Talk:Outlook on the web/Archive 1

Untitled section

Can someone who knows please explain how this is different from Microsoft Outlook. The weblink to Microsoft describes a different product but it is not clear how exactly, to the unwashed nontechnical masses such as myself. Sabine's Sunbird 01:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Outlook is a program used to connect to a Microsoft Exchange Server. The server sometimes requires connection to the local area network to read or send emails and other sections. Outlook Web Access is a function of Microsoft Exchange Server to allow access from an internet browser, as if it were a webmail service. So, if there is a work or school network, you could use Outlook there, but from home, you would connect to the Outlook Web Access page using your browser.--Mccavity 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph about XMLHTTP sounds a bit like self-aggrandizing sales fluff, and it does not cite any sources to support the claims. -- a_user

Remove Outlook Express Link

I've removed the "See Also" link to Microsoft Outlook Express because it's not related in any way to OWA. I can see Outlook, as this is basically a web-browser substitute, but Outlook has nothing to do with MS Exchange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC-7)

Small amount of features

OWA looks like Outlook, but OWA is much simplified. Many basic features are missing. For 5+ years using (and administering) SquirrelMail, which I thought was very basic, I find OWA's basic UI substandard. (I think my employer is using Exchange 2003?) It's not even possible to do a simple e-mail search in OWA!

That is not true. And searching is much faster on OWA than in Outlook.

Also, moving (filing) messages is unnecessarily tedious in OWA.

Perhaps this article could mention how much is missing in OWA since OWA is often compared to Outlook. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.247.196.212 (talk) 15:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

OWA Light does have search

It was added recently, but it's definitely there. Mohrr (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate it

Outlook Web Access gives crappy browsers like Internet Explorer a better interface, which is just not right. They disable a lot of features, such as rich text formatting, in Firefox and more modern browsers. I say that Microsoft is out of their mind when it comes to creating web applications. They need to make Outlook Web Access ~~Light~~ available for all browsers except IE. User:Deathgleaner 03:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted non-disruptive version of user signature above. Franamax (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forward to gmail?

Does anyone know how to forward email from OWA to gmail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.164.73 (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion site for the encyclopedic article about OWA - support questions should be adressed elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.243.19.34 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

This article needs to be rewritten from scratch. It is incredibly out of date, has no reference to Exchange 2010 and to be honest has completely changed now anyway.

I will be happy to contribute to this. Lukes123 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite (again)

I still believe this page needs rewriting. The images are out of date and the headings are unstructured.

In fact, it might be better to merge this page with the main Microsoft Exchange Server page, as there really isn't a need for a separate article. Lukes123 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome support

From the article: ... however, Exchange 2010 performs checks on the operating system type to restrict Mac OS X and GNU/Linux users to Firefox or Safari, thereby making Google Chrome only officially compatible on the Windows operating system...

While the MS KB article this is referenced from still says this, the full interface works fine on my Chrome 10.0.648.151 on OS X 10.6.8 going to Exchange 2010... Fuzza409 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Oppose the Outlook Web App actually has plenty of coverage (at least I personally see it all the time on the web), the only problem is that this article is heavily outdated. I suggest that we should improve this article to reflect the changes the service(s) has/have been through. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think we are in the process of a complete restructure of all the Web Services Microsoft provides it is getting really close, if not quite yet. WikIan -(talk) 06:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the two of you are opposing quite the same thing. Look at the dates and the date of the insertion of the merger tag into the article. Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook on the web

Outlook.com (Microsoft Account) and Outlook Web App (O365 accounts) are now Outlook Mail. That together with Outlook Tasks, Outlook Calendar, and Outlook People are under one brand "Outlook on the web" Ians18 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ians18.

This not the first time you repeat this; so, for the not-first time, verification failed! Outlook.com is still Outlook.com from where I am standing.

If you are trying to log into Outlook.com using a Microsoft account associated with Office 365 account and keep ending up into Outlook on the web, that's your fault. Equally, I can try logging into Outlook on the web using my non-associated Microsoft account; Microsoft will send me to Outlook.com. You don't see me running around and claiming "OWA is now called Outlook.com"! Finally, I have investigated the source of this rumor, and it seems it is done by a user called "Ian S." on Neowin. Looks like your username a lot but I am not judging.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I should create a Outlook Mail page and merge Outlook.com and OWA into Outlook Mail? I just understood that it would be easier to merge a dated article (OWA) into Outlook.com (a much more detailed article). BTW, Neowin is a reliable source. Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean it's not true. There is no doubt about it, you are not in the preview. The preview has moved Outlook.com into Outlook Mail (branding wise) and onto the O365 infrastructure. It is no longer referred to as Outlook.com it is referred to as the Outlook.com preview, because it is for previous Outlook.com users. As you can clearly read from my sources.

Yes you are right, I have posted the Neowin screenshots, which details every bit of the new Outlook.com preview aka Outlook Mail. They have the same branding and infrastructure, so it should be in one article. Please look here, and you will see Outlook Mail in the images. Also see that is on limited preview roll-out so sorry you weren't invited to the party. Ians18 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it's in preview, it's best not to rename things just yet. Let's wait and see what happens when the new design and features launch officially for everyone. You never know, there might be yet another name! Cloudbound (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing OWA with Outlook for Microsoft account. OWA already has Outlook on the web turn on, it is out of preview. For MSA users, it is rolling out slowly because they are converting the backend to Office 365. I believe they won't rename something they already announced especially with the new MS CEO. In any case, this article's information (OWA) is completely out of date and confusing. It confusing OWA as being the web mail service and not the calendar and people service it has as well. It is for O365 and Microsoft Exchange. I believe this article is misinforming and should be changed. Ians18 (talk)

This discussion spans several articles. A discussion is currently held in Talk:Outlook.com § Discussion. Shouldn't we keep it centralized there? Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Ians18 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Outlook Web App with Outlook Tasks

Support. It is a part of Outlook Web App, so why does it have a separate article? There is WP:N and WP:SIZERULE to consider too. A merger solves both problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grudging Support Right now Microsoft is completely revamping its services. And Outlook Tasks is part of Outlook.com and O365/Exchange Server. So, yes, in the future I will support this merge once we get this Outlook on the web article updated.WikIan -(talk) 03:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stay neutral in this, but I have a question: How does a renovation justify ripping one article (Outlook on the web) into two and naming them after parts (Outlook on the web and Tasks) of the same thing? Fleet Command (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Having these two articles separate is like have two articles for Bill Gates, one titled "Bill" and the other "Gates". Tasks will never achieve considerable coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject its, even when Microsoft finishes this so-called revamping, when it does. Furthermore, using this alleged revamping as the reason is WP:CRYSTAL; we have to factor it in only and only when it happens, especially since it is unlikely to happen. Fleet Command (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely different than "Bill" and "Gates" Outlook on the web has many other components than just Outlook Tasks. WikIan -(talk)

Okay, FC; please change your example to "William Henry 'Bill' Gates the third"!

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, but that's still just a name. Outlook Tasks is not just a part of Office 365 or Exchange Server, but also Outlook.com. Since it is not really big enough to be an article, I changed my stance to support-ish. I will do the merge later. WikIan -(talk) 17:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trialware

@FleetCommand: What is a good representation of the licensing for Ootw? It is certainly not trialware because that would leave out Exchange Server and Office 365 users quite clearly.WikIan -(talk) 04:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The on-premises version that comes with Exchange is.

As for the Exchange Online and Office 365 customers, it is not licensed at all. They don't receive any form of software code.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did not receive a notification for your {{Ping}}. If you don't get it right the first time, you've missed your chance. Fleet Command (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand: Template:Infobox_software doesn't specifically say that only one URL is allowed. In addition, outlook.office365.com is the URL for Ootw in Office 365 and Outlook.com is the URL for Ootw in Outlook.com. You can check this by logging into either (your Outlook.com has to be updated to Ootw though) Office 365 users should have this rolled out already. So OneDrive and Delve, for example, do not use the URL Outlook.office365.com only Tasks, Mail, Calendar, Contacts. WikIan -(talk) 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even if the entire Wikipedia was filled with the sentence "No more than one URL please", people would still find one place that doesn't say it.

Also, your point of view is too narrow, Office 365-biased. You vehemently refuse to see the big picture. For the time being I am adamant to touch the article prose, not wanting to disrupt your good faith attempt to improve. But you don't seem to have plan or a neutral point of view. So, your good faith notwithstanding, whether I would contest your edits by a revert or not depends entirely on the quality of the result of your work. Fleet Command (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain in a neutral point of view. Give me a specific quote where I am biased in my edits. As a side note I clearly stated the url was only for Office 365 and the Outlook.com one for Outlook.com only. You are biased towards Exchange Server by only including the Exchange Server URL. You don't even acknowledge that Outlook.com is part of Ootw AND you haven't made any edits to add Exchange Server to the article (besides the URL).

Even if the entire Wikipedia was filled with the sentence "No more than one URL please", people would still find one place that doesn't say it. Is this your sorry answer to a person who is following the guidelines?You quote the guidelines constantly, and here I am quoting them to defend my good faith edits. We have no way of representing Ootw other than having multiple URLs in order to maintain an NPOV. IF they guidelines don't state against it, and I have yet to see a guideline that does, then multiple URLs is the best route to take. Remember WP:5P5. WikIan -(talk) 21:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikIan

"You don't even acknowledge that Outlook.com is part of Ootw". I don't mean to harass you through ad nauseam but I think it is established pretty solidly that, no, we don't consider Outlook.com a part of Ootw. Actually, now that my account has received an update, I know that it isn't. Sure, they have exchanged code and share infrastructure, but no, they are not the same thing. Actually, I am surprised as to how you consider Ootw's mail and contacts as separate entities while you consider Ootw and Outlook.com the same. And please do not forget: Ootw is also available as an on-premises offering despite its "on the web" part.

Also, FleetCommand is right; the infobox field is not supposed to contain more than one external link. Wikipedia apps and other software that consume Wikipedia contents regard it as such. I've seen first hand what fiasco they become when two links are included. In addition, WP:EL is very clear that with the exception of one official website link, Wikipedia is not supposed to have any external links of such kind.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your sorry answer to a person who is following the guidelines?

I would ask "what guideline?" but I don't mean to start a fight. So, let's have a deal: I leave this article alone for one year and you prove yourself by getting it to WP:GA status. The editors that have disputed your so far have done it before. ViperSnake151 has four GA articles. Codename Lisa has one GA and one FA articles. And even if you couldn't do it, one year without seeing me should be fun, right? Fleet Command (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving this article for a year is entirely up for you to decide. If that's what you want to do, fine. I am definitely not expecting this article to obtain the WP:GA or WP:FA status if I am the only one editing this article. However, with CL and other editors' help it is a possibility. Who knows?

Also Outlook.com is not Ootw, but Ootw is more than just "similar" to the preview. Ootw is a part of Outlook.com, as Microsoft defines it. It is similar to how PixelSense is the name for the new display technology on the Surface Pro 4, yet is shares no similarities to PixelSense, similar to how the new Groove Music shares nothing with Office Groove. In this particular case, it is quite different as both Outlook.com and Office 365/Exchange Server will share the same backend. See the Outlook help page and this article Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous quotation that say "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". (It is often incorrectly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twine.) You've been unrelentingly pushing this "Outlook.com is Ootw" point of view ad nauseam, along with the same links. You can always go back and re-study our comments to find out why we disagree.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CL, did you even read what I put? Outlook.com is not Ootw. Read those sources, which clearly back up what I am saying. I don't see how you even have an argument. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 21:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice save!

If anything, it made the discussion interesting. Good luck, then. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]