take a deeper look at what I said in contrast to what mr Imposter said. I can't believe people think you need Exchange Server to use Outlook. That's ridiculous.
"1. Microsoft Outlook 2002 has an inferior interface to Mozilla Messenger." -- Wrong. Actually, Outlook's interface is rather pleasant. Want to combine two things? No prob, click and drag. Despite all the features Outlook has (and there are a shitload of them) it still manages to be quite useful. I've personally witnessed. the most computer illiterate people breeze right through it, including the Rules Wizard.
"2. Microsoft Outlook is riddled with security holes that are never patched because Microshaft would rather threaten so-called "hackers" under the DCMA." -- Wrong. I've been using Outlook 2000 since it came out. Everybody and their mother's tried to send me a virus, nothign got through. I can say the same for my 15 coworkers as well, seeing as how it's been my job to clean up messes like that. I'll happily grant that by default Outlook 2000 is worriesome, but it doesn't take a lot to turn off the vulnerable features. It is important to mention that every install of Outlook has all the features turned off. Not everybody does this, and because of that Outlook is a nasty seucrity risk. I just want it to be clear that I'm not saying Outlook's insecurity is a bunch of lies, there's much truth to it.
"3. Microsoft Outlook has no spam filter." -- Bullshit. Look up the Rules Wizard some time. It's far more robust than any other solution I've seen out there. If you really want to tinker with it, fire up VBA and write fancier rules.
"4. Microsoft Outlook insists on using HTML and displays all images including web bugs." -- You can have partial credit for this one since by default this is true. However, Outlook runs on a different set of permissions than IE does. Set those, and nothing but the basics will work. No plugins, no activex controls, no self-running attachements. Sadly, Microsoft's defaults are nasty.
"5. Microsoft Outlook is closed-source." -- Big fucking deal. Being open source isn't the shiznit to end users. Unless you've actually written code and modified your mailclient, stfu.
"6. Microsoft Outlook requires you to install Microsoft Exchange server, which costs $20,000 per license and is also closed-source. It also runs exclusively under Windows "Server," which is just Windows NT Workstation 2000 (or whatever it's called) with a different registry entry." -- Liar. Outlook is a mail client. It is true that it has nice 'enhanced' features for MS's mail serving product, but it is by no means dependent on Exchange. My company's using Linux based mail servers here and everybody is quite happy using Outlook 2000. Even the most uninformed anti-MS zealot knows this is a bunch of bullshit. You don't even know anything about what Windows Server is! Yeesh.
"7. Microsoft Outlook costs $100 per seat. Netscape Messenger costs $0 per seat." -- Netscape doesn't do NEAR what all Outlook does. That's like saying a bicycle is cheaper than a car.
"In short, I predict that Microsoft Outlook will be dead within 3 months. "
Right. Except nobody's come along and adequately replaced them.
"So stop your whining, and "invest" in some quality software. If your e-mail system can't handle cruft, you have no-one but yourself to blame."
Insightful? Well I suppose praising Mozilla and badmouthing Microsoft is 'insightful' around here, too bad his post has absolutely nothing to do with what he was responding to. The problem isn't his inbox is full of junk, the problem is that the messages are still being sent, bandwidth and hard disk space still being used. You still have that exact same problem with Mozilla Messenger.
I have a handful of very nice filters in Outlook killing the viruses and bouncebacks (oops, guess Mozilla's lead there isn't as big as it first seemed!) but it still has to go through 2,000 messages every night. I can only imagine what our poor mailserver has to go through. Mozilla won't solve my problems any better than Outlook is here.
"Yeah because wherefore is in such common use in modern dialect. It's a pity that people think the word 'where' means 'where' instead of 'why' these days. Ignorant fools, they should get off their embiggened asses and study an extinct style of communication. "
Gotta love the way he worked 'embiggened' into that post.
"I'm not going to argue that anyone who doesn't know what "wherefore" means is illiterate, but don't you think knowing what is means is better than not knowing what it means? "
Not when people use it as a way of measuring one's intelligence. I think that's what caused AnonV to go off here. Never mind how understandable the mistake is, anybody who says wherefore doesn't mean why is an idiot. I, for one, will be quite happy when that aspect of our personalities goes extinct.
"Wherefore" means "why," not "where." When Shakespeare wrote, "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" he was saying, "Why are you 'Romeo?'" As in, "Why did you have to be born the son of my father's enemy?"
Well the article's been slashdotted, so all I have to go by is the submission itself. Given the author's comment about the site being OpenLindows, yet the OS is proprietary, I'd say his use of wherefore is bang on.
Couldn't take a moment to make sure your assumption wasn't ill based?
"Pretty cool for LANs, but otherwise rather useless."
Useless? My company could use it right about now. We've got a video system moving massive amounts of imagery through several machines. There's encoding, decoding, image processing, and all kinds of fun stuff going on. Our ethernet backbone is the bottleneck. We running at a gigabit and it barely keeps up. We've had to severely compress the video to keep up. With 10 terabits, (maybe even 1 terabit) we'd be able to do it all uncompressed. That'd be slick.
Does this help you at all? No. That doesn't mean it's useless, or that that the need doesn't exist. Consider what computing will be like in 2010. You may not have a 10 terabit card, but I gurantee you that somewhere between you and Slashdot there'll be a 10 terabit line.
Slashdot Mirror
"How long has IE had spell checking? "
Since 97.
"I agree with you that Outlook runs ok standalone, but if you are using it within even a small organisation, then you need ES. Not just any IMAP server, but ES. "
Why? What's ES do that an IMAP server doesn't?
Flamebait? Nobody with points found that amusing?
"I think you may have accidentally posted to slashdot when you really ment to post to your AOL buddies on the I LUV Windows list. "
Or he was just commenting that Linux (or Unix) was a no brainer for a project like that.
You guys get too defensive of Linux, it's not necessary. It's earned itself a good rep. That doesn't go as far when you act as though everything's a fight with Windows.
"Why did Microsoft strike a deal with ATI and not just buy the company?"
Why spend the extra money instead of just licensing a new chip? Microsoft is a business trying to make money, they're not the Borg.
...but I have NFI what your requirements are.
I had similar problems when shopping for a laptop. The issue wasn't so much that the vendors sucked, it had more to do with all the compromises made to make the things portable. You can't ask for a top of the line processor, top of the line video card, a display that handles 1600 by 1200 @ 16ms refresh rate, and then have 8 hours of battery life. Saavy?
So how about listing the requirements?
Well, according to a recent story, the Spell Check thing's been rectified.
Outlook has its issues. For example, if I use the voice recorder on my PocketPC, it doesn't send that recording to Outlook when it syncs. That's lame. I've also had issues getting Outlook to play nice with other MS apps. Sometimes they're too helpful and everything gets messed up.
With that said, yes I have gotten a lot of good out of Outlook. I wish it was better and I wish it was cheaper, but I don't regret the cost. I've had alternatives like Mozilla/Netscape all this time and they simply weren't enough. As you've pointed out, there's a lot of features there missing from Mozilla. Seth's comment that "Outlook has no value" is far too easy to dispute. I take it from his anonymous and very brief rebuttal that he doesn't have any steam left in this discussion.
"Damn, the downloads have gone down. People are losing interest in Mozilla."
"Quick! Increment the version number!"
"There's a surge in downloads. It worked! We made Slashdot's front page again!"
"So because some people are overly critical, it's not better to know what the word means than not to know what it means?"
What's the point of knowing what it means when the only use of it is to not get picked on by trivia obsessed zealots?
"Why don't you do the world a favor and go shoot yourself? You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. "
I think my two years of experience both using and maintaining Outlook 2000 qualifies me as 'knowing what I am talking about'.
Too bad the moderator who modded me as overrated didn't take a deeper look at what I said in contrast to what mr Imposter said. I can't believe people think you need Exchange Server to use Outlook. That's ridiculous.
"1. Microsoft Outlook 2002 has an inferior interface to Mozilla Messenger." -- Wrong. Actually, Outlook's interface is rather pleasant. Want to combine two things? No prob, click and drag. Despite all the features Outlook has (and there are a shitload of them) it still manages to be quite useful. I've personally witnessed. the most computer illiterate people breeze right through it, including the Rules Wizard.
"2. Microsoft Outlook is riddled with security holes that are never patched because Microshaft would rather threaten so-called "hackers" under the DCMA." -- Wrong. I've been using Outlook 2000 since it came out. Everybody and their mother's tried to send me a virus, nothign got through. I can say the same for my 15 coworkers as well, seeing as how it's been my job to clean up messes like that. I'll happily grant that by default Outlook 2000 is worriesome, but it doesn't take a lot to turn off the vulnerable features. It is important to mention that every install of Outlook has all the features turned off. Not everybody does this, and because of that Outlook is a nasty seucrity risk. I just want it to be clear that I'm not saying Outlook's insecurity is a bunch of lies, there's much truth to it.
"3. Microsoft Outlook has no spam filter." -- Bullshit. Look up the Rules Wizard some time. It's far more robust than any other solution I've seen out there. If you really want to tinker with it, fire up VBA and write fancier rules.
"4. Microsoft Outlook insists on using HTML and displays all images including web bugs." -- You can have partial credit for this one since by default this is true. However, Outlook runs on a different set of permissions than IE does. Set those, and nothing but the basics will work. No plugins, no activex controls, no self-running attachements. Sadly, Microsoft's defaults are nasty.
"5. Microsoft Outlook is closed-source." -- Big fucking deal. Being open source isn't the shiznit to end users. Unless you've actually written code and modified your mailclient, stfu.
"6. Microsoft Outlook requires you to install Microsoft Exchange server, which costs $20,000 per license and is also closed-source. It also runs exclusively under Windows "Server," which is just Windows NT Workstation 2000 (or whatever it's called) with a different registry entry." -- Liar. Outlook is a mail client. It is true that it has nice 'enhanced' features for MS's mail serving product, but it is by no means dependent on Exchange. My company's using Linux based mail servers here and everybody is quite happy using Outlook 2000. Even the most uninformed anti-MS zealot knows this is a bunch of bullshit. You don't even know anything about what Windows Server is! Yeesh.
"7. Microsoft Outlook costs $100 per seat. Netscape Messenger costs $0 per seat." -- Netscape doesn't do NEAR what all Outlook does. That's like saying a bicycle is cheaper than a car.
"In short, I predict that Microsoft Outlook will be dead within 3 months. "
Right. Except nobody's come along and adequately replaced them.
"So stop your whining, and "invest" in some quality software. If your e-mail system can't handle cruft, you have no-one but yourself to blame."
Insightful? Well I suppose praising Mozilla and badmouthing Microsoft is 'insightful' around here, too bad his post has absolutely nothing to do with what he was responding to. The problem isn't his inbox is full of junk, the problem is that the messages are still being sent, bandwidth and hard disk space still being used. You still have that exact same problem with Mozilla Messenger.
I have a handful of very nice filters in Outlook killing the viruses and bouncebacks (oops, guess Mozilla's lead there isn't as big as it first seemed!) but it still has to go through 2,000 messages every night. I can only imagine what our poor mailserver has to go through. Mozilla won't solve my problems any better than Outlook is here.
"Well, I just hope he's not running Windows. "
Linux wouldn't be much of an improvement. Imagine that thing grinding to a halt whenever some kid tells it to go fsck itself.
"Was that over by Star Tours? That was R2-D2 you insensitive clod! "
"Re:Talking Trash Can (Score:2, Insightful) "
ARGH! That was a joke! Now somebody's going to go to Disneyland and look for R2-D2 amongst the trash cans!
Oh wait, that'd actually be amusing. Never mind!
"Yeah because wherefore is in such common use in modern dialect. It's a pity that people think the word 'where' means 'where' instead of 'why' these days. Ignorant fools, they should get off their embiggened asses and study an extinct style of communication. "
Gotta love the way he worked 'embiggened' into that post.
"It cracks me up that the parent was modded as 'Offtopic' where the same comments below (in multiple posts) are +4 informative & insigtful. "
Why? Parent poster was trolling about a whoop-de-doo aspect of the post. The people who replied gave other people info to learn from.
What's so funny about it working exactly the way it should?
"Lost dog, medium size, brown with bald spots. Missing eye, half an ear, three legs, name..Lucky. "
It's not off-topic, it's just unfunny.
"Last year I was at Disney and they had this talking trach can that I assume was radio controlled."
Was that over by Star Tours? That was R2-D2 you insensitive clod!
"I'm not going to argue that anyone who doesn't know what "wherefore" means is illiterate, but don't you think knowing what is means is better than not knowing what it means? "
Not when people use it as a way of measuring one's intelligence. I think that's what caused AnonV to go off here. Never mind how understandable the mistake is, anybody who says wherefore doesn't mean why is an idiot. I, for one, will be quite happy when that aspect of our personalities goes extinct.
"Wherefore" means "why," not "where." When Shakespeare wrote, "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" he was saying, "Why are you 'Romeo?'" As in, "Why did you have to be born the son of my father's enemy?"
Well the article's been slashdotted, so all I have to go by is the submission itself. Given the author's comment about the site being OpenLindows, yet the OS is proprietary, I'd say his use of wherefore is bang on.
Couldn't take a moment to make sure your assumption wasn't ill based?
"Hofepully we cna fnid a ruce for tihs tebbirle codnition "
Pray to dog!
"Also cited on slashdot two weeks ago. "
I wish cellophane would filter out posts whining about dupes.
"Pretty cool for LANs, but otherwise rather useless."
Useless? My company could use it right about now. We've got a video system moving massive amounts of imagery through several machines. There's encoding, decoding, image processing, and all kinds of fun stuff going on. Our ethernet backbone is the bottleneck. We running at a gigabit and it barely keeps up. We've had to severely compress the video to keep up. With 10 terabits, (maybe even 1 terabit) we'd be able to do it all uncompressed. That'd be slick.
Does this help you at all? No. That doesn't mean it's useless, or that that the need doesn't exist. Consider what computing will be like in 2010. You may not have a 10 terabit card, but I gurantee you that somewhere between you and Slashdot there'll be a 10 terabit line.
"In soviet russia a beowulf cluster of satellites gets launched by you? "
I, for one, welcome our Redundant overlords.
Men = Binary Logic.
Women = Fuzzy Logic.
Me = Sleepin on the Couch.