So with my new job I've been using Outlook for the 1st time and I'm finding a lot people don't like it. Can anyone elaborate. So far I've tried it on my own desktop and I'm trying Thunderbird on my personal laptop. Outlook seems more robust. What are some key points for those of you that use these email apps regularly find is better in Tbird over outlook?
They may complain because they may have never been forced to use anything else. Where I work, due to an open source initiative by our former CIO, we used Thunderbird for some time instead of Outlook. I never thought I would miss Outlook until that day because I found Thunderbird to be so woefully inadequate. It wasn't one or two big things, it was more or less a lot of little things that bothered me about Thunderbird that I didn't realize until I was forced to use it that made me realize how for granted I had taken Outlook.
That initiative ended almost as quickly as it started becuase most of us rebelled and when I brought in Office 2010 beta and showed it to the CEO, that was the end of the initiative. About two weeks later, we were all running Office 2007. I can tell you that Outlook is more robust. Between great calendar functionality, integration with Sharepoint, excellent messaging capablity, there's a reason it's the standard for the e-mail desktop client.
Currently, we are allowed to use Thunderbird or any other client if we wish to do so. All of us are using Outlook 2010 by choice however now because we all groaned when we were forced to use OpenOffice and Thunderbird.
The main reason for support of Both open office and Outlook over microsoft office including outlook is a simple one - cost
I run office 2010 pro here and have ran OOo and Thunderbird (with lightning), in the past.
The current retail price for Office 2010 pro here in the UK is £429.99 the alternative is £0.00 - quite a difference.
I actually installed OOo on a client's system yesterday for that very reason - he was an occasional Office user (private individual), and just could not justify more than the hardware cost for his office suite.
Another reason I've seen quoted is the interface in Office 2010 & 2007 is too radical for some users.
Personally I believe that Office 2010 is far better than the alternative but that is only a personal opinion, though one backed with many years experience with both options
True, cost is a big driver for OpenOffice. And I recommend it too to a home user who just needs some basic e-mail but if you plan to do any business with it, the first thing I will say is to buy Outlook because it's just so essential. I remember my boss when forced to use Thunderbird, about two days in, he went out and purchased a personal copy of Outlook because he got sick and tired of Thunderbird's inadequacies. I remember hearing him in his office say ... well, I can't quote exactly what he said as it's against forum rules but it was something to the effect of "oh screw this".
The funny thing is that in our company now, any time we look back on the open source initiative, we all say those words and follow them up with laughter because it was just so terrible. The other thing is that with Microsoft Office (2007 or 2010 or any recent version really), people often criticize it but when you really sit down and think about it and the alternatives that are out there, none really match up, much less surpass what Microsoft Office can do.
To be honest, with office I can live with openoffice without too many issues, for personal use, I run MS office as I have to support it more and because I prefer it, (if that makes sense).
but Outlook is unmatched in it's functionality Thunderbird is a good email client but the other features of outlook, PIM/CRM/Integration is unmatched anywhere (IMO)
It seems for a large corp. outlooks cost and functionality outweigh the cheaper alternatives.
Quote