Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software GUI KDE Microsoft Mozilla The Internet Linux

Outlook, Evolution and Kontact Side-by-Side 245

Posted by Zonk from the looking-them-in-the-eye dept.
gaijincory writes "Opensourceversus.com has put together a nice side-by-side comparison of Microsoft Outlook, Evolution and KDE's Kontact groupware programs. The screenshots delve in to the nitty gritty details and should help in making an informed choice, if nothing else. This is a follow up to their comparison of the Outlook Express and Thunderbird e-mail clients."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Outlook, Evolution and Kontact Side-by-Side More

Outlook, Evolution and Kontact Side-by-Side

Comments Filter:

  • Windows and Linux (Score:5, Informative)

    by tehshen ( 794722 ) <tehshen@gmail.com> on Saturday May 28, 2005 @06:36AM (#12663148)
    These guys also did Windows and Linux [opensourceversus.com] comparisons which make for good viewing.
    • A young man goes into a computer games shop. He says to an assistant
      "I want a challenging computer game with lots of graphics. It should be
      difficult, confusing and have plenty of contradictions to keep me busy".

      The assistant replies "Have you tried Windows XP?"

    • Re:Windows and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @07:42AM (#12663302) Journal
      Just some comments. I think the comparisons are a little bit biased.

      For example, in the Calculator comparison, while the Linux ones are on scientific mode, it seems they didnt wanted to show that the Windows calc can also do it.

      In the Instant Messenger comparision, what about opening a messenger windows (in the Windows version) and starting a video or audio conversation, and comparing it to the others (mmm I do not think it is possible to have an audio or video conversation with gaim).

      The paint program comparison... WTF! comparing paintbrush with The Gimp?? if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows too, so no, there is no point comparing them! that was the most biased comparison for me.

      I know that the idea of making these comparisons is cool, but, again I would like to see them made by a non biased source, this seems a bit biased.

      I do not want to deffend Windows, as I like Linux (I run Ubuntu in my house PC) but if we cry when we see those TCO studies that Microsoft pays... ok we can not make the same mistake.

      P.d... so loooooooong (karma falling down to the bottom of the abyss...)

      • Re:Windows and Linux (Score:4, Informative)

        by toofast ( 20646 ) * on Saturday May 28, 2005 @08:36AM (#12663452)
        The paint program comparison... WTF! comparing paintbrush with The Gimp?? if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows

        But GIMP is already packaged on the compared Linux distributions. With Windows, the graphics tool packaged with the OS is Paint.

        Same thing for text editors: you can install a bunch on Windows too, but the one that comes bundled with the OS is feature-lean Notepad.

        At least the author didn't compare Word Processors: MS's WordPad would have looked equally lame vs. OpenOffice's Write, which, again, is bundled with just about every Linux distro out there. Yes, you can download and install OOo on Windows, but it's not part of the Windows Distribution.
      • The problem is that people claim to be comparing windows and linux when what they are really comparing is what you get when you buy a retail copy of windows vs. what you get when you buy the commercial distribution *bundle* for approximately the same price.

        If you look at the comparisons in that light, then comparing gimp to paint makes slightly more sense, because for your $185 for the Windows XP Pro SP 2 upgrade the best you get is paint. I didn't bother taking the time to run down the price for a non-up

      • Re:Windows and Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

        by VStrider ( 787148 )
        For example, in the Calculator comparison, while the Linux ones are on scientific mode, it seems they didnt wanted to show that the Windows calc can also do it.

        Uhm, no. That was the basic mode. Have you seen the scientific mode??

        In the Instant Messenger comparision, what about opening a messenger windows (in the Windows version) and starting a video or audio conversation, and comparing it to the others (mmm I do not think it is possible to have an audio or video conversation with gaim).

        Yes, you can

        • Re:Windows and Linux (Score:4, Informative)

          by vrt3 ( 62368 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @09:47AM (#12663671) Homepage
          Well, I'm sorry but I find it fair. When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop.

          Or install The GIMP.
          On the other hand, on Linux you got Gimp which is included on your installation, is on par with photoshop and costs nothing.
          Sure you could install Gimp on WinXP, but you'd need to compile and install GTK+ and then compile and install Gimp. That's too much for most average users.

          Actually it's much easier than that. Download and install two files from http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html [sourceforge.net], one for GTK and one for The GIMP, and you're ready.
        • When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop.

          So there is nothing in between Paint and Photoshop? Stand by while I laugh my ass off at that thought.

      • Re:Windows and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

        by smchris ( 464899 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @10:07AM (#12663761)
        I hear you. But after reading Windows Nearly Ready For Desktop Use (currently still on the /. home page), I'm more inclined to say it is a valid comparison. The fact that Windows isn't a "distribution" is simply a point against Windows. It's all a frame of reference and it is about time we promoted the idea that Windows is a naked OS and doesn't meet the standards of a distribution in total value and ease of desktop installation.
      • if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows too, so no, there is no point comparing them!

        Of course you can install stuff on a plain Windows XP installation to make it usable. Just look here [diveintomark.org].

  • How comes copying GUIs, look and feel and functionality of software is seen as a normal thing while people go mad about copied Ipods etc?
    • It only seems like the normal thing because most Open Source coders look at something that already exists, and try to mirror its functionality. This is a great example of it.

      As for the marketplace, the iPod's interface was design genius, and is it's sole link to fame. Stealing the interface of an iPod is stealing the iPod. The same shouldn't be said for software; the interface and the application should be two very seperate tools. That way, you can use whatever interface you like, and nobody complains. Li
      • " It only seems like the normal thing because most Open Source coders look at something that already exists, and try to mirror its functionality"

        I understand people coding a new email client might make it look like what they are used to, however Evolution used to ape the old version of Outlook but they have implemented outlook 2003 looks too (those mail etc.. "buttons" on the left side). Basically they are doing a poor job of copying and playing catch up. How about sitting down and trying to make the be
        • How about sitting down and trying to make the best email app there is instead of just trying to copy existing ones down to their cosmetic features.

          Frankly, the way that OSX does it works for me. Tightly coupled yet separate mail, calendar, address book, etc. Each app does what it does really really well.

        • How about sitting down and trying to make the best email app there is instead of just trying to copy existing ones down to their cosmetic features.

          That's been done, plenty of times. Just look at the GIMP. And what do the GIMP developers get for their "innovative interface"? Ridicule and scorn to the effect of "make it look like Photoshop!"

          The fact is, people don't want to learn a new interface, even if it's better. They want something that is basically like the interfaces they are used to.

          Why do you

      • Unfortunately I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @07:47AM (#12663315)
        >>Stealing the interface of an iPod is stealing the iPod.

        Stealing the interface of Outlook is stealing Outlook.

        I have a lot more respect for Apple (for Address Book and iCal) and OSAF (for Chandler) for their attempts at an "Outlook Killer" than I do for these two examples.

        In the late 1990s, I was using Day Timer Organizer. It was essentially an electronic version of their paper organizer. For what it was, I thought it rocked... I switched to Outlook because of the integration between contacts and email (and it was on my new computer). In other words, I switched for a functionality.

        >>most Open Source coders look at something that already exists, and try to mirror its functionality.

        I think your comment does a disservice to Open Source coders that _don't_ do that. The real heroes are the ones that create an entirely new take on an existing problem. They're the ones who are pushing the envelope and they get my respect, open or closed.
        • The problem is this:

          It's easy to sit down and say "let's clone the interface of Outlook", because everyone working on the UI then has something to work towards. It's a lot harder to write out an interface specification instead, and even harder again if you want to come up with an original interface/workflow design.

          The other problem is that, if the coders do come up with an original take on, say, the email problem, they will be berated for not precicely copying Outlook's interface. There was a story on Ope

    • it's the law (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cahiha ( 873942 )
      Simple: it's the law. The specific appearance of the iPod can be protected by design patents and its wheel thingy has a device patent on it. In contrast, the general arrangement of buttons and menus in an application cannot be protected.

      Having said that, it doesn't bother me in the least if other companies clone iPod in any way they like.

  • Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zonnald ( 182951 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @06:38AM (#12663152)
    I don't see how three almost identical screenshots(of each piece of functionality) actually gives you enough information to make a choice.

    • Re:Choice? (Score:3, Informative)

      by tehshen ( 794722 )
      Well, it does give us an idea of how both clients work.

      "In Outlook, you can do this, and it works just like this in Evolution. See, look at the screenshots, it's easy."

      All of the other factors (security, spam filtering, etc) are in the comments at the end of the page.

      • Re:Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @06:46AM (#12663176)
        The problem as I see it is that the screen shots don't really show how any one product is better than the other; they're all virtually identical, so why not use any of them, which defeats the point of "choice" anyways.

        Compatibility is one thing, but design is entirely another. These apps were designed to be carbon copies, not to be Outlook compatible.
        • they're all virtually identical, so why not use any of them, which defeats the point of "choice" anyways.

          So choose on other grounds than "what it looks like". Like price, like security, like integrated spam filtering.
      • and who says that open source isn't innovative [slashdot.org]... oh wait, now it's a good thing...

      • Re:Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @07:29AM (#12663269) Journal
        I would like to have a review of these software where they told me what they can NOT do.

        It would be nice to see, for example, that Evolution or Thunderbird can NOT sync with some PDA's, and that Outlook do NOT have a learning anti SPAM algorithm, and all that.

        You know, I think it is great, when comparing things to see all the bad side of them, or the features they do not have, that way you would be able to make a chose based thinking like "ok, so this software do not have all this, but I think these characteristics it has is enough for me to use it".

        And it goes also for OS (Windows, OSX, Linux, *BSD), Office suites (OOo, MSOffice, WordPerfect, ...), Web browsers (Opera, Firefox, IE, even Lynx!).

        As an example, I have read about 2 subjects, the first one was about a PhD, so I searched for information about "how to succesfully make a PhD", and of course I found a lot of tips etc, but almost all the pages where telling the same, but one friend of mine showed me a document that had this other approach "how NOT to make a PhD", and it was really useful, and funny.

        The other example was with something quite similar, about publishing a paper, so if you look about "how to publish a paper" you will find tons and tons of information from the different publishing houses about the guidelines, in some other places you will find tips of how to "write" etc. But if you search something like "how NOT to publish a paper" you certainly find (I did) nice documents that with sarcasm, will tell you everything you need to do to get your paper rejected.

        I know, it is not a usual way to see things, but I think it gives you more information that you wont have with the usual reviews.

  • Surprisingly similar (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hoka ( 880785 )
    I made the move a long time ago on my Windows machine from Outlook to Eudora, but after looking at the image comparison I think I might switch to some open alternative. Especially judging how easy the configuration appears to be on the open alternatives. Good to see that the interfaces are starting to look fairly standardized.
    • So you actually saying that Eudora is not enough like Outlook for you.
      • Eudora lacks a lot of the features that Outlook has, but works very effectively at simply reading and writing mail. Managing it is sort of a chore, which is why I welcome an easy and open alternative. I havn't really bothered to look anywhere ever since I made the switch, and so seeing this is rather eye opening. Sadly I now feel like I am missing out on a lot of things (easy to manage contact lists, calenders).

  • Pretty (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @06:40AM (#12663161)
    I like eye candy. I spend most of the day, most days sat staring at my monitor, so I want what's on it to look as pleasing as possible.

    That said, I also want my software to work well. So in any comparison of groupware clients, I need two questions answered:

    1) What is the speed like accessing mail on an Exchange server?

    2) Does it fully integrate with Exchange's calendaring?

    I ask 1) because my company uses Exchange, and in the past I've tried KMail and Mozilla Mail, and both were sluggish as hell accessing my mail. I'm impatient, I don't *want* to wait.

    I ask 2) because several years ago, use of the Exchange calendaring feature was mandated. That's how you book meetings, that's how you're told you've been booked to attend a meeting (and some people don't bother speaking to you about it!), you're even supposed to mark time spent away from your desk on holiday or even at lunch, so people know you're not there. If the alternative groupware clients can't do all this with Exchange, then I can't use them.

    Exchange is part of the reason I switched back to Windows. Sure, I could run Linux, but to access my mail (acceptably) and calendar (at all) I had to use Outlook, and that meant wasting resources running VMWare. (I also, personally, found XP more aesthetically pleasing than Mandrake 9, but that's purely subjective)

    • Evolution (Score:4, Informative)

      by svin ( 803162 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @08:10AM (#12663360)
      You should have a look at Evolution:

      Built-in Microsoft Exchange Support
      Users can communicate directly with built-in WebDAV support, eliminating the need to maintain separate IMAP e-mail server access to support Linux and UNIX users.

      From within Novell Evolution, users can view, edit and update e-mail, address books, calendars and task folders on the Exchange server.

      Using existing global address lists, users can access names, addresses and contact information from the Exchange Global Address List.

      Public folder support allows users to share documents and files in existing Exchange public folders. They can also create new public folders for collaboration.

      Through the Manage Permissions feature, users can control access to personal and public folders, calendars and task lists.

      With the proper authorization, users can open other users' calendars or shared folders.

      The Out-of-Office Assistant helps users create custom vacation or notification messages that run on the Exchange server.

      Through the Calendar Delegation feature, users can set permissions to allow others to view their calendars. Users can also delegate permission to a colleague (for example, an administrative assistant) to accept and schedule meetings in their calendars.

      Direct resource booking reserves resources such as conference rooms or vehicles for your meetings and appointments.

      The new mailbox- and folder-size features display Exchange server quota notifications to keep mailbox sizes down.

      Taken from http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/ev olution.html [novell.com]

      As for question 1 & 2 I'm not quite sure, but a colleague uses it, and it looks like he accesses his mail without trouble (And accepts meeting requests, Accesses public folder, etc.).

      • Re:Evolution (Score:3, Informative)

        by wallykeyster ( 818978 )
        I've been using Evolution on Ubuntu at work recently and I really do like it. However, I've found a few problems.

        It seems to work fine as long as I'm continually using it, but if I leave it alone for a while (say, at night) Evolution seems to forget what to do. It stops keeping my folders up-to-date and I have to switch to a different folder then back to my Inbox to get an accurate view.

        I have not figured out how to access my public folders. I can see them but I can't do anything with them.

        I don't unde

      • I am also using Evolution with the corporate Exchange server via WebDAV. For those of you who don't know what WebDAV is, it's a web-server interface to your Exchange mailbox, calendar etc. If your company has it enabled, then you can point any browser (yes, Firefox is good) to your company's Exchange server (eg. http://webdav.mycompany.com/ [mycompany.com] and after authentication, you will see an Outlook-like interface in your browser.

        Evolution is somewhat slower than Outlook when accessing an Exchange server, probabl
  • I'm pretty happy with evolution except for one "features"

    Deleting a message takes you to the next message, it doesn't close the window.
    This doesn't make any sense to me, and there is no option to fix it. The developers seem to think this is the correct behaviour.

    Does anyone know of an equivalent mail program that solves that problem?

    • Re:Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Bipedismaximus ( 713734 )
      One of the advantages of using software that makes the source code available is that you are able to "correct" things like this. You could add a feature to the configuration where you could choose what happens after you delete a message. If you are not a programmer, you might have friends who are who could implement this for you. You could probably send an email to the evolution mailing list and say "Hey! I really want this feature. I'll pay the first person to add this to evolution $X." Or if you didn't fe

  • No information - what I would like to see is (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tetrode ( 32267 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @06:54AM (#12663187) Homepage
    A comparision side by side of the features of all these programmes. Can I handle my 2 Gb of PST files with Evolution and Kontact? If not, then I'm not interested. Can I search pretty quickly? If not, forget it.

    Can I connect to POP3 / IMAP / Exchange / Notes servers? If not, come back when I can. Integration with calendar requests from MS Exchange and Lotus Notes? I think that is very necessary.

    This sort of eyecandy is very nice to look at, but utterly useless.
    • This sort of eyecandy is very nice to look at, but utterly useless.

      Actually, the only thing that's useless is your comment. You know full well that third party software cannot reliably connect with Exchange servers, and you also know full well that the reason is that Microsoft keeps them proprietary and non-interoperable.

      Fortunately, increasingly, that doesn't matter because Microsoft's outdated, insecure, and proprietary protocols are being replaced by open standards.

      So, why don't you crawl back into
      • Actually, the only thing that's useless is your comment. You know full well that third party software cannot reliably connect with Exchange servers, and you also know full well that the reason is that Microsoft keeps them proprietary and non-interoperable.

        Bullshit, plenty of 3rd party programs can integrate with Exchange. Just because some not quite as 1337 as they thought OS coders cant do it properly does not mean no one can.

        2G is about where Outlook irreparably damages your mailbox,

        Care to p
        • 2G is about where Outlook irreparably damages your mailbox,

          Care to provide some evidence of this?

          How about http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=288283 [microsoft.com]

          Quote: "Offline files (.ost) are limited to approximately 2GB in size. The is the same limitation as a personal folders (.pst) file. "
          • When the size of your offline files (.ost) or personal folders (.pst) files approaches 2 gigabytes (GB), you may not be able to add more data to the .pst file or the .ost file.

            You seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'stops accepting data' and irreprable damage, let me guess, your cup explodes as well if you fill it to the brim with coffee, and I just dont want to be anywhere near you when you fill your car with gas.
            • You seem to have touble with people who present facts.

              I have had Outlook screw me over with the 2GB limit twice now. I know, I should have seen it coming the second time, but a mail loop from a fax server can really ruin your day.

              PST files are another MS "filesystem in a file" format. When a PST file reaches 2GB, Outlook tries to add more data, but the internal file pointer wraps. Two pieces of data with the same pointer value and things go to shit quickly.

              These days, Outlook recognises the fact it's
              • I have no trouble with people who present facts, the post I was responding to presented no such facts though. I know what he meant but come on, how hard is it to find the right link.

                My issue is really with the irreparable part or the original troll though. The 2 GB wrap around was a long identified issue, was preventable (does no one use the archiving and compression tools or monitor the size of their pst file?) and quite frankly tough shit if you ran into it, but as you noted Outlook behaves differently
                • I have no trouble with people who present facts, the post I was responding to presented no such facts though. I know what he meant but come on, how hard is it to find the right link.

                  Question here. Do you talk about self here or what? All your posts could be translated to: "Lalalalalala, can't hear you, it works for me"

                  My issue is really with the irreparable part or the original troll though. The 2 GB wrap around was a long identified issue

                  Yes, and so is data corruption of PST files in this case.

                  In m
                • My issue is really with the irreparable part or the original troll though.

                  The troll here is you: you posted challenges that you full well knew were not satisfiable because Microsoft keeps their protocols proprietary.

                  The 2 GB wrap around was a long identified issue, was preventable (does no one use the archiving and compression tools or monitor the size of their pst file?)

                  If we needed any clearer demonstration of why Outlook cannot be trusted, you just gave it: it's this kind of mindset. And whether t
            • You seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'stops accepting data' and irreprable damage, let me guess, your cup explodes as well if you fill it to the brim with coffee, and I just dont want to be anywhere near you when you fill your car with gas.

              Well, you posed the challenge whether Evolution or Kontact could handle your 2G mail, and the answer is "yes", while Outlook actually reaches a limit around that size.

              Now, you get all worked up about "irreparable damage". The fact is that Outlook has had su
        • 2G is about where Outlook irreparably damages your mailbox,

          Care to provide some evidence of this?

          It's not his job to provide evidence. It's a known fact to those who know. He knows what he's talking about. If you don't believe it, you should look it up yourself.

          Provide evidence. Sheesh. The world doesn't owe you evidence.
      • Oh FSCK OFF. Seriously.

        Somebody actually asks a relevant,on-topic question requesting a comparison of actual product features, and all you could do was blather about proprietary software?

        News for you: Proprietary software gets reverse engineered all the time. Ever wondered how Google Desktop search so nicely indexes all the Outlook emails ? Not to mention every mail server nowadays support POP/IMAP. Including Exchange and Lotus notes.

        And Outlook 2003 is the best damn email client available. Ever wondere
      • With a score of 4, I don't think that other ./-ers think my comment is useless.

        Third party software can connect with Microsoft Exchange servers - the protocol is not described, but this has not hindered the people from Samba to discover the SMB protocol. Microsoft has tried hard to keep it closed and difficult to interoperate but until now, Samba performs at least as good as Microsoft software.

        As you, I am happy that proprietary protocols are being replaced by open standards, as this is the only way to mo
    • Thats one of the major probems with OS mail clients. For some reason theres an assumption that if the GUI looks like like Outlook that it works like Outlook and because its OS its even better than Outlook, completely ignoring the fact that all the stuff outlook does in the background, and the exchange integration and the extensibiliy actually have to be implemented.

      It always makes me wonder just how many people here actually have experience working at a corporate level when this attitude prevails. I bet
    • Im in troll mode this morning dammit, I don't care. I'm gonna go off about this article.

      First, this article is gdamn stale! I spotted on it both on digg and the newsforge daily email 2 weeks ago. Old! boring........

      Second. BFD! WTF? No discussion about the different features? What about getting into comparing enterprise extensibility???????

      Outlook/AD/Exchange vs. Evolution/Evolution Connector/SuSe SLOX?

      Third, I've seen what each of these looks like, whoopti f-ing doo! Shocker----Their GUIs are identic

    • A comparision side by side of the features of all these programmes. Can I handle my 2 Gb of PST files with Evolution and Kontact? If not, then I'm not interested. Can I search pretty quickly? If not, forget it.

      I use IMAP files, more portable and easier to back up as it puts everything in my home directory. I have some big files and haven't had searching issues with it even when using Outlook Express. And because it is IMAP based I can also use SquirrelMail for web access. (Ya, I know you can use OWA b

    • A comparision side by side of the features of all these programmes. Can I handle my 2 Gb of PST files with Evolution and Kontact?

      Your question is in the same league as this: Can Outlook handle my 1.4GB of MH mails?

      Don't use stupid examples.
  • From the contact management screenshots ("new contact"), it looks like one would mainly use Evolution for keeping in touch with janitors.

    Possibly "with other janitors" (the user is a janitor), or at most managing them.

  • Nitty Gritty! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The screenshots delve in to the nitty gritty details and should help in making an informed choice, if nothing else

    No the screenshots show some dude with one email account and one contact.

    Even if this is to be just a UI comparison, there isn't much here to compare, really is there?

    Given it (as advertised) only scratches the surface, and from the surface they all look pretty much the same... the screenshots hardly allow for an informed decision.

    I've looked into all of these in some detail, although to b

  • big blank screens. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by torpor ( 458 )
    umm .. sorry, but SO WHAT?

    would it have been so hard to have actually used each one of these programs a bit first? a visual comparison is USELESS without DATA!

    those screenshots are mostly whitespace. beh!!
  • Screenshots make not a review young padawan.

    That said... can we have a REAL review of speed, features, functionality? Screenshots just show me that I can get something that LOOKS like Outlook without paying for it -- but how good is it? I stopped using Outlook since I got gMail, but I'd still like to know.
    • I think it's reasonably hard to write a decent review of groupware clients: certainly, most of the magazine-style reviews are worthless. It's very much a matter of personal usage pattern, long-term stability and your environment (servers, other users etc).

      Personally, I use Thunderbird: I found Evolution too slow and unstable and I prefer Thunderbird's UI. But then I don't have much need for groupware and Tomboy notes are good enough for my calendaring needs. I've used Outlook 2003 a bit, and I quite like t
      • Because it's hard, nobody should attempt it? I would do it myself, but I'm a poor judge on these things and I don't use them enough to give a proper review. That's why we have review sites out there.

        At least on a site called "Open Source Versus" they could have TRIED to tell me why the OS counterparts of Outlook are any good.
        • I didn't mean to suggest that nobody should try, I was just trying to explain the lack of reviews. It would be fantastic to have a source of software reviews that actually spent serious time using and testing the software, but few people seem prepared to do that.

          As it stands, we get reviews of Linux distros and software that barely scratch the surface of the functionality and completely omit most of the important issues (reliability, update schedule, security releases etc.).
  • Have they by any chance done a tabular list of the exploits for each? This would be quite useful for comparison also.

  • Outlook 2003 and Thunderbird (Score:4, Interesting)

    by timmyf2371 ( 586051 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @08:00AM (#12663331)
    I use Outlook 2003 myself for the simple reason that it handles mail in a sensible way and also integrates with Norton Antivirus. I don't get spam since I effectively manage my email addresses and each site I sign up to gets a unique address at my domain name and can easily be filtered if they step out of line.

    I've used applications such as Evolution when I used Linux in the past but in reality it felt to me just like a cheap clone of Outlook with fewer features.

    Recently however, I have been using Thunderbird on one of my systems as I am loath to purchase two licenses for MS Office and I've come to like it quite a lot and for someone who isn't looking to spend any more or for whatever reason requires free (as in speech) software I think it's an ideal application. It has junk mail handling which while I haven't had to use it myself, have read it can be quite effective. My one gripe with it is that setting up rules and filtering doesn't seem to be as easy as with Outlook and the user has to enter in any filters manually - ie, I can't click a few buttons to have mail from a certain email address go into a specific folder the way I can in Outlook, or at least if you can I've not found it yet.

    • To quickly create a filter, right click on the From text in blue on the message header and go for Create Filter From Message...
    • Its and Outlook Express replacement. Sorry for the shouting but Thunnderbird offers absolutely nothing for Outlook users. Saying Outlook users should try Thunderbird is like saying MS Word users should use notepad, they both kind of do the same thing but they are in completely different leagues and vastly differ in capability. Evolution is an Outlook replacement, Thunderbird is not.

      I highly suggest OE users switch to thunderbird today, but for Outlook users Thunderbird is not a drop-in replacement and shou

  • Is it just me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bitswapper ( 805265 ) *

    Or does Windows not do any anti-aliasing? Looking at the screen shots side-by-side, it doesn't look as though anti-aliasing is turned on for windows. On the windows box I use at work, I've tried turning on 'font smoothing', and it in many cases makes fonts look worse. Has anyone else noticed this?

    That said, it would have been nice to see a features side-by-side. Also, one thing Outlook has on its side is how many things out there syncronize with it, like yahoo contact/calendering, for example. Does Ev

  • Evolution is rubbish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Caspi ( 887752 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @08:22AM (#12663407)
    I think evolution is a stone-age Email client. I am actually a KDE user but since using ububtu I decided to give gnome a try and was very impressed, until I migrated all my mail to evolution. I did this because I wanted a PIM suite that will allow me to sync with a mobile at some stage in the future.
    Anyway, swicthing from KMail to Evolution really is taking several large steps backwards. Here's why:
    a) Evolution is slow. There is a 3 second pause on my computer between clicking "New Mail" and the window appearing. This is not the case when the same machine is using KMail or Outlook.
    b) There is no *simple* way of changing the date format (mm/dd/yy -> dd/mm/yy which europeans prefer). I believe it can be done via shell variables, but come on, Evo is supposed to be a proper GUI application.
    c) There is no sensible simple mail notification. There is a "beep" option which is inaudible and some other useless / highly complex hacks. In Kmail you can specify whether new mail triggers a notification *per folder*, all via the GUI and without obscure shell scripts.
    d) The junk mail filter is crap. I trained it on a folder of 1000 spams but still it doesn't seem to recognise half of them. And I have "external check" enabled. KMail uses external spam filters in a transparent way.
    e) Spell checking: almost all modern spell-checking applications offer suggestions in a context menu when opened over a misspelt word. In Evo you have to open an extra window.
    f) New Junk is not marked as unread. This would be nice so that you know what junk you've checked for false positives and which you haven't.
    g) Sending a mail twice takes a whole load of inelegant cutting and pasting. See KMail for the elegant solution.
    i) There is no way to automatically fetch mail immediately after startup. See KMail and Outlook.
    j) You HAVE to specify a mail server in the Evo startup wizard. There is no way of getting around this. Very annoying.
    k) The calenders feature is not too hot either. I only ever use the whole-month-view and when I scroll through the months it takes ages. Outlook was 10 times more responsive. And the default colour scheme means that looking for today's date is a real eye strainer.
    These are just my views on evolution. I had always heard that it was such an excellent PIM suite and am dissapointed that it simply doesn't live up to the hype.

    • Re:Evolution is rubbish (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gilesx ( 525831 ) *
      I think maybe you've been a little harsh on Evo, which is generally a very nice and solid email client. I'll look at a few of your points here.

      "There is a 3 second pause on my computer between clicking "New Mail" and the window appearing."

      Yes, the first time you click the new button, there can be a small pause. However, it is near instantaneous with every subsequent click.

      "There is no *simple* way of changing the date format (mm/dd/yy -> dd/mm/yy which europeans prefer)"

      I have it dd/mm/yy as default
      • >Besides, you've manually intervened to start Evolution up in the first place, so why not take the extra step of clicking "Send/Receive"?

        Perhaps he has it start automatically on login?

        >>"You HAVE to specify a mail server in the Evo startup wizard."

        >Duh! Where else is your email going to come from?

        A local mailbox?
        • >>Duh! Where else is your email going to come from?

          >A local mailbox?

          Well, in that case, just select "standard unix mbox spool or directory" from the drop down box when setting up your account. Easy. Is a feature of outlook also?
      • what a bunch of lame excuses. Kmail too has it's problems but at least the functionality is there.
        Here's a list of kmail's problems.

        It's go that completly unessesary "html message" bar on the side of every message.

        By default it doesn't automatically check your mail. You have to enable "interval mail checking", It should be called "check mail every x minutes" where x is an adjustible box.

        It's got that stupid box at the bottom of every message showing stuff noone cares about.

        You can't rearrange your fol
  • I don't understand why managing email should be linked with a calendar. I beleive they are two separate functions. If you try to do both at the same time you loose productivity. Try using mutt [mutt.org] versus any other MUA. I've found nothing faster for managing large amounts of email. Now if only I could find a calendar system that is just as efficient.
  • Great help for the savvy grandma in picking a mail client. Unfortunately, the rest of the computing world who deals in business has to choose based on functionality and interoperability, and no ammount of smooth GUI trumps connecting to Exchange.

    OS groupware will continue to be mostly fruitless until some real focus is placed on that goal. I could actually consider an Outlook alternative, even lacking some of Outlook's foofoo features, if it played well with Exchange.
  • What sort of useless garbage is that? No functional review? No comments? Nothing?

    If you choose your applications purely on 'eye-candy' value, you are an idiot.

  • Hey, what about the fact that both OS clients are available to only a tiny portion of the market?

    All those people who need an alternative to Outlook are using Windows.

    It's great that these free programs look like Outlook - this will make it much easier and more comfortable for Outlook users to switch - but please port them to Windows.
    • "Hey, what about the fact that both OS clients are available to only a tiny portion of the market?"

      What a silly thing to say. What is the 'market' you speak of, Windows? Windows isn't a market, it's an Operating System, well kind of, it operates some of the time. I could equally complain about this atrophic review on the basis that Outlook isn't available for my operating system, but the 'article' isn't about that.

      This is a visual comparison of three popular clients, not a provision of options for the Wi
  • Having spent the last couple of months researching and implementing a groupware solution, by way of Toltec Connector for Outlook, I've come to conclusion that right now there is no alternative to Outlook - at least on the Windows platform.

    Sure Thunderbird is great, I use it both at home and work, but it has no calendaring support aside from a plugin and Sunbird but they are not mature yet.

    Outlook 2002 is terrible because of the 2GB PST file limit is the bane of my existence but Outlook 2003 is a major imp

  • Nitpicking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DavidD_CA ( 750156 ) on Saturday May 28, 2005 @12:12PM (#12664260) Homepage
    This may be nitpicking, but it's clear that Outlook is still far more evolved than the other two shown here.

    On the surface, the screenshots look identical. But, being an Outlook user for over 5 years now, I can tell you a few things that appear to be missing from those competitors that are reasons I love Outlook.

    1) I don't see Notes or Journal options in Evo.

    2) I see no evidence that Evo or Kontact let you group your folder items by from/date/sender/subject/etc.

    3) Can you automatically format items based on rules? What if I want emails from my boss to show up in red?

    4) Is there a rules manager so I can also automatically do things with incoming emails? Delete them, send a reply, file in a folder, etc?

    5) I don't see that you can just straight to a contact from anywhere in the program by typing their partial name in the toolbar.

    6) I'm sure Kontact has HTML email editing, I just don't see the toolbar buttons.

    7) Contacts don't appear to let you add your own fields (corporate users love this!). Nor do I see a gigantic Notes field or support for Journaling.

    8) I cannot tell if, in Calendar, you can configure the times to display multiple time zones when you are travelling.

    9) It does not look like you can assign colorful labels to your Calendar events. This feature is priceless!

    10) Do the other programs let you view multiple Calendars (like that of another user) side-by-side?

    11) Can you schedule appointments with other users at all? If you can, I don't see the field to do it, and I certainly don't see how you can see their schedule.

    12) The implementation of Recurrening Appointments on Evo would drive business people insane.

    13) It doesn't look like Evo has enough fields to support a proper ToDo list. I don't even see a Due Date field.

    14) Can you assign Tasks to other users? Get progress reports?

    15) None of the screenshots demonstrate how configurable either program is. Sure, you can edit the source, but I'm talking about the Average User. Outlook is right-click customizable like crazy.

    Maybe these things are not missing, but I couldn't see them from the screenshots.

    Further, the screenshots only show the things that are nearly identical in all three versions. That is pretty low. There isn't even any sample data to show how things like Contacts are formatted in the Contact View. It's as if the author knew of the shortcomings in those programs and didn't want to display them.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close