Outlook as a platform

To paraphrase The Bruce, Outlook is a security flaw with a mailer attached.

Just as importantly, there's probably 50 people who make a living off of the Outlook plugins I've listed above.

So you're arguing that big companies should make shitty software programs, sorry, platforms that don't work the way they should because it helps the little guy feed his family? This is less small pieces loosely joined than a large pile of crap covered with parasites.

Also, the Unix folk would probably argue that Pine/Mutt/whatever + Unix is a pretty powerful platform with which to read/organize one's mail.

It's funny, I prefer email programs like Eudora and such for precisely the same reason, but in the negative. I use Outlook at work (this is mandated) but when I have had the choice I have always used stand-alone tools specifically because they are NOT platforms. For the same reason I have always prefered a standalone browser to a multi-function monstrosity like old Netscape versions. But I do expect and hope the my single-function tools will work together. The thing for me is that my machine as a whole is a platform - I don't need a subset of my computer trying to be a platform too.

Michael, you mean like that web browser your using?

It's easier to sustain a platform when you have roughly 100% marketshare.

Anil nails it.

Outlook works. It works well.

In a corporate environment, there is simply no comparison to the power and flexibility of the Outlook/Exchange combo.

In home usage, Outlook offers more options for modification and plug-ins than any other email product on the market.

Hopefully soon the market will improve more with the arrival of Chandler and the refining of Bloomba, a search based email client (if only they built-in an aggregator...)

Interesting levels of hostility. I suspect that Outlook 2003 is no less secure than Mail.app is today. I also suspect that Outlook 98 is as insecure as every other 1998-vintage emailer, including the versions of Eudora and Netscape that were current at the time.

I think there are ways to be both secure and extensible, and clearly in the email market, few programs do both. I'm not advocating insecurity, I'm advocating extensibility. It's a shame so few applications, either in email or in any other area, do both well.

And I'm not advocating anticompetitive marketing and distribution, I am explaining why, in an office environment where I *do* have the luxury of using any email program I want on any platform I want, I choose the one that's got a unique ecology of development and creativity surrounding it.

The unix people can argue about Pine/Mutt/Whatever all they want, and I won't disagree, but I'm assuming they're not arguing that you can make a sustainable business selling Pine extensions to end users.

I use Outlook 2003 and it's stable, pretty fast, as secure by default as anything else, and has the ability to plug extensions right into the UI. These things are not true for other email programs.

I'm not trying to advocate the product, but rather the concept. It's the same reason I switched to using Firefox, although that probably would have gotten less geek pushback since it's got open source cred.

I hope my post didn't seem hostile, because it wasn't written in that spirit at all.

I have to say though that I still don't really understand why you'd want a second element that strives to be a "platform" when everything you're working with on the main platform should interop just as well.

I guess I really do know why though - because that level of interop doesn't really happen in reality. In that context I can see your point for sure. I would prefer it all happen together on the main platform, Mac or PC - not in some subset whether that means "mail-related stuff that runs through outlook" or "browser-related stuff that runs through Firefox".

I also think Anil is right on the money. Sometimes its just 'fashionable' to beat the 800 lb gorilla, but when properly configured, Outlook is as secure as the monkey behind the keyboard and it is a turnkey application for lots of people.

Anil didn't mention synch software. I use TrueSynch to synch my StarTAC, but there are others like IntelliSync. Outlook is the 'de facto' PIM for synchronization to phones and PDA's. For lots of people, this is a compelling reason in itself. When I hear people talk about losing all the contacts in their phone for any reason, I just pretend I paint houses for a living. There is no reason for people NOT to but an electronic device they can't backup to a computer.

I know there are tons of other mail applications. I know there are tons of PIM's. At one time or another, I have used them all. However, since I took the jump and merged my contacts from rolo (UNIX) and SideKick (DOS/Windows), I have been able to maintain, backup, merge and upgrade my Outlook data without any bad things happening. Name another software package that has lasted that long with full support and upgrades. I can't think of one.

-peb

While I could carp a bit about how Microsoft has pursued an incremental strategy of improving Outlook that shouldn't be mistaken for disdain for the program^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hplatform. Outlook 2003 is brilliant and much more secure than previous versions. At work I grit my teeth and run Groupwise and I've got the same number of virus infestations on it in this year of the warring worm authors as Outlook at home, namely zero.

I am a pine user, I use Linux, Windows, occasionally a mac. I am a programmer, an experienced computer user, etc... but I am not an idiot to claim that Outlook is the worst email program out there or that Apple's mail or my little pine is better than Outlook. People are reading the news too much and they seem to believe what they just read all the time. I guess this is the average joe guy, except that he doesn't know it. For example, because people use Outlook most of the time, and because it is not that hard to open attachements on outlook, some people blame Microsoft Outlook for the users' mistakes. It is as if these people wouldn't open the attached files if they have used pine. Actually it is funny but I, the experienced computer user, tempted to open a file (on linux though), because the mail was sent from the administarator. With the pif extension and some other clues I didn't open it, but the first time I read it I had almost no doubt that it was a legitimate email.

The insecurity is mostly due to the insecurity of people who have lots of time and yet not enough to really dig what's going on behind these programs. Anil is right to the point, but probably many will not get it. First problem is that, if what Anil said were popular CNet would be the first online magazine to write about it. Some people who have lots of time in their hands just don't like to hear that and they don't want to admit the truth. So they will attack users like Anil and me.

I have tried Outlook once, it is a great program, no doubt about it. Even Outlook Express is quite good, however I prefer pine, because I can always access to my mail no matter what, whether I have my computer or not. That's really the primary advantage for me. I don't receive too much html email, and when I do, I forward it to a web mail account. It is really simple. I would love to have something like outlook web access, but they don't have windows servers here and it takes time to mess with that now, who has time. Pine is also good for me, not a big issue, we don't receive hundrends of emails, so we don't have much problem, though managing mails on pine is a hell compared to outlook.

Outlook's search so slow and assy in the first place. But I have a way to fix that, with an efficiency and integration that none of my Mac-toting friends can get in Mail.app.

Not being an Outlook user, happily, for years now; and being a happy user of Mail.app, could you explain how your add-on email search plug-in patch is better or more integrated than Apple's built-in, instant search-as-you-type field that sits atop the Mail window? We don't need a plug in to have bayersian spam filtering, either. Seriously, not trolling here, but given your description of patching a email client with third party software to give it similar functionality, just doesn't sound like the ideal situation you say it is. Please expound.

I spent two years of my life doing business analysis for, designing and documenting, and finally managing a team that built a system for professional services firms (accountancy and law firms, for the most part) to integrate their practice management systems, executive decision-support stuff, and contact management and document management requirements. It was a thing of beauty, and Outlook was its rich-client interface, although it could be run from inside the browser as well, inside or outside the firewall. Small Business Server backend. HTML interface, componentized set of key performance indicator tools on an OLAP backend, etc etc.

Tech wreck in 2000 saw a management shakeup at the top, I lost most of my support for the project in the boardroom and picked up a few threatened-by-new-tech antagonists up the management tree, it all went sideways, I left, the project was shelved.

Shame, that. But I still think Outlook, particularly when running with Exchange server-side, is a powerful platform -- which is how I pitched it back in those heady days to the CEO, who tapped myself and my teammates directly to run the 'special project' -- and a ~safe~ one, at least when used in a business with an inhouse IT department that knows what it's doing in terms of policies for endusers.

As far as search goes there was an excellent product from a company in Sydney, Australia (where I was working) that has since disappeared, whose name (product and company) I wish I could recall. Their search/infomining tool for Outlook/Exchange was better than any I've seen since.

As far as the comment regarding nothing else like the Outlook/Exchange combo. Although very nice and something I have used for years....fact is Novell's Groupwise Client/Server is just as nice...and im sure some would argue even better.

~bc

I use Apple's mail thingy, but haven't found any way to do a search that is actually useful - "useful" meaning "searches all my mailboxes not just the one I currently happen to be in". Am I missing something blindingly obvious?

I just switched from Outlook to Thunderbird as it has Bayesian anti-spam built in. Mozilla also happens to be an extremely powerful platform.

Check the comments in this post:
http://dannyayers.com/archives/002332.html
- they're what led me to make the change.

I know practically nothing about all of he nuances of this stuff but aesthetics is one consideration for me and I find Outlook so ugly to look at. No offense intended I am just surprised that they couldn't come up with something better looking. i am also not a fan of microsoft in general and if apple ever offers an Office equivalent that works well, I will defect in a minute.

Mail has worked great for me. I have avoided spam almost entirely by simply using a hotmail address for online registration, etc. My primary email address is only used by friends and family and I think I've received 4 spams in a year. My hotmail address gets 30 or so spams a week, which is fine. Maybe if my needs were more sophisticated I would consider other platform/program but for now I am content.

I think this thread is fascinating; MS bashing has become so fashionable it is great to go beyond it and focus on what works, and how to extend it in a productive way.

What I want to know is what are the specs on your laptop that has a gig of e-mails????

Alan,

In OS X 10.3 you can simply click the little magnifying glass within the search field and select and option under the "In All Mailboxes" option.

Mailfiler (mailfiler.com) is another Outlook add-on that I find extremely useful. For any message, it can pull out the entire conversation from across multiple folders with a single click (and almost instantaneously). Has other features as well, most of which add significantly to productivity.

I agree, a large amount of Outlook exploits were due to end-user error. A few years ago a large number of viruses came up that did take advantage of innate vulnerabilities in Outlook, but most of those issues have largely been avoided now.

I use mutt and pine, but as an enterprise solution (or just a solution of convenience) they don't come close to Outlook. This is particularly true when Outlook is used in conjunction with an Exchange server. You can't imagine how much time I save by getting integrated calendering, authenication, notes, tasks, delegation, etc ...

As far as the comment regarding nothing else like the Outlook/Exchange combo. Although very nice and something I have used for years....fact is Novell's Groupwise Client/Server is just as nice...and im sure some would argue even better.

Well, I think you should always have up to date email backups. I used to do it manually by saving the .dbx files, until I found http://www.amicutilities.com/outlook-express-backup/ - Outlook Express Backup Genie that does it automatically at regular times.

I choused it over other because it can work with both MS Outlook and Outlook Express

Alicia