Microsoft Brings Outlook Back to Macs Comments

I'm glad someone hates it with the same passion as me. Didn't like it when I used it "free" (MSDN sub) and ran screaming into the arms of Mozilla then Thunderbird. Hated it when forced to twice at work for two major companies. Have been using a Mac for my e-mail requirements for a number of years now. The included client is more than adequate. Don't Apple support using that with Exchange now - maybe that's what has prompted MS into action.

And indeed, don't get *me* started on Word! Manually hex editing a file is easier.

What great news, with a bit of luck they'll release an iPhone version of Win Mobile 6 too.

This is brilliant news, IMHO, and may well help Apple's case in corporate environments. Not that their warranties or anything else help them in that area, but this is important none the less.

I have to use Outlook at work... How I hate it. Why corporations are so into using MS products I don't know.

Outlook, I love it. Can't understand why some of you can't use it. A bit complicated I assume for none-techy folks.

Having all my data stored on my drive is just brilliant. Cloud be damned.

Can't wait for Outlook 2010. Have seriously tried to like Entourage but it's always been Outlook's younger, dumber brother.

Now, if Outlook 2010 for Mac were to have all the features of it's Windows cousin, and had the features of PostBox and Xobni also rolled in, that would be sweet.

@Dylantherabbit
Because the main alternative to Outlook/Exchange in the enterprise is IBM's Lotus Notes... which I'm sure violates all kinds of laws on human rights.

Outlook remains by far the best corporate e-mail solution. Cloud computing is fine if you don't need to be linked into a secure corporate network otherwise it's largely useless athe moment.

For those of you who don't understand why companies use MS products it's quite simple really: They really do just work, they connect with everything that matters and they're universal.

@CaptNemo
Please lets not talk about Lotus Notes! I have no idea why companies buy a microsoft suite then use Lotus Notes!

Actually, I don't have any major problems with the newer versions Outlook. It might have a somewhat boring 'corporate' facade, but it's a very capable piece of software. I'm sure once MS have overhauled it for Office 2010 more people will warm to it.

I'll also admit that GMail is a fantastic system. I use Outlook as my home e-mail client for Google Apps and I use the GMail web client when out & about. If you connect Outlook to GMail via IMAP then all of your mail is still stored in the 'cloud' (I *hate* that term), so PST files become redundant. Seems like the best of both worlds to me...

@Gordon: Heh, I can see how it might sound like that. Just to be clear, I'd rather use Outlook wherever I am, but when that's not an option I've got the highly capable Gmail client instead. So maybe my BMW can't drive in Buckinghamshire, but my Mercedes can or something like that ;)

I suppose my point is just that native clients and cloud computing needn't be mutually exclusive, there's benefits to both.

I'm one of those people who works for an employer who has Microsoft Office (2000) but uses Lotus Notes as it's e-mail and calendar software! That really is quite astonisting, when the far superior and user friendly Outlook comes with Office for free!

I have to say that Lotus Notes is probably the worst 'mainstream' software that I have ever used. Nothing that MS has produced is so un-user friendly, crashes that frequently...sorry I'll have to stop there as my blood is starting boil. Still, it keeps our IT people gamefully employed and busy, when it nessessitates regular total profile rebuild! Lotus Notes sucks...

Take a look at www.lotusnotessucks.com/

I'm just thankful that I use the excellent Outlook (2003) at home. It's been a faithful servent over the past six years, so I won't even be upgrading to a newer version, unless MS force me to! The same goes for the rest of Office 2003.

"I'm one of those people who works for an employer who has Microsoft Office (2000) but uses Lotus Notes as it's e-mail and calendar software! That really is quite astonisting, when the far superior and user friendly Outlook comes with Office for free!"

Actually, that's not the full story. Although Outlook is free with Office, the licenses to use Exchange (the CAL) and the exchange server licenses are not. They are the major cost, not Outlook. Further, moving from email system to email system can be very complex and costly, especially if your business uses Notes as a database and workflow system, which Exchange cannot do.

scotw, you are right to say that Outlook licences use MS Exchange, but it's also true that Outlook can quite easily use IBMs Domino server as Notes users are forced to do. I believe it's the ancient Domino server that is adding to our problems. My employers did use Notes as a workflow solution and even used it as a database and web editing solution too! Thankfully, at least the last part has changed and the resulting web site is generally considered as a vast improvement!

I will grudgingly admit that Notes has improved with each release (we now use 6.5), IMO, but I still think it's way short of the 'standard' opposition for it's main client tasks.

If most businesses choose Outlook, then one must assume that there is are alternative database and workflow solutions?

I can't believe that my employers IT department had the foresight to consider all the options, especially, when you consider that we still use Windows 2000, Office 2000 and approx 98% of our monitors are still 17in CRTs complete with CRT flicker (unless you know how to increase the refresh rate - and 95% of employees don't)! If you have a desktop less than five years old, you are in a tiny minority! Don't anyone suggest our public services are awash with lots of money! We're not in local government! Central government and civil service maybe...?

We used Novell's Groupwise before Outlook - we were forced to change when our large mail order company were taken over by a smaller outfit (with backers with deep pockets) and they gave them (!!) responsibility for all IT which led them to ditch our Mainframe and make 16 of us redundant. Bitter?