How I became a prisoner of Outlook
Last year, I decided to give Linux a try. Everything was going well, until I started working for a company that uses Microsoft Outlook for e-mail. There's simply no straightforward, reliable way to run Outlook on Linux. I tried Outlook Web Access, but the service strips code from HTML attachments, among other limitations.
(The company I worked for prior to my current employer used Lotus Notes, which is probably the only e-mail program in the world more proprietary than Outlook. Organizations must get some huge benefit from using these closed e-mail systems, because they sure make life difficult for users.)
I didn't get far with my Linux experiment, but I'm not giving up on my dream of a simpler PC. I'm ready for the true network computer. Unfortunately, Web apps aren't quite ready for me. More specifically, they're not ready for my boss, though they appear to be getting closer every day.
Do you really need all those programs on your hard drive?
It's downright wasteful to have huge software applications collecting dust on PC hard drives. Take a look at the programs with shortcuts on your Start menu. I bet you haven't opened half of them more than a handful of times in the last year, and a bunch you probably have used but once or not at all.
Adoption of Web-based versions of PC applications has been slowed by the services' limited features and performance compared to that of their desktop counterparts. Also, a dropped Internet link leaves you out in the cold.
Today, online services such as Zoho provide much of the functionality of various desktop apps, including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Zoho also includes an offline component that lets you continue to work without a Web connection. Likewise, Google Docs and Spreadsheets, Picasa, Wordpress, and more recently Gmail use Google Gears to allow offline access to your data in those services.
Security of Web-based apps comes up short
Of course, from an IT perspective, the most serious shortcoming of Web-based applications is their perceived lack of security. In particular, Google doesn't let you encrypt the data you store on the company's servers. Zoho's FAQ page states that the company will soon add a data-encryption option. Still, storing the organization's data on somebody else's servers can give system administrators nightmares.
There are still some applications I use regularly that don't have a Web equivalent: Outlook, the TopStyle HTML editor, and the Corel Paint Shop Pro imaging program, among a handful of others. The one thing all three of these programs have in common is that they were selected for me--by my boss.
Personally, I'm ready to go the Web-app-and-Netbook route. And as soon as I can say adios to the monster applications my work seems to require, I'll give the always-online life a try. Wish me luck convincing my employer to join me.
Dennis O'Reilly has covered PCs and other technologies in print and online since 1985. Along with more than a decade as editor for Ziff-Davis's Computer Select, Dennis edited PC World's award-winning Here's How section for more than seven years. He is a member of the CNET blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. 
(But they won't have Outlook.)
Or, the open software folks *could* write a look-alike to Outlook. After all, it has been out for quite some time now. Like more than a decade. It has become THE standard for business communication.
The free software folks don't have a compatible alternative?
Hmm. Oh well, back to that which works, for anyone, in any language, on any machine, on any network.
How limiting!
1. It doesn't work
2. It doesn't work for me
3. It doesn't work on my machine
4. It doesn't work in my wife's native language
I will have to admit it does work on my network, though, and you were right about the limiting part although I suspect that was you being facetious rather than trying to be accurate.
So your score would seem to be one right and four wrong. In any but a politicians world that would add up to a rather big loss.
So you , as one in a million think that becaus eit doe snot work for you that it is somehow bad? That becasue your wife cant use it means that Otlook is somehow deficient? LOL
You seem to have a problem with your reading skills. At no point did I say my wife couldn't use Outlook. If you would actually read the post I was replying to you would see that he mentions "in any language" which is obviously a false statement as were several of his other points. Might I suggest engaging brain before replying next time.
Enjoy!
On the contrary, closed email systems are for the benefit of MOST users. IT staff often have to deal with hundreds or thousands of users. Most of whom can't be bothered to learn the tools of their trade (email communication being one of them). Exchange with Outlook and domain group policies make using e-mail bearable for the majority of users. Automatic configuration of email settings for new employees or new PCs for existing employees reduces time spent running to user's desks or remoting into their machines. Outlook Web Access and its Outlook-ish interface make it easy for remote users to get to their email anywhere with a familiar interface.
Having spent many years in the ISP business, giving out the SMTP, POP, IMAP, and NNTP settings(despite the fact that these same settings were listed on our support website) and walking users through configuring their email clients on a daily basis, I was ecstatic to see the amount of automation in the Outlook/Exchange relationship. Nowadays that is becoming less of a problem with autodiscover records but it used to be a major time waster for IT staff.
As far as making life difficult for users, that is really a non-issue. IT staff are there to make life easier for employees. 99% of which are only too happy to use the software they are told to use. That 1% of users who fancy themselves "techno-savvy" are usually a major headache for IT staff. Always complaining that the latest drivers are not installed (despite the fact that the IT department has standardized on a driver set that has been tested to work well in their environment), complaining that they can't install LimeWire (a big no-no for obvious reasons) and generally making themselves a threat to the delicate balance and hard-fought stability of the corporate network.
Here is a hint for the author: If you are not part of the IT staff, follow their guidelines. They are better at this than you are. That's what they get paid to do. If you think you know better, apply for an IT position the next time one opens. I suspect that it is actually you who is making life difficult for the IT staff, not the other way around.
If you'd ever given another technology a try for more than the amount of time it takes to realize it's different from Windows or other MS technologies and therefore "must be wrong", then you would start to realize that yes, MS tech is much less reliable and more difficult to use than other technologies.
By the way, your response to fazalmajid continues to show how arrogant and ignorant your attitude is. The IT industry seems to be filled with just the same sort of people for the most part. Of course, the people who actually know what they're talking about don't work IT for the most part, they open their own computer shops, build their own and sell them.
But when it comes to my corporate environment, I use MS technologies for desktops because thats what 99% of my users know how to use and I use MS Exchange with Outlook because it works well and offers the features my users need. Simple as that. I am absolutely aware that there are other technologies that can offer the same or similar features but what I use works and works well. I haven't had an email outage in several years because I know what I'm doing.
My response to fazalmajid may be considered arrogant but it's also the truth. If you are not a member of an IT department, let them do their jobs. If you think you know better anyone is more than welcome to apply for a position and put their money where their mouth is. If you are the antisocial type and can't be bothered to work with a team because you know so much more than everyone else, open your own store like you did!
What pop clinet knows how to book a meeting room> What imao client knows about getting data from a database?
A real enterprise doing real work will use an entrprise system. Amatures will use theother stuff mentioned.
I realize others may see it differently, but I prefer a good, usable email client for mail, and dedicated, equally capable tools for other functions (like calendar, db access, etc.). That way I don't have a single point of failure that brings all productivity to a grinding halt if it has a problem. I guess it's the same reason I don't like those all in one printers/scanner/copier/fax machines, but to each his own.
In the end you end up with overkill for a basic email system. I've actually found my email experience more enjoyable at a company that didn't use Exchange and doesn't require Outlook. Without all the toys and distractions emails are about communicating in a straight forward manner.
Web-apps bring with them security, privacy, reliability, control, and performance issues/risks.
I'm quite content to use MS Outlook on my PC.
As for the MS Exchange crowd Lovin' it.... MS Exchange requires so much more maintenance when compared to a system such as Kolab. Outlook is very cumbersome and quite slow. I've set up offices with different email clients depending on their particular needs with simple scripts that setup everything for the user. A little bash/perl/python/awk and sed go a long way in making IT life easier.
- by Macbrewer February 17, 2009 12:33 PM PST
- Outlook/Exchange is simply a monopoly move on MSFT's part. They will never support anything outside their monopoly OS, and it would be rather trivial for them to do so. In fact, it is used deliberately against any other viable platform. There really is only one other viable platform, Macintosh. Here, MS released Outlook for OS 9, for which people had been clamoring for years, only when Apple released OS X and was trying to get people to move to the new OS.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by gggg sssss February 18, 2009 6:15 PM PST
- you missed outlook business contact manager, you missed integration with great plains
- Like this
-
(29 Comments)Outlook offers very little in terms of business functionality. About the only thing it does is integrate calendaring into email, and makes the ultimate open technology, email, into a proprietary mess.
And for those of you who actually are so dim as to think Outlook ads to security, that is laughable. In fact, a large number of the viruses are propagated primary via Outlook's extremely lax security. Coupled with Windows, it's no wonder there are so many viruses plaguing Windows users. One can add security to any form of email via encryption.
And there is no reason why an extremely simple technology such as email can't work correctly via a web browser. No one needs a fast computer to send an email. Email was just as efficient in the 80's as it is today. We are only talking about sending a few bits here and there for most email. And attachments are handled just as well using any other (real) email standard.