William Blunn wrote: > If you aren't even using Exchange Server, then there is little point > using Outlook.
I hate being put in the position of defending Microsoft, but the fact is, Outlooks Calendar is extremely nice, and the calendar integration with email/contacts/tasks is outstanding (I have a friend who lives by her Outlook). It also has the best/most syncing support/options (for calendar/tasks/contacts). > Outlook has enough other suckiness as well --- it has no concept of "no > font", so will always stamp the author's font on to outgoing messages, > even if the author wasn't intending to specify a font. Plus you will > likely get several kilobytes of pointless stylesheet tacked on to every > outgoing message. Yes, had to deal with that suckiness far more that I would like... :) Another huge peeve - why oh why do they force Outlook to rely on WORD for its HTML rendering (for *displaying* html emails), instead of IE? > Plus the authors don't seem to have heard of format-flowed, and instead > seem to think it is a good idea to join together separate lines based on > heuristics rather than following the established standards. True, but other clients have their own problems - like Thunderbird's long-standing HTML compose bug(s) that has(have) been causing users pain for somany years... > Altogether, I wouldn't touch Outlook with a bargepole. As an IMAP client, I would agree - but it shines when in an Windows/Exchange environment... maybe someday Thunderbird will come close to its capabilities in the enterprise (can you say GPO support?), but right now, sad to say it simply isn't. -- Best regards, Charles
