Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 19:20 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "Excellent open source Outlook Express alternatives are available which provide similar and additional features. Such is the case with Mozilla's Thunderbird, which is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux users. Moving away from Outlook Express is a no-brainer, as our screen shots illustrate."
Order by: Score:
Exchange?
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is Thunderbird able to connect to exchange servers?

Besides that, all the screen shots look basically the same. What was this supposed to proved, because I think the point flew right over my head...

Don't get me wrong, I don't particulary care for outlook express, but in my experience, Thunderbird hasn't been much better at all. Evolutions was OK, but still wasn't very impressive. For now I'll just stick with the gmail web interface, and OWA for work.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Exchange?
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:36 UTC in reply to "Exchange?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Is Thunderbird able to connect to exchange servers?

No and neither is Outlook Express.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Exchange?
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Exchange?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ah, I see. I had gotten it to work, but I had forgotten that I had to finagle it a little bit. So sorry.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Exchange?
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Exchange?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I can do via imap

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Exchange?
by morglum666 on Fri 4th Nov 2005 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Exchange?"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

As the other poster said, thats not entirely true.

You can connect to POP3/IMAP capabilities on an exchange server, but you can't do all of the rest of it, which includes scheduling, etc, integration into AD...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Exchange?
by Varg Vikernes on Fri 4th Nov 2005 02:13 UTC in reply to "Exchange?"
Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the article was trying to prove that no matter how much open source copies from Microsoft (UI wise in this case) no one will bitch about it. But if any of Microsoft's products even remotely resemble any other OS/app you can expect a horde of OS X/KDE/,... fanboys to start spamming 100+ comments on OSNews how they stole it, even if most of the time that's not be the case.

Anyway, I've used Thunderbird for Usenet as it didn't have 50+ settings to adjust before you can even post anything and I liked the interface and most importantly there was a realtime spellchecker in it (don't know if it was an extension or by default).

Speaking of which, does anyone know if there is a realtime spellchecker available for Firefox? What I mean by that, is that is like Word does it - underlines the bad words and right clicking the word popups up a menu with fix(es).

Reply Score: 1

Only one thing
by DittoBox on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:29 UTC
DittoBox
Member since:
2005-07-08

There's only one thing about Thunderbird I'd change and that's getting a little more detail about what it's doing while downloading messages. The current method (status bar only) is awkward and it's difficult to troubleshoot bad authentication and credential problems.

I've pretty much converted all my clients (I do in home computer repair/maintenance) from outlook express to Thunderbird, cuts down on virii to a degree as well.

Reply Score: 1

Why is it...
by eMagius on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:44 UTC
eMagius
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is it that Mozilla components are always compared against the worst-in-class competition? There are many free (even open-source) e-mail clients that trounce both Thunderbird and Outlook Express (Evolution, Opera's M2, Apple's Mail, etc.).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is it...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:53 UTC in reply to "Why is it..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

e-mail clients that trounce both Thunderbird and Outlook Express (Evolution, Opera's M2, Apple's Mail, etc.)

Apple's Mail isn't exactly the pinnacle of email programs-- and I know what I'm talking about, it's my main email client.

Same for Evolution. It does a lot, but looks like ass, is close to unusable and is one big mess of options and menu entries.

Comparing Thunderbird to Outlook Express makes the most sense. Outlook 2003 is something completely different by the way-- for the better, that is. None of the above mentioned can beat Outlook 2003, for me. Best feature in 2003? Vertical preview pane done right-- TB has it, but it renders your inbox unreadable. The other clients mentioned here don't even have it (Hello Mail.app and Evo? 21st century?).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why is it...
by Tom K on Fri 4th Nov 2005 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is it..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I was just about to say the same thing before I read your post. Outlook 2003 trumps absolutely every other client out there, and I've tried a boatload of them.

Ironically enough, Tiger's Mail is also my main e-mail application, simply because I like its simple and intuitive interface. If Entourage was supported by Spotlight and was as integrated into the OS as Mail.app is, I'd probably use that.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Why is it...
by Tom K on Fri 4th Nov 2005 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is it..."
RE[4]: Why is it...
by Tuishimi on Fri 4th Nov 2005 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why is it..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I brought it up to -1 so it will be seen. No idea why someone axed it like that. It seemed like a harmless enough, even comparative, comment to me.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Why is it...
by Tom K on Fri 4th Nov 2005 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why is it..."
RE[6]: Why is it...
by Tom K on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why is it..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Point in case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why is it...
by raver31 on Fri 4th Nov 2005 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why is it..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I am sure you know by now that I am an avid Linux supporter, but I do not understand why the linux fanboys around here always mod you down.

Any posts I see from you that are normal posts, I always vote them up.

I cannot speak for the muppets though

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Why is it...
by Tom K on Fri 4th Nov 2005 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why is it..."
RE[2]: Why is it...
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 4th Nov 2005 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is it..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Outlook 2003 is something completely different by the way-- for the better, that is. None of the above mentioned can beat Outlook 2003, for me. Best feature in 2003? Vertical preview pane done right-- TB has it, but it renders your inbox unreadable.

I'd say that on the Windows side of things, in terms of being an actual mail client, Eudora Pro makes Outlook seem like a toy. The only thing that Outlook really has going for it is the integration with other Microsoft-centric technologies like Exchange.

The other clients mentioned here don't even have it (Hello Mail.app and Evo? 21st century?).

Eh? I could say the same thing about Outlook's lack of support for APOP authentication, which has been supported for much longer by many more clients than the "vertical preview pane" feature.

And besides, the advantage/utility of the vertical preview pane isn't exactly self-evident. If anything, I've found that Outlook 2003 has quite a few "different for the sake of difference" features which just add to the over-engineered nature of the program and make it more confusing for the majority of its target userbase.

E.g., a couple of weeks ago I did a tech support call for an Outlook 2003 user who thought she had lost her mail for that day. Turns out she had just had her inbox in the "sort by day" mode and had accidentally clicked the "-" sign next to "Today."

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why is it...
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:59 UTC in reply to "Why is it..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

While I don't think a screenshot comparison has much meaning but here's why it should be limited to Outlook Express. Thunderbird right now is only a replacement for Outlook Express. It is definitely does not have the function set present in Outlook or Evolution. That "might" by the end of next year but until then the comparison with those can be as simple as Thunderbird lacks blah...blah...blah features, period. Opera M2 is equivalent to the mail client in Netscape or Mozilla and not a standalone email software. Finally, Apple Mail is an appropriate comparison except for a smaller audience. If you really are interested in that you can easily find them at Mac sites.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why is it...
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 22:22 UTC in reply to "Why is it..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Honestly, neither design go much further than the Windows 95 "Internet Mail and News" which was the v.1 of Outlook Express.

It only proves to me that that design was the basis for the modern mail GUI.

Reply Score: 0

v Rolling Thunder!
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:01 UTC
Main quirk in Thunderbird
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:04 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

Perhaps it's been fixed recently, but the main quirk I've found with (the windows version of) Thunderbird is that it has no built in signature editor - you can only choose an external text file as a signature. That's a pretty basic feature for a GUI mail client in 2005 - and even most webmail systems provide that nowadays.

Just as long as they don't go to the opposite extreme, like Outlook, and make Word the signature editor. I spent 20 minutes the other day because someone wanted their signature to be navy blue bold-italic text and Word kept double-spacing the lines for no apparent reason (finally fixed it by pasting the text into notepad, then back into Word and re-doing the formatting).

Reply Score: 1

I use on both XP and Linux
by chemical_scum on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:36 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

I use Thunderbird on both XP and Linux, it gives me a consistent interface on both platforms. It looks good and gives me all the functionality I need for a personal email client.

Thunderbird's Bayesian statistics based trainable spam filter is really excellent.

Edited 2005-11-03 21:37

Reply Score: 1

My .2EUR...
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Comparing Thunderbird to Outlook Express is like comparing a.... whatever.

more interesting (i like the visual shootout btw) would be comapring:
Kolab2 ( http://www.kolab.org ) with Thunderbird (using: http://www.gargan.org/extensions/synckolab.html)
&
Outlook with Exchange

And then a review from 2 sides: client and server side!

Cies Breijs.

Reply Score: 0

Excellent
by hraq on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:41 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

This shows how open source can beat MS one day; MS show give away outlook 2003 for free on their vista.

Reply Score: 0

v *plonk* to the article
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...which is that Thunderbird in its current version (I am using currently both 1.0.7 and 1.5 beta and Outlook Express 6) is much more buggy than Outlook Express. Little things, but very annoying things - editor behaving badly sometimes, indexes messed up from time to time on big mailboxes, GUI problems (plus some usability problems - like handling of long address lists, handling of attachments etc.). Surely Outlook Express has its own bugs - but it seems to me that much less (id did not crash on me for last - hmm - 3 years or more, while TB 1.0.7 crashed twice within last 2 weeks - and it is supposed to be a *stable* version). In short - featurewise TB is somewhat better than OE (searching mostly), but as far as quality is concerned... well, Mozilla folks have a loooong way to go :-)

Reply Score: 4

Night Member since:
2005-07-07

I have to agree. 1.5 beta 2 does not even launch (process appears, disappears) on my system, and 1.0.7 will happily let a mailbox pass the 2GiB mark where operations start failing. I only hope all of my messages will be accessible again once 1.5 is finally released.

Unless there is a serious improvement in 1.5 or a Windows port of Evolution shows up, I will probably move back to Outlook once Office 12 arrives.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, I have no such problems. Thunderbird 1.0.7 works perfectly for me ;)

Reply Score: 1

Outlook does not have well-designed UI
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 22:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It doesn't give me any pleasure to criticize Mozilla Thunderbird, but I have to say I don't particularly like the user-interface. The fact that this comparison emphasizes how similar it is to Outlook doesn't make it any more appealing. In fact, Outlook hardly has what you'd describe as a "best of breed" user interface. Comparisons like this only re-enforce the perception that Open Source software tends to ape the UI design of other apps. The fact that they copy sub-par interfaces (like Outlook) only makes matters worse.

Here's a simple example of where Thunderbird 1.02 falls down. Create a new HTML message - lets say you want to send it in plain text. You go to the format menu - but there's no option to change the format to plain text. Instead, you must go to the Options menu, where you'll also find a duplicate Format command - but this time it refers to the format of the mail (i.e. plain text or HTML).

Reply Score: 2

Never had Thunderbird crash
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 22:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Only one minor bug. A small group of emails that were transferred over manually can't be permanently deleted. Everytime you do, they show up again in a few weeks or so somehow. Strangest thing I've ever seen on a computer. But Outlook Express is so slow loading since SP2.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Never had Thunderbird crash
by Insomniac on Fri 4th Nov 2005 07:28 UTC in reply to "Never had Thunderbird crash"
Insomniac Member since:
2005-06-30

If you have "killed" the Windows/MSN(?) Messenger, then the reason for the slow loading of OE is most probably that it is always trying to start the killed Messenger and finishing loading only after the failure/timeout of it.

There was a registry hack - just a single key change, to remove this behaviour, not a big deal. Try searching Google.

Reply Score: 1

v Outlook is for loosers
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 23:18 UTC
one funny thing...
by hobgoblin on Fri 4th Nov 2005 00:18 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

is what the dialog windows the diffrent clients use when adding a attachment.

OE goes for that old and small one.

TB goes for the big new one.

and tho those that complain about the comparison: they are going to do a part 2 where they compare outlook, evolution and kontakt. stay tuned!

oh, and comparing operas mail system would not realy be correct either as it have a very novel way of sorting mail. ie, its doing it like spotlight does ongoing desktop searches. all mailes are then stuffed into one big inbox for storage ;)

Edited 2005-11-04 00:21

Reply Score: 1

Thunderbird is alright ...
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 00:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Better than OUtlook Express, and it's free, so I use it. If I were a serious email user, I'd probably dive into Outlook 2003 or The Bat!.

Does there exist yet a Windows version of Evolution?

Reply Score: 0

Horribly biased article
by setuid_w00t on Fri 4th Nov 2005 00:49 UTC
setuid_w00t
Member since:
2005-10-22

The author first states how everyone should be changing to thunderbird because it's so much better than outlook express. The author then goes on to display screenshots that show thunderbird and outlook express are almost identical.

This article offers no compelling arguments to switch from outlook express to thunderbird.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Both ThunderF*ck and Orifice Express suck.

outlook 2003 is imho the best email cient out there bar none. The only downfall to Outlook is that MS is still hung up on the POS .PST format for mail storage.

I migrated away from OE and strangely enough OE handled more mail and was more *stable* with my mail than Outlook. Of course on the flip side Outlook has the features that none of the other clients available have.

If MS would drop the PST format and make a mail storage file that was actually stable and performed with a damn they might just create the perfect email client in the process.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Best email program for who?, for business maybe but not for home users. We just want our email and not a business course on how to play monopoly.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Best email program for who?, for business maybe but not for home users. We just want our email and not a business course on how to play monopoly.

I'm not saying its the answer for everyone, but if you want the flexibility to do it all from basic email to logging in to the corporate domain and reading your work email I haven't found anything close. Bar none its the winner.

monopoly ? I could care less about MS and their monopoly. I use the tool that works best for the task because computers are not a moral crusade or a religion to me, simply a tool. I'll use the best tool be it free or commercial.

I don't discriminate against code.

Reply Score: 0

RaisedFist Member since:
2005-07-06

Outlook sucks at syncing with IMAP folders. I've had a mess after installing Outlook 2003. Then, I couldn't set it to save my sent mail to whatever folder I wanted... maybe I'm too new to it, but didn't find an answer on the net either...

Anyway, the best mail client is mail (unix people know better ;) ).

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Outlook sucks at syncing with IMAP folders. I've had a mess after installing Outlook 2003. Then, I couldn't set it to save my sent mail to whatever folder I wanted... maybe I'm too new to it, but didn't find an answer on the net either...

well IMAP is nothing to write home about for starters. Of course outlook has its faults too.

Anyway, the best mail client is mail (unix people know better ;) )

If I wanted to experience the stoneage of email I'd just switch to pine personally. ;)

Reply Score: 0

setuid_w00t Member since:
2005-10-22

"well IMAP is nothing to write home about for starters."

What's wrong with IMAP and what is a better alternative?

Reply Score: 1

I use Eudora & it's free
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 02:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've been using Eudora since it first came out. Never had any of the security problems that my coworkers had with Outlook Express. I don't want any executable HTML (security/privacy nightmare) in my email so I turn those options off in Eudora.

The free (sponsored) version has a 1.5"x1.5" ad in the lower left corner, and includes most features.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Some of the Thunderbird pics look too cluttered. Just a quick look at even the new email pic shows me that Outlook has a layout that makes it easier for the user to know where all the fields are at a glance. I have to focus to figure out where fields are in the Thunderbird pic. Furthermore, Apple Mail looks more aesthetically pleasing than Outlook and Thunderbird.

Reply Score: 0

Thunderbird is OK
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 05:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I used to like OE a lot, since its interface for reading mail and news is still the best IMHO, therefore, Thunderbird taking a few tips from its interface is very logical since both applications target the same audience. But Thunderbird has a lead because of the vulnerabilities that OE has been suffering day after day (mainly because of its reliance on the IE engine to render HTML, I guess)

However, the single feature that Thunderbird has that OE lacks that is a world of a difference between both is the built-in bayesian mail filter. The accuracy is pretty good, comparable to POPFile (which is my personal favorite, and works regardless the choice of MUA). I have the same e-mail account for over 10 years, and since it is pretty easy to guess with any automated mail generator tool on the planet, I receive huge quantities of SPAM on a daily basis. Bayesian SPAM filters are a requirement these days.

Actually, putting it that way, Thunderbird raised the bar for most mail clients... Er, that is, if youŽre the kind of dude that only wants a mail client, like me. If youŽre the sort of guy that wants calendaring, to-do list and what not bundled with your mail client, youŽll probably will prefer Outlook, Kontact or Evolution. In that case, you can resort to POPFile.

Reply Score: 0

Lucky they realized
by Haicube on Fri 4th Nov 2005 06:37 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

That Thunderbird is not a competitor to Outlook but rather just to outlook express.

Now if Thunderbird wanna go all the way and start competing with Outlook for real, they better start pushing in features fast.... (like a competent addressbook)...

Reply Score: 1

hmmm ....
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 09:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is weird, it's like showing pictures of a Honda Accord beside those of a Toyota Camry and saying that they are almost the same, both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, and lights and stuff... and then saying that based on this we should choose the Accord, even though they cost the same and do the same job.

Anyway, I do think it's strange that a fundamentally important application like an e-mail client can't be made to be virtually perfect at this stage. I use Apple's Mail program and it's FAR from perfect. But it does the job.

Reply Score: 0

Well I'd love to but ...
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 14:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'd love to ditch OE , but until Thunderbird will collect Usenet and email all in one session, implements 'Send Later' properly (eg saves the email until you're ready to send it and allows you to carry on working!), allows a proper customisation of the toolbars and interface, and soprts out various other minor quirks and annoyances,
Thunderbird is a poor substitute for OE. I love Firefox but Thunderboird just isn't up to the job.

Reply Score: 0

Hmmm...
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 19:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I never bothered with Outlook Express, but I have to use Outlook at work. It's packed with more features than you can shake a stick at, and has a rather complicated interface, especially in the configuration windows. Another case of MS overkill and poor design implementation.
Thunderbird I use at home. It seems to me that it's still very similar to the Netscape 4.x e-mail/news client (which of course Mozilla was derived from), albeit with a few extra features, of course, but not so many as to be overwhelming. The configuration uses a more straightforward and simpler navigation scheme, and one that easily allows for more configurable options if they add more features.
I liked using Netscape, and I like using Thunderbird.

Reply Score: 0

Outlook vs Thunderbird
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 22:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't see anything in those screens that would give anyone who uses Outlook a compelling reason to switch. Outlook has all the features I need and does what I want and does it well. My only nag was that it can't be minimized to the systray. However a tiny download (HideOE) fixed that.

Reply Score: 0

Both suffer from feature bloat:
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Nov 2005 22:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

On Win-2k/Me I use Popcorn for email and FreeAgent for text NG, although OE6 in dual-pane mode is fast and easy for surfing NG text, at least until it grabs a spam post with something weird attached to it. I really didn't see anything simple or interesting going on with T-Bird. News Rover has some good search features, but it's not free.

Reply Score: 0