So many Outlooks — think you know them all?

Topic

New Reply

MICROSOFT 365 By Peter Deegan If you think Outlook is one thing, you’re wrong. It’s Microsoft’s fault – the Outlook brand is beyond confusing. Years a
[See the full post at: So many Outlooks — think you know them all?]

6 users thanked author for this post.

lmacri, Brian1664, windbg, MHCLV941, SeaYawl, abbodi86

Reply | Quote

Replies

Another variant not mentioned is Microsoft-run e-mail but branded by the ISP. Bell Canada’s internet mail service was once run by Microsoft. It may still be, for all I know. My original Bell Sympatico e-mail, dating from the early 1990’s is still recognized as a valid Microsoft account for Windows and Outlook sign in, just like a Hotmail account is.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Peter Deegan

Reply | Quote

Really horrible to search for support, when you have Outlook.com, Outlook Desktop, Outlook Mobile and all the rest polluting the results.

1 user thanked author for this post.

MHCLV941

Reply | Quote

Yes, generic help for ‘Outlook’ has been a problem for years. The bigger problem is people asking for ‘Outlook’ without being specific … I get messages like that every week <sigh>.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft has the annoying habit of recycling brand names for products that are only barely related, but handling of the “Outlook” name is easily the worst.  Years ago, I remember constantly having to instruct users that “Outlook Express” was a different product, and not merely a “lite” version (as implied by the name) of the Outlook that was bundled with Microsoft Office.

In the current setup, in our org, we have mail servers that run on Exchange, and of course, the user-facing web client is called “Outlook”, and in the minds of our users, it’s hard to differentiate between what is being presented through a browser, and what is installed as a local client as a component of Office.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Peter Deegan

Reply | Quote

The old days of ‘Outlook vs Outlook Express’ were a nightmare — and that was just two ‘Outlook’!

Microsoft has a bad (selective) corporate memory for mistakes, so they repeat them.  That’s what happened when it was decided to call all email app/services ‘Outlook’. There was no-one who remembered (or cared) about the past problems with similarly named services.

Peter Deegan

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

WSDKS01

Reply | Quote

Thank you Peter Deegan!  Your article got my attention.  I now know I’m probably at risk by running an “Older Outlook” with my Outlook 2010 (ver. 14.0.726…(32 bit)), part of Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 (on Window 8.1).

My question: what path might get me to a supported version of Outlook without upgrading to Windows 10 or beyond, and without stressing my modest computer/operating system skills?

Thank you for any and all comments/suggestions.

SeaYawl

Reply | Quote

Office 365, Office 2019 and Office 2016 will all work with Windows 8.1.

A related question is about hardware.  Is the Win8.1 machine powerful enough to handle more modern software, in particular Outlook.  The amount of RAM memory in particular.

Office 2010 is out of support with no security updates. That’s an increasing risk over time. I’d strongly urge you to update to, at the very least, Office 2013.

I’d not worry about your computer skills … for all of Microsoft’s boasting about improvements in Office, the basic interface and features doesn’t change that much.  Not since the ribbon in Office 2007.

Hope that helps,

Peter D/

1 user thanked author for this post.

SeaYawl

Reply | Quote

Yes, your reply is very helpful.  My Win 8.1 machine has 4GB of RAM.  I’ll look into the Outlook versions that you listed, and into possible RAM upgrades as well. Thank you for your recommendations.

Reply | Quote

I’ve often wondered if Microsoft knows how many “Outlooks” there are.   Its lack of specificity complicates the heck out of trying to resolve a problem.

If Microsoft foists Monarch on its customer base and drops Outlook the program, it will make the dust-up over Windows 11 hardware requirements look like afternoon tea.   That, so far, is limited to geeks; Announcing the death of Outlook the program will rile a large chunk of the customer base; enough of them so folks who write the checks will take notice.

There are too many actual working human beings whose work-life revolves around Outlook and Outlook the web in Office 365 sucks by comparison.  Frankly OWA in Exchange 2007, yes 2007, was much easier to use because it worked an awful lot like the program.

Microsoft has this fantasy about everyone permanently connected to the Internet by unlimited bandwidth, unlimited speed, never failing connections.  That is not the real world for a lot of people and won’t be anytime soon.

2 users thanked author for this post.

windbg, WSDKS01

Reply | Quote

Don’t worry too much about the ‘death’ of Outlook desktop (Windows or Mac) both versions have many years and versions left in them.

Project Monarch has yet to see the (public) light of day and even when it does, it’ll be far from complete.  Even then it remains to be seen if a browser based system to rival Outlook desktop is even practical.  There are plenty of doubters, including yours truly.

For the sake of argument, let’s say MS defies all us doubters and Monarch becomes as good as the hype.  Even then it’ll take years to wean most organizations off Outlook desktop, let alone consumers.

The risk is that Microsoft will try pushing Monarch before it’s really ready … like they’ve done so many times before (Edge being just the most recent example).

Totally agree about Microsoft’s fantasy of unlimited and fast Internet.  It’s not so much as fantasy as a convenient notion because adding offline and low bandwidth support adds cost to any software development.

Peter Deegan

 

Reply | Quote

SeaYawl wrote:

My question: what path might get me to a supported version of Outlook without upgrading to Windows 10 or beyond, and without stressing my modest computer/operating system skills?

You might be better served by changing to Thunderbird or another email client that runs on old versions of Windows and is supported on the one you’re using.

Regardless, all of Office 2010, not just Outlook is long past support so you’re at much higher risk of getting malware of one sort or another as long as you continue to use it.  Also, use any browser except Internet Explorer.

2 users thanked author for this post.

SeaYawl, Peter Deegan

Reply | Quote

I’d not heard of Thunderbird so will check it out.  Also, I’ve been using Firefox for years so feel safe there.  Thank you for your recommendations.

Reply | Quote

MHCLV941 wrote:

I’ve often wondered if Microsoft knows how many “Outlooks” there are.   Its lack of specificity complicates the heck out of trying to resolve a problem.

If Microsoft foists Monarch on its customer base and drops Outlook the program, it will make the dust-up over Windows 11 hardware requirements look like afternoon tea.   That, so far, is limited to geeks; Announcing the death of Outlook the program will rile a large chunk of the customer base; enough of them so folks who write the checks will take notice.

There are too many actual working human beings whose work-life revolves around Outlook and Outlook the web in Office 365 sucks by comparison.  Frankly OWA in Exchange 2007, yes 2007, was much easier to use because it worked an awful lot like the program.

Microsoft has this fantasy about everyone permanently connected to the Internet by unlimited bandwidth, unlimited speed, never failing connections.  That is not the real world for a lot of people and won’t be anytime soon.

This. And for anyone outside an urban area who has marginal a internet connection (my DSL is 1o/.9 meg) with no opportunity to increase that and caps on their internet, the vision promoted by Microsoft of endless uploads and storage in the “cloud” is an alternate universe divorced completely from the reality of many.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Peter Deegan, MHCLV941

Reply | Quote

Peter Deegan wrote:

Totally agree about Microsoft’s fantasy of unlimited and fast Internet.  It’s not so much as fantasy as a convenient notion because adding offline and low bandwidth support adds cost to any software development

Outlook the program, with Cache Mode enabled, actually works pretty well in low-bandwidth or offline because all the fetching and sending happens in the background.   Perhaps their already-in-place solution just does not fit the Gospel According to Redmond….

Reply | Quote

I agree that Cached Mode works well, though I disagree about their default caching of only recent content.  I urge anyone to move the slider left to cache everything, unless they are short of disk space.

It’s not that Microsoft doesn’t like Outlook desktop, it’s that they can see a cost-effective future for their bottom line.

As I said in the article, Monarch has a lot of advantages for Microsoft.  If they can make a single cross-platform Outlook desktop replacement, it’ll mean huge savings in development and maintenance costs.

Let’s not worry too much about Monarch, Outlook desktop will be around for years yet.

Peter Deegan

Reply | Quote

Not just Outlook. Call me lost in the woods with recent Microsoft nomenclature.

Office became Office 365 as the really really last version ever. Then it changed to Microsoft 365.

There are several types of Office now. Really dont know which version is click-to-run, MSI, cloud-based, MS Store version, or whatever. Have no time to keep up with all those changes. Also OEM PCs comes with preinstalled office package, have no clue which of those it is. People are struggling with that. They even don know which version they purchased, if you ask them.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

Reply | Quote

You can join the club with that as well but I can clear up some things.

All current (and future) Office releases are ‘Click to Run’ even though that name is misleading these days. (Caveat: there may be some obscure MSI options still available).

There should be no difference between what’s purchased via the Microsoft or Apple Store vs elsewhere.  Any way you do it, you’re buying a service ‘Microsoft 365 …’ then getting the software download from Microsoft direct.

NOTE: never buy/renew M365 consumer plans from Microsoft Store, Microsoft web site or Apple Store. You’ll pay full price.  With a little time and online shopping, the same plan can be hard cheaper from a reputable retailer — new or renewal.

OEM’s almost invariably come with Microsoft/Office 365 Personal or maybe Family.  I’ve never seen the perpetual licence Office 2019 bundled with a new computer, it might be sold as a add-on but not pre-installed.

Office 365 to Microsoft 365 was just a rebranding – same software/service under a different, and somewhat confusing, name.

You’re right about people not knowing what they have.  Just like folks not knowing if they have Outlook software or in a browser.

Peter Deegan

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

doriel

Reply | Quote

SeaYawl wrote:

Yes, your reply is very helpful.  My Win 8.1 machine has 4GB of RAM.  I’ll look into the Outlook versions that you listed, and into possible RAM upgrades as well. Thank you for your recommendations.

I suggest you also look into replacing the machine’s hard drive with a solid-state drive (SSD).    Brand name (Samsung, Western Digital, Crucial) SSDs are relatively affordable (500 GB for under $100US) and will make an amazing difference in your machine’s performance.

Memory for an older machine can be pretty expensive and with 4 GB already in the machine, you might not see much improvement anyway.   That said, Crucial.com has tools to tell you about the memory already in the machine and give you options for adding more.

2 users thanked author for this post.

SeaYawl, Peter Deegan

Reply | Quote

Peter Deegan wrote:

I agree that Cached Mode works well, though I disagree about their default caching of only recent content.  I urge anyone to move the slider left to cache everything, unless they are short of disk space.

I see your point, but I don’t agree with it.  Someone who does not routinely access messages more than a year (or 2 or 3) old does not need to burn the disk space to have a local copy of one’s complete mailbox and should set the slider accordingly.

ALL one’s email is always in the actual mailbox on the server and the search function will return all pertinent messages, regardless of whether they are local or only on the server.

Reply | Quote