|
|
Entourage by choice?
I'm curious how many of those 1 in 10 (or more) readers who use Entourage (or Outlook in Classic) do so because they need access to particular services at the office, and would otherwise use another mail client. Not an anti-Microsoft rant (per se), but I am curious how Microsoft's dominance in office apps (and, frankly, in most IT departments) affects what software people use. After all, unlike Word and Excel, this poll makes clear that there really are numerous realistic options for e-mail clients outside of a few large vendors. (Not that that doesn't prevent most of us from using Apple's Mail.app — including yours truly. Another argument for bundling affecting choice, I guess.)
Had e-mail protocols not existed prior to Microsoft emerging at the dominant software company in the world, one must wonder whether an e-mail standard that wasn't a proprietary, closed Microsoft format (again, think Word, Excel, etc.) would have ever existed. Or whether e-mail — largely like instant messaging now — could not cross proprietary networks. Imagine how different communication would be today in that world....
Entourage, most definitely by choice
While there are undoubtedly going to be folks who use Entourage in order to access corporate Exchange servers, such users appear to be in the minority. The majority made a conscious choice to pay for Office just to enjoy the many advantages of using Entourage over Mail/iCal/AddressBook. The linking of mail, contacts, tasks, and calendar events in an integrated database stands out as one of the most important advantages, but there are numerous others. Personally, I've always been fond of Entourage for its impeccable handling of Japanese contact fields (you can thank Dan Crevier, former MacBU member, for those features). Entourage is also one of the most scriptable applications on the OS X platform, and the members of the Entourage mailing list are prolific producers of some of the slickest scriptwork I've ever seen. Anyway, I could go on and on, but I think everyone gets the point by now... :)
Entourage, most definitely by choice
Thanks for the question and response since it's something I've been curious about.
Entourage, most definitely by choice
I bought Office X soley for Entourage. It is the best email client I have ever used and not nearly as frustrating as mail.app (I used mail.app as my primary client from 10/2001 - early 2003). I recently uninstalled mail.app from my home eMac and installed Entourage there as well. I gave mail.app a fair trial (nearly 3 years), but it simply does not measure up to Entourage.
Entourage, most definitely by choice
For a long time, I was a hater of Microsoft in general. But with the new Entourage 2004, Microsoft has made one product that I absolutely love. The integration and other excellent features make it my e-mail client of choice.
Entourage by choice?
I use both Mail and Entourage - Mail's junk mail filterning is the best (most effective, most reliable) that I've seen to date (as far as clients go, that is). However, from a composition standpoint, Mail just isn't up to snuff.
Key bindings
Re: ... hop from one word to another by using cmd-arrow keys
I use (and prefer :-)) Emacs-style option-f [moveWordForward] and option-b [moveWordBackward] keybindings for that sort of functionality in Cocoa apps. See Key bindings for technical information and examples.
Entourage by choice?
such as the ability to hop from one word to another by using cmd-arrow keys, just like in Word That's option-arrow keys in Mail, just like every Mac application I've used except Word since OS 7. cmd-arrow keys go to the beginning and end of the current line. |
SearchFrom our Sponsor...Latest Mountain Lion HintsWhat's New:HintsNo new hintsComments last 2 daysNo new commentsLinks last 2 weeksNo recent new linksWhat's New in the Forums?
Hints by TopicNews from Macworld
From Our Sponsors |
|
Copyright © 2014 IDG Consumer & SMB (Privacy Policy) Contact Us All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Visit other IDG sites: |
|
|
|
Created this page in 0.13 seconds |
|