Outlook 2003 Sucks Ass. Bigtime.

“Outlook 2003 Stops Responding After a Long Period of Use”??!? what a piece of ****!
i stick with eudora. v6 isn't that bad. plus i have my settings/emails on my firewire drive so i can truck 'em between work and home without having to sync. 8-D

Sigh. I was really, really hoping Microsoft would tap into its resources to make Outlook a killer PIM and clean up 2002.
If the visual UI changes are ghastly, it must be downright disgusting to look at, because the current version is ugly.

Is this review with a corporate hat on? I don't use Outlook and will never use Outlook. I currently use The Bat!.
From what I have heard, Outlook 2003 is supposed to start doing things that other e-mail clients like PocoMail and The Bat! have been doing for a long time. Not allowing e-mail to go to external servers for images (allowing spammers to know that their message was seen) for example.
Search folders do sound really cool, however, I suspect that other e-mail clients will add that feature shortly. Some already do similar things to search folders by filtering mail with tons of options, PocoMail is that program.

I've been using Outlook every day for the last, erm, seven years or more. Outlook 2003 is worth it if only for the “group by conversation” view. And for the enhanvced preview pane. And for the side-by-side calendar view. And for the enhanced contacts screen. And for theintegrated link to IM.
Yes, the UI takes some getting used to, and no, I'm not a particular fan of the new toolbar look either. But overall the UI is much better than any previous version.

So Chris, how do you *really* feel about it?!

I have to agree with Michel Vuijlsteke - the fact taht there is a memory leak issue sucks, but overall my impression with Office 2003 (including Outlook) has been pretty good. Of course, I look at it from an Exchange-connected perspective, where the improvements are fairly substantial.

hm. i was actually quite pleased with the interface and features of outlook 2k3. i personally enjoy the document style feel of emails and the horizontal layout.
as for memory leaks and performance issues, i can't say i have much knowledge of the subjects, nor have i experienced (or at least have not noticed) such things on my machine.

Maybe that's why we should all stick to Outlook Express together with a firewall to block those nasty spammer “Remote-Server-Images” tricks … ;)

I like Outlook 2003. It's actually the only Office application that has actually some new and useful features. I like the new preview pane. It was a bit akward at first, but after I got used to it I don't want to go back. Search folders and multiple different flags are also useful. Oh, and I shoudn't forget about the junk mail filter. While it's not perfect it does the job very well.
My .pst file is about 600 MB and I don't find Outlook 2003 any slower than Outlook 2000. You should give it a chance!

I use Eprompter. I can view all my mail without worrying about who it is from and if I am contracting some nasty virus just by opening it to read to see who/what it is. I really love it, and I end up trashing most of my mail before it reaches my regular mail program anyway. I use Outlook Express but may see about using Eudora.

That sucks. I really wanted it too. I'm stuck with 2002.

What surprises me here is that no one at all has mentioned the offline caching of Exchange mailboxes.
This makes Outlook 2K3 worth it, in and of itself.
No longer do I have to connect to my VPN @ work just to look through my mail. When Outlook can reach the exchange server, it syncs itself up.
Simply stunning… I love it.

I agree with Patrick. I love the new UI layou tin 2003. It seems more intellent than other, older versions. And I have not had any problems with speed either.

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/

Odd, but I've been using Outlook 2003 for the past week or so, and like it a lot…I had a world of trouble with Outlook 2002, and 2003 seems to fix a lot of those problems for me. It organizes my email in a nice neat way, and run smoothly. I don't use a lot of the fancy-*** features elsewhere, so I can only speak for the email client. I like it. Chris' dislike makes me wonder if I'm wrong!!

oh man, according to PCworld, Outlook 2003 is worth getting. But now you say its not :(
I was really looking forward to getting it, now im not sure anymore.

Just remember that a lot of software reviews can be very subjective. But if you put a lot of stock in what Chris says about technology (a lot do!) then perhaps Outlook 2003 is not worth the upgrade. MS does occassionally offer try-before-you-buy. One side note: I don't personally think that ANY email client is going to fix the current state of email (i.e.: spam, forged headers, etc.). It will take a major overhaul of the way that email is handled during delivery.

Gee Chris, I wish you'd let us know how you really feel.

Outlook 2003 does indeed have the feature that blocks downloading of images linked in emails (it tells you in the yellow status bar on the top of the message and gives you a chance to download them if you really want). I am also surprised that no one has mentioned the Junk Mail filtering in Outlook 2003 - I find that it works really well. It is based on technology that MS Research has found to be more effective than naive Bayesian (the researchers are the ones that invented using naive Bayesian to scan mail, so you'd think they would want to use that). I personally feel that Outlook 2003 is more reliable and has better features than Outlook 2002 or certainly Outlook 2000. And that's not even counting the Exchange-centered new features (cached mode, RPC over HTTP, and Kerberos auth).

I've been using Outlook 2003 since June and I have to say that it is the best Outlook client yet. Now, bear in mind I'm in a corporate setting with the full Exchange backend, but I have even loaded it to my home computer and use it there as well. This from a Pegasus Mail fan, mind you! (Ok, I miss Pegasus, a lot of that decision was to stay on the same platform as work. Factor in data syncing between work and home and running the same client on both was needed.)
Anyway, the Junk Filter feature works great (speaking as a BIG fan of the Spambayes Outlook plug-in that I used with OutlookXP), the serach folders rock, the three pane view was, at first, a “why?” feature but ended up being used constantly.
Having email appear in a pop up like IM lets me focus on what I'm dong and ignore non-urgent email, without having to go open the client to see what it was.
Offline Exchange caching, what a great idea and long overdue!
Ok, I'll admit it, I like it and I recommend it.

I recall you talking **** about outlook 2k2 when it first came out.
Within the next year you'll be using it and likeng it.

“This behavior may occur when both of the following conditions are true:
* You use Outlook 2003 for a long time without minimizing or closing the Outlook 2003 program window.
-and-
* The amount of random access memory (RAM) is large on your computer.”
hat a long winded way to say “oops, there's a memory leak.” I wish MS would start owning up to their stupid mistakes.—BTW JB, Chris still uses Outlook 2000 so what in the world makes you think he would start using Outlook 2003?? Stupid comment.

It's been my observation that when normally nice people (such as Chris) start becoming “Potty Mouths” (such as Chris) either their career or their marriage is in trouble. Let's all stay tuned!

I'm also going to have to disagree with this review. The 3 pane view, grouping abilities, offline sync, spam filters, and search abilities are a huge improvement.

Hey you forgot the other good feature… a uninstall wisard!!!!! LOL it is microshit you expect it to work flawlessly? not … ONLY LINUX CAN DO THAT

I too disagree with this review.
I've been using it for seven months (before I was even a Microsoft employee).
It is FAR FAR better than previous versions.
Outlook isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at corporate users who have an Exchange server. In those kinds of situations it is far better.
Fixes a huge bug: no 2GB limit on .PST files.
Works offline now all the time, and doesn't freeze up like old version did.
Plus, I can get to my email now without dialing into the VPN (it gets it via HTTPS).
I like the user interface a lot more. But, I live in Outlook and have lived in it for years.
So, for me, I just consider whether or not it's better than the old version and this version is WAY WAY better than the old versions.

Rober Scoble's comments, “I can get to my email now without dialing into the VPN (it gets it via HTTPS)” is only half true as this also requires an Exchange 2003 server backend for this to work and is more a function of the Exchange server than the client.
As for the review - after using it personally for several months (including Beta 1, & 2), I have to say that it's a mixed bag. In the corporate world with Exchange in the background, it's is by far the best Outlook client yet. The botton line, memory leak aside (a problem I have not personally experienced), if you have Exchange, go for the upgrade to Outlook 2003.
If you are a home user, there are, and always will be, other mail clients that are more usable.

Who cares what you think?
When you have the brains to create an email client, don't knock on others. Use it, don't use it.

It's that “world revolves around me” attitude that's ruining Lockergnome….

Sadly, it looks like Office 2003 will suck in general. I got the “pleasure” of beta testing OneNote 2003, their new program that really doesn't have a well-defined purpose. It was absolutely dreadful, although it came with some cool fonts. Paul Thurott at the Supersite for Windows (winsupersite.com) had some very accurate musings on their new interface design — ghastly is the right word.

Wow. That's awful news but I appreciate the candor. Outlook has gotten steadily worse since Office 2000 (as has most of office). Do what I do : Live in Outlook 2000.

Hey dude! Let's creat a new one. But it seems it made you so upset about Redmond technology. Anyhow, you make me wonder if you beleive that all the program is bullshit. I think everything has a goog and bad side. Do you think it is logical to set them back just because it has some errors?

K, My initial response to your post was going to be something along the lines of “Hey, I have been using it (beta) for MONTHS, and I LOVE the new UI BUT - I do have to laff heartily at the following: “-and-
The amount of random access memory (RAM) is large on your computer.”
that is just complete and utter ******* INSANITY. Seriously. MS. Just LIE. Dont admit that LARGE AMOUNTS OF RAM causes problems in your PIM…..
Now, back to the beggining…. I think the new UI is great. I run a high resolution on my desktop system, so - I get to take advantage of its leeto allcontrolling views…. which are spiffy as all hell.

It's a good litmus test for your opinions on software, Chris. And clearly, you have none, which is a timesaver. You've been identified as an idiot, now people can just route around your useless opinions.

Chris. You are crumbling. If you are going to throw a statement like that out then back it up. You knock the whole app based on a new user interface. This app has real value to most corporations but you wouldn't see that because you tried it for a day and threw out a bunch of emotional babble based on a very limited experience. Once you use rpc over http to talk to an Exhange server come talk to me. Such emotional **** shows how out of it you are. Get a clue Leo Jr.

To Mr. Scoble: I'm sure that Outlook 2003 is far better than its predecessors, but considering its predecessors were extreme piles of walrus ****, even if it far surpasses them it still has to be ****.

Chris, Your so biased now, how can you think that anybody takes you seriously? I sure don't. I really like the new OL2003. I don't any of the problems you had, perhaps you installed it wrong or you need to read the directions.

Or maybe he got a buggy build? I still cant decide if i shoud get it or not.

stop taking my words dork :P

Outlook will be a dead horse soon enough.
“Chandler” will see to that!
http://www.osafoundation.org/Chandler_Architecture_Overview-4-2003.htm

Giblet: you know, I've been using Outlook for more than six years now. I use it more than any other application combined. For an app that sucks it sure has changed my life.

Mr. Scoble. I'm sorry to hear that you've used it for that long. I hope that you'll soon recover from the effect it's had on your life. I myself was forced to use it at work, and I know of the torment. I have now persuaded my boss to allow Linux servers, and I have both a Windows and Linux machine for desktop use. Let's just say that I much prefer the Linux desktop machine. I only switched to Linux because I found Microsoft so buggy, good job I told my friend and he gave me a Mandrake CD. I expect that, seeing you adore Microsoft software, you'd probably come out in a rash if you tried Linux, and you'd probably feel that it was terrible, even though you've been putting up with the trash that is Windows for years, regularly rebooting without giving it a second thought.

Regularly rebooting what?! I haven't “needed” to reboot Windows for weeks, sometimes months, at a time since switching to Windows 2000. That's like 3 years of 99% stability. Is it worth re-learning everything you know to be kewl with Linux? Maybe if you're a teen at home with weekends free, fine. But for most businesses, it's just not worth it.

It is interesting to see the almost 1 to 1 mapping between exchange users == love it and non-exchange == don't.
I use an exchange backend and LOVE the new version.
I could never go back.
I am also surprised that no one has mentioned the spam filters. I find them to be quite effective. I get about 3000 spams a week and less than 100 get through.

rhyno, of course you don't need to reboot Windows so frequently now. It does get less responsive, but to cure that you can log out and log in again frequently. But maybe you don't do anything processor-intensive. But what I was getting at is the fact that over the past few years people have put up with having to constantly reboot their systems, even now those who are still not using Win2K do this. Anyway, if Windows users have been putting up with this behavior for years, surely it wouldn't be much more hassle to try Linux? And what is this about being 'kewl with Linux'? You don't use it to look 'kewl', you use it because it works, and it gets you out of the lock-in that Microsoft products force you into. And what do you mean about re-learning everything with Linux? If you find switching to Linux is too hard to cope with then how do you cope when Microsoft releases a new version of Windows or Office? Surely buttons in different places would confuse users just as much? If I'm a Windows user who has just switched to Linux, do you label me as a stereotyped Linux user? Is this because you're jealous of all the intelligent people who can use Linux, while you yourself feel overwhelmed by it? And what do you mean that it's not worth trying out Linux? Is it worth paying thousands of dollars each year to upgrade all of the users on your network? And don't give me the phoney Microsoft TCO ****, that's for the gullible (like comparing a Linux system with an expensive proprietary database to a minimal Windows system).

I've used OL2003 for the past 3 months and find it to be ABSULUTLEY WORTH IT!!!
The reading pane and the 'unread mail' searchfolders alone are worth upgrading for.
I don't use Exchange and never had any problems/memory leaks.

This maybe an old post but I've been using it since it's release and it ROCKS!
I believe it's the best version yet!!!! I love it. The only problem I had was getting images to display but I figured out how to display them after awhile

Chris, YOU ARE RIGHT! Anyone who doesn't think this program STILL SUCKS is a moron. Some of you must not have very many email messages. Real users have tens of thousands in potentially hundreds of folders. Outlook just pukes all over itself. It crashes constantly (my Outlook 2000 never crashed!). It's just garbage software… you blew it M$.

I still maintain that switching to Gmail / Google Apps is a great way to boost your productivity. I’ve been managing my assorted collection of personal and work-related emails on Gmail since 2005 and there’s no turning back to my days with Outlook and gigantic PST files. By the way, Google Apps is a great suite of software for small/medium businesses, and I’d recommend checking it out despite the little snags published here. Related links: Google Apps: Official website

>Chris, YOU ARE RIGHT! Anyone who doesn’t think this program STILL SUCKS is a moron.

Huh? A moron? Your obviously off the planet dude.

I don’t mean to offend you or anything like that, but I prefer Outlook over ANY e-mail client.

But then again, everyone has a different opinion.

Pirillo, why don’t you start a “Why Microsoft Sucks” challenge - since arguing with “somebody” else?