Jul 30 2006
Outlook Does More Than E-mail
When you write a post with this money shot, you have to expect a reaction:
On top of that, I haven’t found anything that Thunderbird can’t do that Outlook can (things that I would use anyways).
The post in question was about how much greater Thunderbird is than Outlook. Should I yawn now or yawn later? There is no way in hell Thunderbird is a replacement for Outlook. Period. Anyone who claims such a stupid thing has no idea what Outlook does. It really is that simple, folks.
If you wanted to draw a more accurate comparison, and God knows the blogosphere thrives on accuracy (cough), you could compare Thunderbird to Outlook Express, which is an e-mail only program. Outlook is what we like to call a PIM, or Personal Information Manager. It’s meant to be a one-stop shop for your organization and messaging needs, not an e-mail client. It synchronizes with every handheld device under the sun. It manages everything, and in reality, you can live in Outlook very easily throughout the course of the day.
That’s not to say Outlook is perfect. It’s nowhere near it. In fact, it’s fricking annoying in many ways; namely the 2 gig limit on your PST file and the fact that anything accessing your Outlook information leaves Outlook.exe running in your processes (meaning if you use a POP3 account, Outlook sits there all day grabbing your messages off your server and you end up wondering why your Blackberry hasn’t gone off all day). Not to mention it can be unstable, and it does crash quite often with random non-descript messaging.
Even so, Thunderbird is not a replacement for Outlook. You could compare Outlook to Evolution for Linux if you wanted to make a fair comparison. Thunderbird is a great e-mail program, but it’s not Outlook nor does it claim to be such. Calling Thunderbird an “Outlook killer” is like calling a skateboard a car-killer, since they’re both modes of transportation.
Technorati Tags: outlook, thunderbird, evolution
July 30th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
While I agree that Thunderbird is not a replacement for all that Outlook can do, I agree with the quote you reference in your post.
With my switch to Ubuntu, I of course, no longer use Outlook, and I too haven’t found anything that Thunderbird can’t do, in regards to the things I was using Outlook for anyway.
I never used the calendar. I never used the tasks. I never used the notes. I think I synced my phone with outlook twice, so that wasn’t an issue either. My sole use of Outlook was for accessing email and keeping my address book, both of which are very well done in Thunderbird.
I am fully aware of what Outlook does, and the features included. I guess I am one of the few who never found a need for most of those features.
July 30th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
The point is you can’t call it an Outlook killer in any way shape or form. You’re talking about products that aren’t meant to compete on any level.
If the logic of this post were good, I could call Apple’s mail.app the greatest application ever over something like Outlook because it does mail infinitely better. Problem is, it doesn’t do anything else Outlook does.
You may not have a need for all the features of Outlook (and I reckon most people don’t), but you can’t compare it to products that specialize in a task. Outlook is a swiss army knife. Thunderbird is a really sharp switchblade. Both are useful in their own ways.
July 30th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
And his assertion, btw, in the quote is utterly false until he adds his little caveat at the end.
There are tons of things Outlook can do that Thunderbird can’t do unless all you’re looking for is a mail client, in which case Outlook is like taking a .12 gauge to a mosquito anyway.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:34 am
I don’t care what you call it. Thunderbird killed Outlook on my desktop.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:36 am
If that’s the case you were never really using Outlook anyway, so good on you! Enjoy!