On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:55:27 -0400 Charles Marcus <CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com> articulated:
On 9/3/2010 6:19 PM, Jerry wrote:
I have several associates using the latest version of MS Office that includes Outlook. None of them have complained to me regarding Outlook's usability. I sporadically use Outlook(2007) with IMAP without any problems.
In any case, Outlook has undergone several changes: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179110.aspx
The biggest problem now with Outlook, imo, is its reliance on WORD's totally broken HTML rendering engine (in both 2007 and 2010) instead of IE. The only possible reason I can think of why MS made this decision is to try to force people to use Office, but imo it was just stupid.
You have it backwards. People use MS Word and want it to integrate seamlessly into an e-mail client, database, etc. People are not 'forced' to use MS Office. They use it because it is the best word processor in existence and it can be easily integrated into other applications easily.
It still isn't a very good IMAP client, but 2007/2010 are much better than earlier versions.
Thunderbird has its problems as well (broken HTML composer, still bugs with the local store/cache code, etc), but it seems to be the best (IMAP client) so far.
For the record, I hear more complaints regarding Thunderbird than I do concerning MS Outlook (the latest version). The 2007 version of Outlook is no longer relevant. Comparing deprecated versions of any software is a Sisyphean task.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
Kaufman's First Law of Party Physics: Population density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the keg.