we're about to move away from Exchange/Outlook because half of our user base is Mac and MS still hasn't said anything about supporting Mac in the future for Exchange. they had a survey several months back, but i don't know what ever happened with it. has anyone heard anything about support for Macs in Titanium?

they have an os9 client out there for exchange... i think it's outlook for mac. you can dl it from their website..

or you can use the web interface...
or you can use MS Entorage and setup your stuff so it logs onto exhcange via IMAP and you can setup directory services using LDAP... isn't that all that exchange serves ? ;)

~daNi~

Well, he s*cks! I don't think he's more usefull then the current interface...
Microsoft is changing the product that gave them the markedlead: their interface... bad thing.

i still use 2k, worked with xp for 6 months, couldn't live with it. Now back 2 2K, xp on my laptop. And t

outlook express is good for home use, outlook 2000 goes stupid buggy sometimes and automaitcally runs viruses but it does the job. outlook 2000 has a bunch of problems, especially ones that deal with synchronizing, and microsoft could have fixed this with a patch, but they did not. instead they want to take more money. LOOK, WE MADE A NEW OUTLOOK FOR YOU! IF YOU GET THIS NEW OUTLOOK IT WON'T HAVE THOSE BUGS AND PROBLEMS THAT WE DIDN'T FIX SO YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR MONEY FOR THIS POOR EXCUSE OF A NEW VERSION OF OUTLOOK.

Just remember, most of the time microsoft tries to pass off new eyecandy, a bunch of useless features, and fixed bugs that should have been fixed in the previous versions as a new version of software. the only exception is probably powerpoint 2002, now if only microsoft did the same with all of their software.
Until then, MS can shove *XP and all that other bulls*** right up their ass.

Thats why we have piracy! Long live Piracy!

The new look is interesting, however i highlz doubt it will look much like this when it is final, like cpuguz said is is pre-beta (if not alpha) code. I have always liked Outlook, even though it has its fair share of problems (mainlz virus!!) it is a good product and nice and easy to use. i look forward to using a preview version when it is available on MSDN. .NET intergration its a shock, everything MS will have .NET in it in 2 years time! I would like a list off all the new features however i doubt this will be available for some time (next year probably)

Revolutionary! Rearranging the message list to a vertical column! Can't wait to run out and buy all new licenses to roll this awesome feture out across the enterprise!.... Yeah, whatever. Check out Woody's Office Watch at http://www.woodyswatch.com/office/ for a cogent description of what the hype is about. Yawn.

This is SO lame!

I (unfortunately) have to use Outlook all the time, but this program has not been sunstantively altered since its first incarnation back in 1997. Now they are saying mid 2003 for the next version! (and I bet any money it will be the same old crap as before and STILL not a superset of Outlook Express).

Lemme see, Im going to propose a five year IT plan to our CEO and explain why I need to spend $50,000 for each department for what amounts to eye candy? HAHAHAHAHA!

Microsoft, wake up. Noone wants a redesgned interface. It works as it is.....

Make it better.......with USEFUL features.

How about database integration that would allow you to seamlessly integrate applications into the Outlook client.

Sure , it can be done, but its a royal pain in the arse with so many of Microsofts bugs, er "undocumented features".

The point is, this is only good for MS. They can take a release, repackage it.... then force people who were stupid enough to sign up for "software assurance" to upgrade to the next version irregardless of if it makes any damned sense to do so.

Ive known more than a few businesses that had to scale back plans simply because they couldnt afford the software.

Sucks, doesnt it?

The ONLY thing that OE does that Outlook does not is newsgroups... that's it.

And you seem to think that just because that's all you can see on the screenshot that all there is, is a new interface?

Get real.

You actually have to, oh my God (sorry, that's politically incorect now, isn't it?), USE the product in order to find out what's new and such... not only that, but this is PRE-BETA!

We've already started looking at alternatives. Since it will be Mid 2003 [But that really means late 2003 since it's MS] before we see this Titanium, and probably 2005 before we see Exchange with this special SQL Engin. Lotus Notes has had this since it started, and is looking better and better all the time. No virus issues, and true database integration.

GO NOTES!

oooooooooooooooooooohhhhhh, well thank you for your keen insight. If it were not for you... I'd still be going blissfully along and think that I wasn't an idiot. =)

Seriously though, pre-beta, pre-pre-beta, pre-cheese sandwich, or not..... MS has done little to improve the basic fuctionality of Outlook over the years.

In fact, I find it quite amusing that one would take a grey rock, spray paint it blue, and call it Rock 2.0.. under the hood its still a rock, with no real useful changes from the last "version".

And OE doesnt doesn't that very well at all...

Maybe no real changes that YOU use, but I'm sure that other people use other changes.

Pray tell, what revolutionary changes are you using??????
Cite facts, not disinformation.

I am citing facts.

You just don't seem to realize that just because you don't use something no one else does.

But that goes with the name, fewt.

The only feature in OE that's not in Outlook that I would like to see is "Group messages by conversation". Outlook's grouping/organization leaves much to be desired...

I would have to agree with the majority of this thread though, Outlook since its inception has not changed much from a user's perspective. Whether it uses DSProxy or knows of Global Catalog servers is irrelevant to users (until it doesn't work!)...

No, there are two things that Outlook Express does that Outlook doesn't! Newsgroups and Hotmail. Why the hell didn't Microsoft put Hotmail in Outlook? So what if you're not a business user, Microsoft wouldn't mind if regular users started buying Office XP Developer, would they?

You have to realise that a feature that is USEFUL to YOU may not be to someone else. There have been many discussions about products such as OpenOffice etc by people who say that it should be easy to compete with Microsoft by simply implementing that 5% of features that 'everybody' uses. The problem with that thought process is that 'everybody' uses a completely different 5% of the features and therefore the only way to keep everyone happy and therefore compete, is to include all the features.

Whilst I personally don't require any other features from Outlook doesn't meant that someone else out there doesn't either.

er... hardly.

Well I can't speak for outlook XP (as I only have Outlook 2000) but from what I can see it aint that different. From my experience Outlook 2000, its colour options are only 8bit (for backgrounds etc - choice of only 16 colours like in Windows 3.1 is totally lame when running the OS at 24bit) it also can't display hi colour icons properly (attachments with XP icons look trashed), cant embed sounds as a background like OE can, cant at a glance see what user account the mail is being sent from as you cant specify the account being sent from just by using a drop list like you can in OE (you have to send mail via 'send using' menu instead and cant tell for sure until the mail has been sent), it is also not identity aware (switching identity makes no difference to Outlook 2000) it has no Newsgroup facility (launches OE instead) it can not be used as a default mail client on one XP account with another program as the default email client on another account (Outlook just grabs the association for all users regardless)

Thats hardly a only one difference is it? and thats just what I can think of off the top of my head withiut doing a side by side comparison.

Mine has no problems with high color icons, don't know what your's is.

Never tried embeding sounds, although, I'm sure you can if you do it in HTML.

Yes you can see who it's being sent from, you just have to find it (and it's not hard), it's not on a dropbox like in OE, rather, it's in a dropmenu called "accounts" in the same window.

I've not messed with Identities in a long time, so I don't know about that.

Default apps are machine specific, not user specific (although, I guess it would be good to be able to change that per user, just as it would be good to be able to change resolution per user, etc...)

So, with exception to the two things that I've not done, yep, still only one thing that OE does that Outlook does not.

Outlook 2002 supports hotmail accounts (although, it's INCREDIBLY slow).

Personnally i prefer Outlook XP over 2000 however i use 2000 as i cant afford XP (saving up though ;)

I like the new features such as easier rule creation straight from a message, better help, higher security (although Outlook 2000 has this with updates, i am talking about attachment extension blocking), more stable, colour coded calender (a GOD SEND if you ask me). I agree that the bulk of Outlook is the same however you cant add much to an email client, i dont see The Bat! or Eudora adding much either in new releases. Can you suggest some things to add in the next version? if you can stop moaning and email Microsoft with the suggestions

ummm... it has database integration... It is something that has to be done by developers, but Outlook is more for Enterprise use, so this is not a big deal for most of Microsoft's target audience.

One very big improvement (especially for enterprise users) is the ability to connect to multiple email addresses (exchange addresses). I can list more, but the time would be wasted on you.

The fact that it still looks like a rock to you simply shows your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand... a thing that seems to happen way to often in these forums.

There are a lot of improvements under the hood. The object model has been considerably improved, and the internal architecture has been altered considerably to work with Exchange 2000 and digital dashboard technology.

Outlook supports hotmail. Add an http account in the accounts menu...

I understand some of the complaints against the Outlook 2000/XP platform, but I also have to emphasize the fact that it was built to be an Exchange Client, thus being able to recieve email and utilize an Exchange server. I dont think the engineers who designed it had Hotmail in mind.