On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:03:18 -0400 Charles Marcus articulated:
On 2011-09-27 6:42 PM, Jerry dovecot.user@seibercom.net wrote:
I have always found Outlook to be much faster than TB. In any case, Outlook 2007 is an old version. I am using the 2010 version at work and it is a much more polished application than the 2010 version and far superior to TB.
That's funny - I find Outlooks email UI to be horrible. And HTML support relies on Word's HTML rendering engine? Give me a break...
Outlook's calendar is definitely superior, but as an email client it is only useful when it is used in a full blown Exchange environment. As an IMAP client, it blows chunks.
Like all things, the usefulness of any application can only be truly measured in the context of the end user's environment. I virtually never use HTML e-mail myself. There are a few publications that I subscribe to that supply their material in HTML format; however, they all also list a URL to view the material. I prefer to use that method instead. E-mail, in my opinion, is a poor environment for HTML.
MS Outlook's calender is the best available. I find Outlook's interface easy to use. Then again, I am quite familiar with it so that would only be natural.
You fail to mention what version of Outlook you are referring to so there is no way I can gather any useful data from your analysis other to state that I have never used any version of TB that I found as useful as a comparative version of Outlook. If it is Outlook 2007, then perhaps this comparison of products should be restricted to a four year old version of TB also. I think I can safely say without fear of contradiction that, that is not something anyone would readily want to do.
In any case, the idiom, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" is apropos to this thread.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.