Advertisement

(5 replies) #1 Posted by brent3000 on 23 Dec 2004 - 05:36

glad to see someones challenging M$.. hope they win

#1.1 Posted by rogerroger on 23 Dec 2004 - 06:25

LOL
ROTFLOL!
2 funny! <-- sry, late @ night.

#1.2 Posted by Cube on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:42

#1.3 Posted by HawkMan on 23 Dec 2004 - 13:45

They need to do a LOT more than combine a standard light mailreader with a standard light calendar to challenge Outlook.

#1.4 Posted by Vlad on 23 Dec 2004 - 15:42

QUOTE

They need to do a LOT more than combine a standard light mailreader with a standard light calendar to challenge Outlook.

No kidding. Not to mention Outlook is largerly targeted at corporate users for use with Exchange servers. Plus its bundled with Office, which most people (especially corporations) already have. Companies aren't going to want to purchase Office licenses only to turn around and install Lightning; especially when Outlook is so well integrated into Office/Windows.

I love firefox, but have doubts on how successful "Lightning" will be. Firefox is successful because it does what IE failed to: protect the end user. Same (essentially) with Thunderbird: Outlook Express is a horrible security hole. It's nearly a backdoor into every Windows computer. While Outlook has its problems, they pale in comparison to IE and OE.

#1.5 Posted by burning_jonny on 24 Dec 2004 - 03:01

QUOTE

Not to mention Outlook is largerly targeted at corporate users for use with Exchange servers. Plus its bundled with Office, which most people (especially corporations) already have.

True, large corporations are not about to make the switch after they have invested time and effort into MS. That's not to say that Mozilla is not making inroads. I think free qualtiy software is especiialy appealing, despite the fact some features may currently be lacking (contribute if you want them sooner!).

By the way, Mozilla software is being bundled with Open Office nowadays.

(4 replies) #2 Posted by Sn1p3t on 23 Dec 2004 - 05:41

I think Outlook is pretty perfect the way it is, so I don't know about "a lot of user dissatisfaction", but it'll be good to see competitors.

#2.1 Posted by bush on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:04

well, it is, no doubt about it. but the thing, that keeps me away from outlook, is, that recieving mail from my pop account, it's making timeout's. as i don't know how to fix this problem i prefer to stay with thunderbird

#2.2 Posted by Knight' on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:28

I get that too! I've never understood why, and it's always plagued me right from 2000 - 2003! I've even changed POP accounts. Ever since I moved to Tunderbirder, well now Evolution, I've never had this problem again!

#2.3 Posted by Mattimeo on 23 Dec 2004 - 20:35

Heh...I won't use the program because I can't configure it right, or my mail server times out...



yea...real good excuses.

#2.4 Posted by Ned on 25 Dec 2004 - 19:19

I didn't find setting up things in thunderbird to be any easier than outlook. I have both outlook and thunderbird working fine. Even so, I don't see anything wrong with the argument: "I set it up in thunderbird and it works, but I couldn't set it up in outlook." This is assuming of course that they were the ones who set it up.

#3 Posted by Darkinspiration on 23 Dec 2004 - 05:45

Well it's always nice to know that mozilla is not going to sit back on it's curent project and stop develloping new thing. And it's nice to see something challenging outlook.

(5 replies) #4 Posted by Dale on 23 Dec 2004 - 05:46

thunderbird has the potential..

however, thunderbird will take a lot of effort to match up to outlook 2003

#4.1 Posted by tapo on 23 Dec 2004 - 06:03

Thunderbird is meant to compete with Outlook Express and other basic email clients, such as Eudora.

Outlook is groupware, a whole different type of product that combines task listing, calendars, email, etc. Exactly what Lightning will be designed for.

If you're looking for a free groupware program now, the best (imho) competitor to Outlook is Evolution (http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/ and Novell's site at http://www.novell.com/products/evolution/). It's an excellent program and free, but it's only available for Linux.

#4.2 Posted by Knight' on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:30

Damn right mate, I'm using Evolution and it rocks! Such a clean UI and very functional!

#4.3 Posted by SVT on 23 Dec 2004 - 14:59

QUOTE

but it's only available for Linux.

That is incorrect. Evolution is also available for FreeBSD and Sun Solaris.

#4.4 Posted by tapo on 23 Dec 2004 - 15:42

Yes, but saying Linux is a hell of a lot easier then saying "Almost any Unix-like operating system with a port of GTK+"..

#4.5 Posted by M2Ys4U on 23 Dec 2004 - 19:02

"*nix & GTK+" ?

(2 replies) #5 Posted by kairon on 23 Dec 2004 - 05:52

lightning????honestly, where do they come up with these names? it was catchy at first, but now its getting tiresome....but heres looking forward to another great app

#5.1 Posted by toadeater on 23 Dec 2004 - 23:06

It sounds like a 70s exploitation movie... Thunderbird & Lightning.

#5.2 Posted by chacho on 23 Dec 2004 - 23:22

Just be thankful that it wasn't another type of bird.

(15 replies) #6 Posted by MSN6 on 23 Dec 2004 - 06:09

looking forward for the replacement of outlook

#6.1 Posted by rogerroger on 23 Dec 2004 - 06:24

Why?

I've been in IT for ten years and I've never had anyone want to move away from Outlook. It is quite the opposite. People would give their left nut to get to Outlook, and now that Outlook 2003 and OWA 2003 have near identical interfaces and you have RPC over HTTP available, what else is there?

P.S. - I am not talking about Express here.

#6.2 Posted by mat on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:24

the problem with Outlook is, that it uses MSIE to render HTML emails, causing a vulnerability for most Viruses, other wise Outlook 2003 is a very good Application

#6.3 Posted by figgy on 23 Dec 2004 - 08:54

Outlook Express uses IE.
But Outlook itself doen't use IE to render HTML.
Use the spy application that comes with Visual Studio to verify yourself.

#6.4 Posted by miguel_montes on 23 Dec 2004 - 09:07

Care to elaborate on that? How does Outlook 2003 render HTML?

If it doesn't use IE, I'll switch from TBird to Outlook 2003 faster than a speeding bullet.

#6.5 Posted by Knight' on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:32

Regardless of the renderer Outlook is still more insecure than Thunderbird.

#6.6 Posted by mat on 23 Dec 2004 - 11:13

i highly doubt that MS wrote 2 different HTML Rendering engines.
you can even set the IE Zone settings within Outlook (defaulting to "restricted Sites" and if you click on configuring these settings it says that this changes the Zone settings in IE too.

(btw: it doesnt use IE, only the MSHTML rendering Core of IE)

#6.7 Posted by Ideas Man on 23 Dec 2004 - 13:45

Everything uses IE that accesses the internet, it was a way to allow the operating system to do soo much more without becoming, how do you put it... "bloatware" HTML Help, Outlook, Outlook Express, IE (duh) Windows Explorer, hell, anything that requires an internet interface in Windows usually uses the IE engine.

#6.8 Posted by jagedEdge on 23 Dec 2004 - 13:49

I'm currently using Mail and iCal on OS X, and I can say that I would never want to go back to Outlook. Mail has so many more useful features than Outlook, and it's lighter. We all know that Outlook could also benefit from an iCal-like calendar interface as well.

#6.9 Posted by JaggedFlame on 23 Dec 2004 - 15:00

QUOTE

Regardless of the renderer Outlook is still more insecure than Thunderbird.

Uh, not really.

#6.10 Posted by tapo on 23 Dec 2004 - 15:49

It's the renderer (IE) that makes Outlook more insecure, as Microsoft didn't admit "Well, IE sure sucks, let's write an entirely new rendering engine for Outlook 2003, and for some reason not use said engine in any other products."

But again, Outlook is groupware, Thunderbird is an email app. Thunderbird's competition is not Outlook, but Outlook Express and Eudora.

Lightning and Evolution however, are groupware programs and are directly competing with Outlook. The major advantage for these programs is not only the fact that they're probably more secure, but they're absolutely free, while Outlook is rather expensive, standalone or part of office.

With OpenOffice 2.0 coming out soon, as well as Lightning, you have one badass competitor for Office on the Windows platform.

#6.11 Posted by Billprozac on 23 Dec 2004 - 18:40

@6.8: Outlook for Mac is a completely different beast and even though it was made by Microsoft, and it has been replace at least twice. They now use Entourage...the biggest pile of crap as it does not have full support for Exchange. While I am not saying that this is a good thing in any way, you cannot compare Outlook 2003 or XP for that matter with outlook/entourage for Mac as they are reallly completely different programs.

#6.12 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 18:37

QUOTE

the problem with Outlook is, that it uses MSIE to render HTML emails,..

Outlook 2003 does NOT render html pages by default. You have to right-click on the message and tell Outlook it is ok to download for this messge. It puts the onus on the user to render the message. If I don't know the sender, I simply delete the message without having Outlook render the page. YOu should really try out the new version!

#6.13 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 18:39

QUOTE

Regardless of the renderer Outlook is still more insecure than Thunderbird.

And how would that be? I doubt your ignorant ass could come up with anything meaningful. Besides, anyone who wants more than just a mail reader will not be using Thunderbird anytime soon.

#6.14 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 18:57

QUOTE

I'm currently using Mail and iCal on OS X, and I can say that I would never want to go back to Outlook. Mail has so many more useful features than Outlook, and it's lighter. We all know that Outlook could also benefit from an iCal-like calendar interface as well.

Where do I start here. This is funny ot me because while I realize mail readers, calendars, etc are a personal preferrence, something just struct me as wrong. First, if you have ever seen the interface for Outlook2003, you know there are many many more features than OS x MAIL has (you can verify that from apple's MAIL features pages as well). And iCal - while I think this is one of the best apps for OS X, it is really Outlook 2003 calendar with more colors. -just my opinion.

#6.15 Posted by mat on 27 Dec 2004 - 16:56

QUOTE

Outlook 2003 does NOT render html pages by default.

wrong. it doesnt load images by default (good idea) but it still renders HTML Emails by default (you can switch to text only, but the default is show it as HTML)

(3 replies) #7 Posted by NetRyder on 23 Dec 2004 - 06:32

Thunderbird, in its current state, is not even close to Outlook (see my post here). It's a (far better) replacement for Outlook Express, but I it seems like the Lightning project is aiming to bridge the gap between Tbird and Outlook.

This will be a much more difficult goal to achieve though. Firefox and Thunderbird were able to take on IE and OE since neither of them have been seriously updated for the last several years. On the other hand, Outlook is one of the key products in the MS Office suite, so MS has been taking it much more seriously. Outlook 2003 was a huge improvement over earlier versions (I would never use Outlook 2000/XP...ick). Thunderbird will really have to put up a tough fight if it intends to eat into Outlook's market share.

#7.1 Posted by machorro on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:07

well thunderbird is not meant to compet with Outlook like someone said above

and MS should make O2k3 seriouse since ppl is paying to use it and it is supposed to come with more features but anyway the new product is meant to compete with Outlook we will just have to see if can give a little battle and make MS improve O2k3 more...

i personally dont use O2k3 since i dont see its use, to many features useless for me to use it... i prefer thunderbird since i only use it for mails and that's it

but lets see what can bring this product and besides there will be another product to use for free , and another good product for the linux folks to use

#7.2 Posted by Jugalator on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:32

QUOTE

and another good product for the linux folks to use

Yeah, although Evolution is pretty much there for Linux users, already.
See also screenshots: http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/screenshots.shtml

#7.3 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 19:01

Wow, I didn't realize Evolution looked so closely to Outlook.
Seems pretty easy to use, just like Outlook.

(1 reply) #8 Posted by rocks1985 on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:14

Using Outlook to manage and view multiple calendars multiple calendars is quite bad. I hope Sunbird aka Lightning can mix Apple iCals great interface with Outlook calendar's speed and options...

#8.1 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 19:03

Actually it is quite excellent (I use Outlook 2003). This is how I coordinate schedule and book meetings with all my people. Very simple to bring up several peoples calendars in the same view and see where everyone is at and generate a meeting request out of it. If it was any easier, a monkey could do it!

(5 replies) #9 Posted by JZolloXP on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:28

As much as I love the Mozilla Foundation, I gotta say that they really couldn't make a dent in current Outlook users, especially those who use it to synchronize data with a portable device (Cell Phones, iPod's, PDA's...etc)

However, this will be pretty sweet for those who don't have outlook/cant afford outlook.

#9.1 Posted by Jugalator on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:35

Why not? I mean, if synchronization is the major reason, I'm sure that won't be an issue when that's added?

It's hard to tell before it's even here.

I'm not sure many thought Fx would make a dent in IE usage when it was just a hatchling at Phoenix 0.1.

#9.2 Posted by JZolloXP on 23 Dec 2004 - 08:16

Touché...

#9.3 Posted by nvizible on 24 Dec 2004 - 14:09

personally i think firefox doesn't make a dent in ie at all... opera does that

#9.4 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 19:04

QUOTE

personally i think firefox doesn't make a dent in ie at all... opera does that

Funny how Firefox has more market share than Opera, and how long has Opera been out?!!

#9.5 Posted by StrangeFlower on 29 Dec 2004 - 16:53

Exactly why I haven't switched over to it just yet. I am hoping my Pocket PC can use it the same way Outlook does. Maybe there is something out there that we haven't seen yet.

(3 replies) #10 Posted by lieb39 on 23 Dec 2004 - 07:35

Until it supports connecting to Outlook servers... I won't use it. I'd love to use mozilla suite based programs for everything but no connection to outlook servers.. no dice.

-lieb39

#10.1 Posted by Jugalator on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:38

I figure that might end up becoming a feature, and it's not just a wild guess, but based on this...
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2004/05/pr04034.html

The code for it has already been written. And since it's released as open source, and this project will be, Mozilla Foundation is likely free to use this code basically as they wish. Thank you, Novell!

#10.2 Posted by youlle on 23 Dec 2004 - 22:46

isnt evolution GPL? and lightning will be MPL, and using GPL in Lightning will force lightning to become GPL right? so it wont happen, unless by some freak licence loop hole MPL is compatible with GPL.

#10.3 Posted by nvizible on 24 Dec 2004 - 14:11

or unless novell is really nice to mozilla (very possible in fact!)

(1 reply) #11 Posted by tntomek on 23 Dec 2004 - 08:27

Sure Mozilla or any competitor can make any app look like a Microsoft product.

What few of you seem to realize is that it's what's underneath the applications that makes them so valuable. Word and Excel have entire SDK's. I've attended a Microsoft dev conference recently that discussed the power of using visual studio .NET 2005 with office 2003. The possibilities are VERY impressive. Combine that with Sharepoint/Infopath and BizTalk and Microsoft Office is the ONLY choice for corporations as you simply cannot develop against the non Microsoft office apps, not anywhere near like you can in Microsoft Office.

#11.1 Posted by tiwaris on 23 Dec 2004 - 09:28

I agree with you (on this). However, I would love to see mozilla foundation being a fierce competitor to Microsoft.

#12 Posted by giginger on 23 Dec 2004 - 09:07

I look forward to seeing how this application turns out. I use Outlook at work and home and think it's great. Although the rules could do with some extra bits. I like Mozilla stuff but they'll have to go a long way to beat Outlook. Outlook is one of the best MS products.

#13 Posted by lare2 on 23 Dec 2004 - 09:15

I love what the Mozilla people is doing, but to say that this can compete with outlook 2003 is not posible, at least not in the following five years. Not until the lack conection to Outlook Servers.

Myself don't like some of Microsoft programs, but Outlook 2003 along with an Outlook Server is a killer solution for businesses. There's no way to compare this two.

As for Outlook Express, well OE is crap compared to what you can do with Thunderbird, and the calendar is really good, even at this stage.

(2 replies) #14 Posted by ThaCrip on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:00

it's this simple... FIREFOX+THUNDERBIRD = more secure

IE+OUTLOOK EXPRESS = less secure

#14.1 Posted by Billprozac on 23 Dec 2004 - 18:44

Hey ftard, outlook not outlook express. Stop trolling and f-off.

#14.2 Posted by nvizible on 24 Dec 2004 - 14:13

u hit the nail on the head! i used to use m2 mail client in opera and liked it for its integrationg etc. but now i use outlook coz its just SO much more powerful (outlook express is PATHETIC)

(1 reply) #15 Posted by Ized on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:10

I personally welcome the new project and I think it's great we have MORE alternatives on groupware. The only thing keeping me from switching to Thunderbird at work, is the lack of Calendar features(with Exchange sync off course). At home I've been using TB for a long time and it's great.

I noticed some of you we're asking "Why?", well let me ask you "Why not?". It's good to have competition, because that will make sure Microsoft will also need to evolve and develop their products further. Furthermore, "Lightning" will be a cross-platform and FREE alternate for Outlook, which I think is pretty awesome.

"Lightning" btw is a project codename, not product name. If you didn't know, Microsoft also uses codenames for their projects ... Impala, Whistler, Snowball, Cool, Thunder, Whitehorse, Lonestar, etc, etc.

#15.1 Posted by Jugalator on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:34

Yeah, I agree to 100% with this. It's never bad with competition. Well, maybe makes the life a bit harder for some companies involved, but for us it's never a bad thing. Even if you'll continue using Outlook, it's still an advantage since Microsoft may end up trying harder to get a better product.

QUOTE

Cool

Hehe, yeah, that was the best codename ever!

#16 Posted by UKer on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:20

Excellent news, been using Thunderbird and Sunbird for ages as our university has banned the use of Lookout and Lookout Distress due to them not trusting the apps (due to their past record in terms of security), staff and students aren't allowed to use them or even install Lookout with Office. Even switched at home from Opera as I found FF/TB to be much better apps (IMO).

Been wondering for a while why they didn't try and do this before, as a PIM is the most logical move Mozilla can make. Now the Evolution plugin for connecting to Exchange servers is open source (Novell to thank for this), I hope they implement this and then even big corporations can make the move.

#17 Posted by wrex on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:30

This is what I've been waiting for from Mozilla for a while! It might take a while for them to get it right, but I'm looking forward to it.

The question, who's going to make a plugin for syncing Thunderbird/Sunbird with my Nokia? Once that's done, I'll be swapping over.

#18 Posted by littleguru on 23 Dec 2004 - 10:42

Sunbird seems not to be that mature until now.

#19 Posted by nvizible on 23 Dec 2004 - 11:28

hmmm... for a LONG time i've been looking for a replacement for outlook but barca doesn't work right on my pc (gives me a crash to desktop with memory dump). so basically im stuck using outlook atm, but the MOMENT a replacement for it comes from mozilla based on thunderbird i shall INSTANTLY adopt it!

#20 Posted by Jens Stampe on 23 Dec 2004 - 11:43

I like Evolution on Linux. If there were a Windows version, I'd use it because I have to use Windows these days. If Mozilla can deliver the goods, then that'd be fantastic. Maybe the new EU ruling will make it easier for them to compete against the ubermonopoly MS. I'm already using Firefox. It'd be cool if there were an equally good replacement for Outlook.

(1 reply) #21 Posted by BGuillaume on 23 Dec 2004 - 12:19

A replacemnt yo Outlook...Yeh right ...! I can bet anything to anyone that Lightening will not offer all the features that Outlook has to offer...right from here it's useless to think about an alternative if I dont find ALL the features...

Intellisync in Lightening?
Lightening Live Connector for Hotmail?
I long to wait
Lightening is already dead

#21.1 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 19:11

And don't forget all the tie-ins to outlook in the new SharePoint Portal Server product!

(2 replies) #22 Posted by WishX on 23 Dec 2004 - 12:52

Given the "Element/Animal" naming scheme they use...
FireFox, ThunderBird, SunBird...
Shouldn't this be called something like LightningBug?

Ok, I'll shut up now.

#22.1 Posted by Billprozac on 23 Dec 2004 - 18:47

I like LightningHawk better

#22.2 Posted by burning_jonny on 24 Dec 2004 - 03:03

So what's next?

Composer will be Mozilla Ice? The MS Frontpage competitor?

(1 reply) #23 Posted by Julius Caro on 23 Dec 2004 - 13:00

I think it is still very premature so start thinking of Sunbird as a clear competitor for Outlook. Sunbird still has A LOT to improve, as it is just a calendar right now... (at least that was the last version I tried). And outlook I think it is way more than that (Haven't used outlook for years though, and I'm never going to do so again !)

#23.1 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 19:12

Your loss.
What are you using nowadays?

(3 replies) #24 Posted by SVT on 23 Dec 2004 - 13:28

Outlook: The epitome of Bloatware.

#24.1 Posted by bush on 23 Dec 2004 - 14:47

it seems, that you are trying to be cool

#24.2 Posted by nvizible on 24 Dec 2004 - 14:18

exactly! i think outlook is not at ALL bloated! it takes 20mb or ram whilst maximised and working on my pc, and 1.8mb when minimized to tray, so i wouldn't say its bloated! maybe the size on disk is bloated, but it sure does take care of its memory usage. and then again, who CARES about size on disk? i mean, with the 160gig drive i've got i dont give two hoots if it takes 20mb more than a competitor (none exist so far) and i feel that it does exactly what i want it to do, and then some!

#24.3 Posted by rogerroger on 24 Dec 2004 - 19:13

QUOTE

Outlook: The epitome of Bloatware.

Troll at large. Flog on site!

#25 Posted by GRex on 23 Dec 2004 - 15:18

Sweet, Been waiting for something like for awhile.

#26 Posted by Cyranthus on 23 Dec 2004 - 15:25

interesting... well its a step in the right direction.

(1 reply) #27 Posted by nic on 23 Dec 2004 - 16:01

Outlook IS targetting the corporate user, and that has left the normal home user behind. Thunderbird + Sunbird could be a better solution for the home user that doesn't want to spend the bucks for Outlook, and don't need all the bloat that comes with it. About the only thing that I see will stop me from using this Lightning (besides the potential for it to just suck), is my Pocket PC. Somehow I seriously doubt that my Pocket PC will be able to sync with it, at least for awhile.

#27.1 Posted by Magallanes on 23 Dec 2004 - 16:39

same from here!.

If Mozilla want to compete with Outlook then he must be capable of:

-pocket pc/cells phones/... sync (for free).
-ms. exchanger server compatible.
-able to export .pst datas (outlook database).

#28 Posted by w00t on 23 Dec 2004 - 17:51

teh w00t!

#29 Posted by Heathen on 23 Dec 2004 - 18:00

If they throw in Palm OS sync I'll use it... if not... I'm sticking with Outlook

#30 Posted by quick on 23 Dec 2004 - 18:36

Bottom Line... Competition = Good

We need a free alternative to Outlook 2003 that is as good....Even though there are some they are no where close to Outlook 2003. It costs way to much to buy office 2003, even for small businesses its hard to buy.

#31 Posted by 1337.h4x0r on 23 Dec 2004 - 21:16

getfirefox.com

(1 reply) #32 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 23 Dec 2004 - 21:25

My Dad needs a PIM.

He's looking for a replacement for Lotus Organizer.

#32.1 Posted by VikingStorm on 24 Dec 2004 - 20:56

Actually might want to take a look at: EssentialPIM
http://www.essentialpim.com/
Free, works great...

#33 Posted by Adamb10 on 23 Dec 2004 - 21:43

w00t. Mozilla all the way. Mozilla motto: Killing Microsoft products every day.

#34 Posted by Mx² on 23 Dec 2004 - 21:54

Hrmm Thunderbird is quite good actually. But I'm still using Outlook 03

#35 Posted by finalcut on 23 Dec 2004 - 22:18

lol
it will take 3 years to develop thunderbird+sunbird almost as good as outlook 2003
Sunbird isnt that bad but thunderbird is far away behind

#36 Posted by -=NoX=- on 23 Dec 2004 - 22:36

googlezon

(3 replies) #37 Posted by Amarok on 23 Dec 2004 - 23:20

Mozilla is getting greedy now, and they have NO CHANCE here.

#37.1 Posted by zivan56 on 24 Dec 2004 - 02:08

Greedy??
Its an open source non-for-profit foundation.

#37.2 Posted by JaggedFlame on 24 Dec 2004 - 04:41

Who told you greed was always about money?

#37.3 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 24 Dec 2004 - 07:56

If they think they can coast on the "success" of Firefox they're dead wrong~

#38 Posted by realmccoy on 24 Dec 2004 - 00:29

If they could make a stand alone client like Out look 2003 I would switch , today

#39 Posted by JoDaddy on 24 Dec 2004 - 05:05

I love Outlook and don't see myself ever switching, really. But I think this is great news. Competition is only good for MS customers, as it will make MS do more to keep us.

(6 replies) #40 Posted by SniperX on 24 Dec 2004 - 10:15

The Firefox browser I can live with, but to seriously suggest that people are going to give up the simplicity and familiarity of Outlook 2003 - I don't think so.

Even Firefox, as a Browser where people can spend entire days arguing over their choice, isn't that much of a success in real market terms. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for MS to have their Office profits cut into, but this isn't it.

Last edited by 33613 on 24 Dec 2004 - 10:25

#40.1 Posted by shichiroji4 on 24 Dec 2004 - 13:13

When Firefox first started, there were a lot of M$ pimple faced fanboys like you who claim nothing can overtake IE. Now that Firefox has nearly overtaken IE, you peeps just simply refuse to acknowledge the inevitable.