Outlook 2000 annoyances

Outlook 2000 annoyances

Continuing my series of “things a Mac user likes and dislikes about Windows”, I’ve a few more Windows complaints (“Just a few?”), specifically about Outlook 2000. (Yes, 2000 because that’s what we have.)

First, why doesn’t it display the email address for recipients in the messages I receive or send? I sometimes have to forward messages to my Mac for use there, but they become nearly useless without the email address. Is there some kind of setting I’m missing that would get it to show emails?

Second, once you started a message reply it doesn’t appear that you can change your mind and tell it to reply to all of the original recipients. No, you either have to cancel the reply and start again or manually add all the previous recipients.

Granted, it could be that I’m missing some simple commands to do these things, although I’ll be darned if I can find them, which if you think about it is something else to complain about. And I’ll bet that some of these problems were fixed in later upgrades of Outlook in XP and Vista, but while an eventual upgrade is inevitable, this is what I have to deal with for now.

If anyone has any advice, I’d appreciate it.

Technorati Tags: | | |

  • I have Outlook 2007 on XP. As far as changing your mind whether to reply to one or all and then changing your mind, I haven’t been able to automatically switch it in 2007, either. I upgraded from 2000 (at home).

    Perhaps your email is defaulting to plain text instead of HTML when you’re forwarding your email. Sometimes even in 2007 I have to go in (when replying or forwarding) and toggle it back to HTML.

  • The sad thing is that Bill Gates controls communications just about everywhere.

    There are email programs much better than Outlook, but most people refuse to beleive it.

    About a 15 years ago (or more)I started using Eudora as my email program and absolutely loved it. It was fast, easy to use, etc.

    Then, I started working at a company that used Outlook and I tried it. And hated it. I was happy to pay $50 or so of my own money to use Eudora instead.

    But the problem is that lots of firms today refuse to allow workers to use anything but the Gates software, and therefore most people have no comprehension that there could be something better, faster, more sane.

    Most IT directors like the idea of a “one size fits all” program and think like the managers at McDonald’s: This food is available everywhere, anyone can eat it, it works under most circumstances just fine and doesn’t cost all that much (unless you actually start counting the money that you spend on it). If you don’t like it, that’s because you’re an conservative old fart who won’t get with modern times.

    In my company I am forced to use Outlook, and hate it.

    The Gates software tends to be monstrously complicated, prone to crashes and is intentionally hostile to creativity by users or compatibility with other products.

    Some day Microsoft will go the way of other monopolies (IBM comes to mind), and that day won’t be soon enough for a lot of us.