<ANDREW BAKER> Agreed. </ANDREW BAKER>
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:16 AM To: NT 2000 Discussions Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MS Outlook 2000/2002 My only complaint with Outlook is the apparent lack of multithreading when downloading mails as a POP3 client. Other than that, most of your complaints can be configured by options native to the application. If you're that concerned, don't use Outlook. I must say that you spend a whole lot of time complaining, but that would be overstating the obvious. Perhaps you should consider a less irksome occupation. ============================================================== ASB - http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=~MoreInfo.TXT ============================================================== "I see no day", I heard him say, "so grey is the face on every mortal." -- Queen. >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Adam Smith >Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:06 PM >To: NT 2000 Discussions >Subject: MS Outlook 2000/2002 > > > >All, > >Outlook is so useless. I am finding this more and more with many >Microsoft written programs these days that although they may >be a market >leader and have a good interface for their software, the >core features >are barely up to scratch. > >Take message rules. > >How many people do you know who have message rules set up? Heaps. I >have about 15 on my own system. One is set up to parse the >headers of >incoming emails for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" so that emails to this list >sort into the correct folder. Another one is for a Linux list, a BSD >list and a whole host of newsletters etc. > >There are times where I load up Outlook, it downloads mail >and sorts it >into the correct headers. > >Message Rules Annoyance #1 -- Why does Outlook need to have every >single email come into the Inbox *before* its headers get >parsed? It's >extremely aggrovating to sit on my Inbox watching email >download, move >to my Inbox, get parsed and then sort to the correct box. >Why? Because >every time an email comes through, the contents of my inbox >moves down >one row and then back up one row. When you've got multiple emails >coming in being sorted all the time, you keep mis-clicking >things. "Why >don't you wait for it to finish, then read your email?" .. Err.. Why >should I! > >Message Rules Annoyance #2 -- Many, MANY times I load Outlook and it >begins to download email, appears to parse the headers and >then leaves >the message in the Inbox! There have been countless times >that I have >loaded Outlook only to find that its left mail there that should have >been sorted correctly. So I trott off to the Message Rules >options to >manually run the sort on the Inbox. When I get there, I >have to click >*EVERY* rule manually, because there's no "Select All" button. How >annoying! When I run it, it works!! > >NEXT! > >Outlook takes ages to load. I have approximately 800Mb >worth of email. >I keep it all, because I am a hoarder. I keep mailing list archives >going back as far as to the date I joined, and I used to even file my >SPAM mail in a folder called "SPAM". I deleted nothing. >These days I >keep everything but the spam and newslettery things that I >receive that >I don't want to read. So due to the fact that I'm on three >high-volume >mailing lists, (NT2000/freebsd-questions/LinuxSA), I get >quite a bit of >mail every day. If I reboot, Outlook loads in about 60 seconds. It >often completely freezes my computer until it has loaded. > >If I close Outlook and reload, its fast. Caching is great! But why >does it take so long to load in the first place? I am not asking >Outlook to load all of my mail before I read it, I just want >to get into >the program and get on with my work. I think it could have been done >better. One big file for each of my mail folders seems like >a massive >great mistake... > >NEXT! > >The Contacts book. What a load of sh...amefulness. > >Let's say I have my main contacts book, and within that are three >sub-groups I have created.. "Employees," "Clients" and "Suppliers". > >In my Employees group I have heeeeeeeeaps of email addresses >because I >make so much money I need heaps and heaps of employees. >Now, I need to >write an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stoke up the editor by >pressing the "New" button. OK. Click the "To..." button >and there are >no addresses listed in the address list! Why? Because Outlook is >trying to read addresses from somewhere else *OTHER* than its Address >Book! Dumb! The only way to send him an email without knowing his >address is to go to his contact information, right click and >click "Send >Message to Contact". Duh. Of course you should. I mean the "To..." >button is there for ordering pizza, right? > >So instead of doing that you decide to put in his email address >manually. So you type in the following into the 'To' field: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >and click Send. OOPS!! You typed ".co" instead of ".com". Too late! >The email has gone. Oh well, go into the sent items box, >copy the text >out of the email (because there's no way to just re-send a >message thats >already be sent, no, who'd want to ever do that??).. Anyway, so you >compose a new email and put in his email address correctly, and paste >the text back into the email and press send. It goes >through. *PHEW*. > >Two days later we need to send an email to Tom Cruise again. > We stoke >up Outlook and start typing his email address, and Outlook prompts us >because it's remembered him from last time! How clever, >Outlook!! So >you look at the list of matches and it shows you two of them: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Now if we press the TAB key, it will select the first match, which is >wrong. So every time we want to quickly send an email to >Tom Cruise, we >need to press Down--Enter. This is going to get annoying because I >intend to be conversing with Tom Cruise quite a bit. I >might even give >up a lamb roast dinner for it. OK So this is easy. Let's just edit >this list of addresses that Outlook's cached and remove the redundant >entry. >Where do you go to do that? Oh wait, you can't!! Hooray! > >NEXT! > >One day, we've composed an email and its sitting in the >"Outbox" which >means its waiting to be sent, but hasn't left the email client yet. >Cool. You just want to double check that email before it >goes out, so >you double click on it to load it up and read it. It's all >good. Then >you press "Send/Recieve" and the email stays in the Outbox. >You click >it again and it stays there. "What the fork?," you say. > >You ring up IT support and they tell you that the email won't go out >anymore because you've loaded it up while its in the Outbox. > You need >to drag the email into your 'Drafts' folder, then re-send it. If you >look at it now, its in italics. After you double click to load it >during its stay in the Outbox, you make it proper-case. >That means it >won't leave anymore. What kind of an idiot wouldn't realize that? I >mean, REALLY! > >NEXT! > >"Outlook has blocked access to the attached attachments: >IMPORTANT-VIRUS-FREE-EXECUTABLE.EXE" > >Well that's all well and good, because I know that my mate at the >computer next to me just emailed me this file. But now I >can't load it >because Outlook won't let me. You see Outlook doesn't >realize that I'm >an intelligent enough person to make my own decisions when >it comes to >file attachments. Had it prompted me on installation to enable or >disable these "security" precautions, then maybe I'd be a bit more >happy. Sure I can disable them in the registry, but who wants to do >that all the time? Give me the good old outlook.conf file. >And we all >know the real reason Outlook blocks these types of files is >because it >is still coded to run attachments that you haven't told it to. Like >loading of HTML pages in an email. This is a work around to make >Outlook look like its helping you when in fact it's only >stopping itself >from causing more problems on your system. Then again if >you're idiotic >enough to load a .VBS file that was sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] >then its your own fault, but then again, who designs an >Operating System >security system that allows an executed program to have the identical >level of security to the person who ran it? Err.. > >NEXT! > >When you create an email account, why do you have to click the "More >Settings" button to give it a non auto-generated name? Aaaarrrgh!! > >NEXT! > >People send you emails in HTML/Rich Text format all the time. Sure I >dont mind reading them in that format, but I'd never send ANYONE an >email in RTF or HTML format. Yucko! When I click reply to an RTF >email, why does it reply in Rich Text mode? I have configured my >Outlook to generate emails in Text only!! Oh, thats right.. >G-E-N-E-R-A-T-E emails. Not reply to emails in Text Mode. Generate >only. So all replies to emails go back in the format they >started in. >Riiiight. > >NEXT! > >The blue quote line. What a piece of garbage that is. When someone >sends me an email I like to cut it up and reply to parts of it by >quoting one or two lines that they had said, then responding to that. >For example: > >----------------- >> Hello! > >Hey, how are ya? > >Cya later! >----------------- > >If they send that message in RTF or HTML, you reply in RTF >or HTML. So >Outlook auto-quotes their original message with a solid blue >line down >the left of it. That means you are forced to reply at the top of the >email. Who replies like that? It's inconsistent, gross, and hard to >follow. > >So if you go down and decide to break up the message a bit, >you can't!! >All you can do is modify the original message. But wait!! >There's one >way around it! Change the current format of your email from >HTML into >text! YESSSS that ought to do it!! "Format Menu, Plain Text". Cool. >It says you'll lose your formatting, but that's what we want. So you >click OK, and Outlook takes away the blue line, and doesn't >prefix the >original message with those lovely '>' characters. So >you've got to do >it manually!!!!!!!!!!! > >NEXT! > >Doing it manually will just cause Outlook to have a gross amount of >characters per line, which means that any generic email >clients will see >it quote properly the first time, then if that original >quote makes it >through to a second reply, it will come out looking >something like this: > >> This is a line of text that Outlook has played around with and >> made really >> dumb. So dumb in fact that it drops words so that they 'fit' >> when in >> actual fact they just make things look gross. Hard to read, >> hard to >> quote with too! > >NEXT! > >"Extra line breaks were removed in this message. To restore, click >here." This is a little yellow line on the status bar in the middle >between your email and your preview pane. If you actually >*RESTORE* the >line breaks, the email usually looks right. Amazing! > >NEXT! > >Quoting with UNC pathnames. > >If an originating email has a line beginning with a backslash, ie a \ >character, it comes out as a link in Outlook, (underlined >blue). If you >then go and hit reply and reply in text mode, Outlook stops >quoting the >> character including and after that line. Very very wrong! > > >I think I've had enough... I need a coffee... > >Maybe next week I'll bring you another Microsoft product review :-) > >My rating: 2/10 > > >1 point for Looks >1 point for Interface >8 points lost for annoyances. -- No bonus points for you, Outlook! > > > > >Adam Smith >IT Officer >SAGE Automation Ltd > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.sageautomation.com > >Phone: (08) 8276 0703 >Fax: (08) 8276 0799 >Mobile: 0414 895 273 > >ԿԬ > ------ You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
