Outlook

[mobrien_12]

Finally found out why my colleague cannot see any email attachments from me.

http://www.washington.edu/computing/faqs/html/outlook.no.attachments
 

quote:
Title:  Why are Pine message attachments not visible in Outlook XP?

Question:
When I send mail with an attachment from Pine or WebPine, and recipients
try to read it in Outlook XP, they say there is no attachment available.
What's going on?

Answer:
Microsoft Outlook XP (which is part of Microsoft Office XP) has a known
bug in handling a certain mail header syntax used by Pine and WebPine.

The effect of this is that the visual cue used by Outlook to indicate a
message attachment (an icon of a paperclip) is not visible to users when
the message is opened.

The problem is fixed with Microsoft Office Service Pack 2. Outlook XP
users should download the most recent service pack from
http://office.microsoft.com/downloads/.

If users cannot apply the service pack, C&C knows of two workarounds:

1. Outlook XP users can forward the message to themselves, and the
attachment becomes visible with the forwarded copy.

2. Outlook XP users can choose to save the attachment without being
prompted by the visual cue if they know the sender included an attachment.
To save the "invisible" attachment, choose File-Save Attachments from the
Outlook XP menu, and save the file to the computer's hard disk. It may
then be opened from the saved location.

Yet another MS product that doesn't support standards correctly.  At least they patched it.

 

[Xeen]

I know of a third workaround, the best one of all: Don't use Microsoft Outlook.

[Refalm]

quote:xeen: I know of a third workaround, the best one of all: Don't use Microsoft Outlook.

That's difficult. Remember that most people who use computers are 9-to-5-typing workers, who learned to use Outlook by reading a manual which probably took a half year for them to learn.
Switching application would mean re-learning, and that's something that costs a company too much.
Besides, people want to use the same software at home that they use at work.
So they spend $ 200 on Office 2003 and $ 100 on Windows XP, while they use only 10% of the software of what they do daily (e-mail, internet, chat, etc.). Kinda sad really that they waste money on something as inferior as Windows.

Mac OS X costs money too, but at least you get one of the best and easiest to use operating systems in the world.
And Linux is for free or just $ 30 in a store, and it has and Office package included that can read, write, save, etc. almost all Office files (except Access).

[WMD]

Outlook isn't a particularly bad app.  It's not amazing, but does email OK I guess.

But of course, it's an MS standards breaker, as usual.  Try using anything but Outlook with Exchange...not easy.

[Refalm]

quote:WMD: Outlook isn't a particularly bad app. It's not amazing, but does email OK I guess.

Outlook is a slow bitch, and Outlook Express is plain annoying.

Outlook Express users should use Thunderbird instead. It looks like Outlook Express, but it's much easier and better + it got a free spam filter that actually works.

[Xeen]

quote:Originally posted by Refalm:
That's difficult. Remember that most people who use computers are 9-to-5-typing workers, who learned to use Outlook by reading a manual which probably took a half year for them to learn.

If someone already knows how to use Outlook for email, switching to something like Thunderbird or Mozilla Mail should only take an hour at most to adjust (unless the user is a complete moron...)