Outlook 2007 isn't so bad (EDIT, yes it is)

[superboyac]

After dealing with Novell Groupwise for the past 3 years, this week my work finally switched to Outlook 2007.  And I couldn't be happier.  Using Groupwise was a truly miserable experience, and that program is an absolute embarrassment.  Let me repeat...absolute embarrassment.  No company on the level of Novell should be putting out a product that miserable.  It seriously feels like something out of Windows 3.1.  And I've never been a fan of Outlook, having been a long time Pegasus Mail user and currently a The Bat! user, but Outlook 2007 is infinitely better than Groupwise.

In fact, chalk it up to ignorance, but Outlook 2007 is quite nice!  It's very powerful, pretty customizeable, I think the GUI is nice.  I really don't have a problem with it.  If our company is willing to pay for it and the Exchange servers, then I'm happy...very happy with it.

[Josh]

I love outlook 2007, in fact, I would use it IF it supported IMAP in a way which didn't require me to expand my hundreds of folders everytime I start the damn program!!!!! That is the one annoyance for me. It saves folder layouts for POP3, Exchange, and other email connections, BUT NOT IMAP!

[Carol Haynes]

I like Outlook 2007 but why is it so slow compared to earlier incarnations? For me it is VERY slow to load and downloading POP email makes the app freeze until it has finished - and it has done that since it was first installed. I deliberately keep my PST file reasonably small (hiving off all email to a MailStore archive after 60 days and deleting it in Outlook) and perform integrity checks and compaction on the PST file regularly so it keeps it in order.

I think it may have something to do with Business Contacts Manager (which was included with my version). It seems that loading SQL databases and starting services is slow but why it should affect the whole application all the time I really don't know.

[SKesselman]

Hi Carol,

If by chance you don't find BCM in Outlook 2007 useful (I  couldn't tell from your post), you may want to consider uninstalling it.
I got rid of BCM within a day of installing it. It just ruined Outlook. It ran like it wasn't even ready to be a beta release, let alone an expensive addition to Office. I was really disappointed.

I don't remember if speed was an issue or not, but now, Outlook runs very fast for me (and my file is huge).

Good luck with this, I know it can be frustrating!

[Darwin]

Just to note - when I bought Office 2003 Pro I installed BCM... Lasted about 3 hours - it made Outlook impossible to use (slowed it down, it crashed often, etc.). I removed it and have been blissfully happy with Outlook ever since (now on Outlook 2007; didn't install BCM when I upgraded).

YMMV

[Carol Haynes]

Thanks - I'll give it a go. I was trying to use it but it wasn't very useful and now I use QuickBooks which allows me to keep track of customers. I can always create an extra Contacts folder for buisness contacts in Outlook if I want.

[gogogadgetscott]

My work flushed possibly $100k+ when migrating from GroupWise to Outlook. The IT department totally botched the archive migration. I never cried so much about an email program. GroupWise is fantastic. People were always telling me about features that Outlook does that GroupWise does not. For every feature I was happy to explain how or where to find it in GroupWise. It is function over form.

GroupWise allowed the sender to view when recipients opened an email without the silly read receipt. It also allows a single rule to filter both the inbox and sentbox. Outlook requires two rules. Anyone that hates this as much as I do, I am happy to share my custom VBA used in place of the lame rule support in Outlook.

It could be the way IT setup exchange but the auto delete sucks. They delete any emails from the server that are 60 days from the time sent or received. However, Outlook auto archives based on the last modified date. So is very possible to lose emails. As a result, I have to set auto archive to every day so emails are not at risk of deletion. I do keep my archive pst files on a network drive (Microsoft does not support this), but it cannot be opened on two machines at once (GroupWise allowed the archives to be open on many machines at once). Have no access to it via webmail (GroupWise had the same issue).

So with all these archive emails how do I perform a search? One archive at a time. Outlook will not search across multiple pst files. Groupwise had one search for everything.

I will give one point to Outlook for the ability to open many pst files. GroupWise only allowed one archive to be opened at a time.

Do not even get me started on the Exchange vs Outlook address book. Why can they not be one in the same? And why is it such a pain to give email access to your personal Outlook address book? Control Panel > Mail > Address Books > Add > Outlook Address Book. Open outlook > right-click Contacts folder > select Properties > click tab Outlook Address Book > check Show this folder as an e-mail Address Book.

What about the default profile dialog box? IT has the computers locked down so it does not allow one to set the default profile. Because ever machine has multiple mail profiles left from the migration, every time you open Outlook you have to select the Exchange profile (thank you AutoHotkey).

You call this progress? LOL

[superboyac]

scott, I agree with you on several points, but not in your preference.  While most of the things you say are true, I still prefer Outlook because it's simply nicer to deal with from GUI standpoint.  Having features and being able to do things is one thing, but there's something to be said for having a nice interface to do it in.  I remember writing a couple of rules for Groupwise that were a PITA simply because of the way I had to do it.  The way everything is laid out in Outlook is much nicer to deal with than Groupwise.

It's funny, I'm normally a function over form kind of person (see all my rants about other software here at DC) but I just hate Groupwise.  I never liked Outlook either until I had to use Groupwise.  Everything about it was so ridiculously minimalist.  I guess I don't mind minimalism for little programs--actually, I prefer it, you don't want a big bloated program just to rename files, or burn a cd, etc.--but your email and PIM is something you use 24/7, so the interface and layout is more important.

So, I can really do without the lack of a good message status feature, or a weirdly implemented addressbook (yes, this puzzled me also...very strange).  As far as archives and searching, I don't use them on a constant basis so I can deal with that fine.  Seriously, I'm so freakin happy to have Outlook.  I never want to see Groupwise ever again, it's a piece of crap.

If only I could use the Bat! at work...however, it doesn't have the calendar features and stuff.  Oh well, I'm very happy with Outlook.

[Carol Haynes]

I uninstalled BCM and guess what ... the uninstaller doesn't work properly. You have the option of removing BCM and SQL Express - since I have no other use for SQL on my system I opted to remove both.

Every time my system started after that I got a pop up saying that SQL services couldn't start and so in the end I had to reinstall BCM and Express and then uninstall just BCM.

Anyone know how to get rid of SQL Express without having to use SC to delete rogue services left behind - and goodness knows what else?

Thinking about it I have a couple of Sony programs that may use SQL databases so they might be the cause of the pop up - but surely the MS installer should be able to detect that stuff is still needed by other programs ... isn't that the whole point of the registry system?

[superboyac]

I hate it, absolutely hate it, when you install a program and it installs one or more extra programs.  I think the proper way to do that is a dialog box that says you need to install such program first.  Because when you go to remove the program later, you weren't sure what got installed with what.  The worst offender of this is a program called Band in a Box.  It installs probably 15 separate installers when you install the main program.  When the time comes to uninstall, you have no idea which of these were part of the original installation, they all have different names and for all practical purposes, are standalone applications.

[Stoic Joker]

Thinking about it I have a couple of Sony programs that may use SQL databases so they might be the cause of the pop up - but surely the MS installer should be able to detect that stuff is still needed by other programs ... isn't that the whole point of the registry system?

The installer can only keep track of the information contained in the install/uninstall script it's running. Once SQL (most flavors) is installed by any one program no other program will actually install sql again (even if it says it is) it will simply create a new instance of the service (named for the app it's from) and add that to the SCM's to-do list.

So you remove A and B throws an error ... That's "normal"

[Carol Haynes]

I thought the whole point of the registration system was so that MS installers could keep track of the number of installed apps using a product. That way is A installs X and then B is installed and needs X the registered count for X bumps to 2. That way if A is unistalled X is not uninstalled just the registration count is reduced - that way product B should be unaffected.

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick but I thought this is why you get messages saying files are no longer needed (ie. the usage count drops to 0) when you uninstall apps.

It seems a pity MS can't use their own system the way it was intended to work. If this wasn't the intention what is the point of registering instances of apps?

[superboyac]

How can I hide all the addresses from showing up when I use distribution lists in Outlook 2007?  In all other email programs, the distribution list doesn't show all the addresses, just the title of the distribution list.  In Outlook it expands it to all the addresses which is really ugly when you receive the email.

All the solutions I searched for say to use the BCC field.  But that's stupid.  Like I said, in all other programs, you don't have to do that.  Any suggestions?

[Carol Haynes]

There is no other way that I know. Why not send it to yourself or a no-reply address and BCC the list? That's what a lot of lists do it anyway.

[PPLandry]

There is no other way that I know. Why not send it to yourself or a no-reply address and BCC the list? That's what a lot of lists do it anyway.

but BCCs are often filtered as spam. Email merge is the way to go.

[Darwin]

An alternative is something like eannouncer, the free version of which allows you to send individualized e-mails to up to 50 recipients. It's basically merge for dummies... which means that it's right up my alley 

[Edit - I am kind and fix URLs Carol]

[Deozaan]

An alternative is something like [urlhttp://www.email-announcer.com/]eannouncer/url]

Some people have a way with URLs, other people,... oh... have not way 

[superboyac]

There is no other way that I know. Why not send it to yourself or a no-reply address and BCC the list? That's what a lot of lists do it anyway.

but BCCs are often filtered as spam. Email merge is the way to go.

What is email merge?

[Darwin]

thanks, Carol (and good one, Deozaan!). I, of course, am not to blame. Change is to blame - it's this confounded new, "simplified" url plug-in. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it  

[Darwin]

What is email merge?

He meant mail merge... I think. If you try eannouncer (above) you won't have to worry about it!

[Edit - fixed quote tags - I am a little fixer ]

[superboyac]

sheesh...ok, one thing good about Groupwise was that I could make a distribution list and not show all the freakin email addresses.  Our division here likes to send a lot of emails to everyone in the division, about 100 people, and all the addresses show in the email, and it looks ridiculous.

I'll try this eannouncer.

[PPLandry]

There is no other way that I know. Why not send it to yourself or a no-reply address and BCC the list? That's what a lot of lists do it anyway.

but BCCs are often filtered as spam. Email merge is the way to go.

What is email merge?

Email-merge is the same as mail-merge but generating 1 email for each contact item. It can be personalized (but need not be). It is the best (only?) way to get lots of emails delivered, guaranteed. MSWord can do it with a number of email lists (Outlook, Excel, others I'm sure

Our favorite software   can also do it... Select multiple items > HTML export > Template > email-merge

[PPLandry]

Our division here likes to send a lot of emails to everyone in the division, about 100 people, and all the addresses show in the email, and it looks ridiculous.

And it is a important confidentiality problem (disclosing email adresses), so individual email is the way to go. It takes a bit more time to set it up the first time, but after that, it is no longer than sending a regular email

[Darwin]

Impressive - I didn't know that SQLNotes handled this, thanks Pierre 

[superboyac]

gogogadgetscott, I think you are right about Outlook.  It kind of sucks.  No, it really sucks.  I was so happy to get rid of Groupwise, I had no idea Outlook was this bad.  Still, i don't know if I prefer Groupwise.  I hated that too.  I wish we could just use the Bat.  I temporarily configured the Bat to work with the Exchange server, and it's really nice, but I can't do meetings on it, so it's useless.

I hate needlessly slow applications.  Frankly, if you're not doing something graphically intensive or with extremely large data crunching, I see absolutely no reason why programs shouldn't be speedy on any computer less than 3 years old.