Gmail Vs. Outlook
Rakesh Agrawal, President and CEO of Snapstream, decided to experiment switching from Microsoft Outlook to Google’s Gmail for all of his email, including business email. After six weeks, he’s written up his thoughts. Rakesh clearly has access to all of Microsoft’s toys (like Exchange), so the fact that he’s chosen to stick with Gmail says a lot about the quality of service Google offers.
So, how can Google address his caveats? The biggest seems to be an offline version of Gmail, something Google has not indicated it is developing. I think the Windows Live Mail Desktop solution is the way to go, designing a light, yet very well featured desktop email client that is clearly designed to work in conjunction with web-based email, not as a replacement. Such a solution is well within Google’s means, and, because of their less-is-more design philosophy, actually easier for Google than Microsoft.
Other issues: Sending email from other accounts can be handled better, either through using Gmail for Domains or a desktop client. Still, the regular email client can be used better. There are ways to play nice with spam filters while still letting professionals send work email throught Gmail without feeling embarressed.
Mobile Gmail doesn’t need the same features as Gmail, but it has got to replicate the behavior.
There’s no reason Google can’t offer unlimited email storage for $50 a year.
Gmail’s text editor should be replaced by something more robust. May I suggest… Writely?
More AJAX: Gmail should act more like Outlook, with AJAX windows within the client area, so you can open multiple emails at the same time. This would be a hugely complicated feature, but it would make Yahoo and Microsoft look like children.
How can Microsoft match the benefits Rakesh lists for Gmail?
Exchange Online: Your Exchange server should be able to publish to a Windows Live Mail interface, so you don’t need a client all the time. If Gmail can handle POP3 accounts, there’s no reason Exchange shouldn’t do web-based email.
Remove the clutter: Give me a better Outlook “Today” screen, containing all my unread email and events, ao I can read it, and be able to handle all this work from a single screen. While I need the full power of Outlook, I should be able to see and work on everything from one clean screen.
Spam filtering needs to get serious.
The other issues have been resolved for Outlook 2007, mostly. So, what do you think? If you have a team of world-class programmers and a huge budget, what would you have them do to Gmail, or to Outlook?
The offline version of Gmail already exists since gmail supports POP3/SMTP servicing, and thus any existing email client tool can store and send email with it. What’s really missing is a way to do this inside a web browser, so as to avoid any download and config.
Comment by Stephane Rodriguez | May 9, 2006
The Web-based Exchange client already exists in the form of Outlook Web Access. This has been in place for several years, our salesman have access to their email and calendar from any browser
Comment by David Burke | May 9, 2006
OWA, Outlook Web Access is an AJAX heavy and quite impressive inside the browser.
I wish people did more research.
Comment by Matt VB | May 9, 2006
I highly think this is a comparison. it feels like this user moved from an outlook client to gmail for ease of access versus a test between the two. exchange has a web client, but i get the impression this user finds is inefficient for his use and found that his personal email system (gmail) was more efficient.
Google desktop offers offline access to your email too, so might want to look into that. The text editor is great for a simple interface, I know I can connect via dial-up on the road and still receive comparable access times to broadband. Changing it to a robust interface like writely would potentially degrade the speed.
As far as making gmail act more like Outlook… I enjoy both interfaces, however Outlook is an enterprise application and thus has more features. In all reality it would have been better to compare the web interface for Outlook. Gmail still far exceeds the capabilities of any free webmail site by the mere fact all the features are currently free. Hotmail and Yahoo have free versions, but add pop3, more than 250 megs of space and other “free gmail features” and you need to shell out some $$$.
Would I like to see a corporate version of gmail, yes. Would I pay for it, definitely!
I wish we could all be CEO’s and take the time to test silly things like gmail vs outlook.
Comment by Jason M | May 9, 2006
Gmail Vs. Outlook
Rakesh Agrawal, President and CEO of Snapstream, decided to experiment switching from Microsoft Outlook to Google’s Gmail for all of his email, including business email. After six weeks, he’s written up his thoughts. Rakesh clearly has access to all o
Trackback by www.NewsTreeBlog.com | May 9, 2006
More AJAX: Gmail should act more like Outlook, with AJAX windows within the client area, so you can open multiple emails at the same time. This would be a hugely complicated feature, but it would make Yahoo and Microsoft look like children.
FYI, the yahoo beta has this feature — emails and compositions are opened in their own tabs.
Comment by Miles | May 9, 2006
I have both gmail and Outlook webmail open on my desktop all the time. Gmail would be vastly better if my friends and family would be forced to sign up, just as my colleagues are forced to use Outlook. My life would run more smoothly, and I’d feel all “integrated” and fuzzy inside.
Comment by Amy | May 9, 2006
Some good points all around. Thank god my readers know more about this stuff than I do…
I should do a series on Exchange, so I have a better idea of its capabilities. I wonder if Microsoft would help me in setting it up?
Miles, I was hoping that someone would design a system that opens emails in the same tab as the inbox, creating a complete virtual workspace. Not as a default, but as an option. Having emails in multiple tabls would drive me crazy. I have too many tabs as it is.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | May 9, 2006
GMail vs. Outlook/Exchange
Trackback by Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life | May 10, 2006
This “comparison” is just silly. They are two totally different products. It doesn’t even make sense. You could write on “using GMail in Outlook” which is actually a really good option for you, or anybody else for that matter. GMail is an email service with a web interface. Outlook is a desktop email client (with a bunch of other features). Totally different objective. Go ahead, nothing stops you from combining them to obtain a solution that’s more complete.
Comment by Weston | June 9, 2006
We have a couple of tutorials that help make Outlook work with AND like Gmail if anyone is interested.
Mark
http://www.cnxn.ca/NoFoldersTutorial.html
http://www.cnxn.ca/GmailMirror.html
Comment by mark | June 20, 2006
How about using both? There’s a great article/tutorial on mirroring your Outlook/Exchange email with your Gmail account here:
http://www.cnxn.ca/GmailMirror.html
For those that don’t have Outlook Webaccess capabilities, this is a great alternative… not to mention the free backup aspect of it.
Comment by Andy Kretzer | June 20, 2006