Is Outlook for Mac better than stand alone apps?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by I'mBrian, Jun 15, 2013.

  1. I'mBrian macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
    #1
    I'm new to the Mac world. I previously used the PC version of Outlook. Now I have a MacBook Pro and am using Outlook for Mac 2011, which is missing loads of stuff from the pc version. I've tried 100 different calendaring/tasks apps to replace outlook, but with no success.

    A friend recently told me that, missing options notwithstanding, Outlook for Mac is still the Mercedes of email/calendaring/task management and I'm out trying to find a Kia to replace it.

    Is this true? Is Outlook for Mac really top of the line for its functionality?
     
  2. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #2
    Depends what functionality you're looking for.
    If you're trying to integrate with an enterprise Exchange environment, Outlook is by far the best.
     
  3. I'mBrian thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
    #3
    I am on an Exchange server with other folks at my business. Thanks.
     
  4. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #4
    I'd agree if you are looking for full functionality under exchange, Outlook 2011 is good. I use it daily.

    Another option is for you to install Windows under Parallels or VMWare and then run Windows Outlook. You can run in unity mode, and running it that way you have your familiar Outlook running inside OS X.

    Its kind of an expensive option but you may find other uses for Windows as well.
     
  5. I'mBrian thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
    #5
    The rest of the office uses pcs. If I buy parallels, I won't need to also buy office, right? We can take our existing MS Office licenses and load MS Office right on top of parallels. I hope that's right.
     
  6. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #6
    Exactly - you may find the only additional expense is Parallels. Your business site license for Windows/Office should cover the rest.
     
  7. I'mBrian thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
  8. CylonGlitch macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #8
    For office applications, he may be better off using Crossover. It doesn't require windows, runs faster, and the apps come up much more rapidly. I use it for Visio and Powerpoint, works quite well and the apps are natively supported by Crossover so they are easy to install and get up and running.
     
  9. takeshi74, Jun 17, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2013

    takeshi74 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    #9
    There's no true/false to it. It's a subjective matter so the answer you get depends on who you ask. A lot of people here don't like Outlook 2011. It's what I prefer. YMMV. It's no different in the Windows world. Outlook isn't a "Mercedes" (and not everyone prefers a Mercedes to begin with) to everyone. Instead of using useless analogies, work on selecting what suits you.

    What's missing that you need? That would be a more productive discussion as others could make recommendations. Don't just assume that your notion of better is the same as everyone else. Better is always highly subjective, regardless of topic. Make sure you're very specific about what you mean when any time you use the word.

    You'd need to confirm with your specific licensing agreement. You'd need a Windows license and an Office license.
     
  10. designs216 macrumors 65816

    designs216

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Down the rabbit hole
    #10
    I don't think Outlook runs as well on OSX as Win7 but I'm happy to have the option so can take advantage of most of the features of Exchange and I don't have to spend time learning a new app. Sometimes I think the Mac versions of Office are intentionally knee-capped but then again, I hardly use a third of the features even in the Windows environment.
     
  11. jlc1978 macrumors 68000

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #11
    While I have used Crossover I've found it to be somewhat iffy at times and ultimately went back to Parallels. I've never had any speed issues in Parallels; I find it runs my Office apps as fast as my Windows laptop.
     
  12. BayouTiger macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #12
    I tried using the separate components and while the e-mail worked fine. Address Book and iCal were just not up to par for me. I hope the new apps in Mavericks is better. I would love to get rid of Outlook, though I still use Excel and Word, so I still need Office, though I would likely never buy the next version. I have another light user that is usind the core apps and openoffice and he is doing fine.
     
  13. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #13
    Agreed with you on satisfaction with parallels. I've never tried Crossover but for some reason free always kind of scared me when it comes to a VM. I know it shouldn't but in that case it did.
     
  14. CylonGlitch macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #14
    Crossover doesn't require windows, and thus you don't need to boot windows to get to the applications; it makes the apps appear as native OSX apps. They run faster (which, for Office isn't much of an issue) and are actually better integrated into the OS. But they are harder to setup.
     
  15. jlc1978 macrumors 68000

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #15
    I realize Crossover is based on WINE and essentially creates a "translation layer" that creates compatibility between the Windows program and OSX. While it works well in many cases, there are issues and glitches which may or may not impact usability. I've used Crossover and when it works well it is quite nice; but they certainly don't appear as native apps any more than Parallels does running in Convergence mode. As for booting Windows; you do it once and then simply suspend the VM so startup time is at worst maybe 10 seconds and not really an issue, for me at least.

    I can't comment on the speed issues other to say I've never noticed any difference between Crossover and Parallels; but as I said I don't run games or other programs that are graphics / processor heavy.

    Crossover, and its free counterpart, WINE, is a good solution in many cases but I find a VM a more robust solution. The big downside to a VM is it takes up a chunk of HD space; something Crossover / WINE doesn't do and is certainly a useful benefit.

    In the end, it comes down to what works best for the person using the app.
     
  16. CylonGlitch macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #16
    In the end it comes down to what is best for the task as hand. Office type applications, Crossover works very well with. Gaming, it is really hit or miss, often somethings work, somethings don't. With a VM (I have both Parallels and VMWare Fusion, one for home and one for work) it will work, basically the same as a PC. But yes, the performance overhead is much higher. You do need more memory, more disk space, and more processor power for a VM. But in some cases that doesn't matter, in others, you want every ounce of performance.

    Just use the right tool for the job.
     

Share This Page