I don't see anyone on this list as being "resistant" to using another
client. The crux of the discussion is that there is no other client that
will offer the feature set that Outlook running against Exchange does.
If you only use the email functionality for 500 users, I'm sure you
could use Pine and Eudora (pick your poison) and be happy. None of those
solutions will do what Outlook/Exchange can.
Many of us on this list support that added functionality in
organizations smaller and significantly larger than yours. If you
haven't looked at the features, you really don't know what you're
missing. If you can't see their usefulness in your organization, I'd be
very surprised. Consider what you can accomplish in a 500 user company,
to improve productivity and client satisfaction, with some creative
server-side scripting, Outlook forms, public folders, resource booking,
etc. If you aren't using them, maybe you should.
Why drive a free Nova when you already own the Vette?
Tom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Ban Outlook
I'm wondering why everyone is so resistant to the notion of using a
different email client. I administer a network with only 500
workstations and I still have my hands full maintaining patches for
Win2k, Outlook2k, etc.... Considering the fact that very little of
Outlook's functionality is used on a day-to day basis by the average
user, what is the downside?
.rí½¶à³‘zrmyzrvi
.+-¦‹-Šxm¶Ÿÿà ,Â)Ür‰¿ë(º· ýì\…öª†Ù€Èb½ë!¶Úÿ 0³
§‘Ê&þÈzǚȱæ«r¬¥:.žË›±Êâm隊[h•æ¯yì\…©àz[,Ã)är‰„ÅÈZž‹ŠËZvh§–+-iÙ¢žÌ2žG(
