3 ms·
They should have used the third outlook they didn't know about... Outlook, Outlook (new), and the well-hidden Outlook (classic) that actually works.
by bigbuppo 7mo ago
They should have used the third outlook they didn't know about... Outlook, Outlook (new), and the well-hidden Outlook (classic) that actually works.
- cyanydeez 7mo agoThat outlook was part of the ablative outlook armor thats suppose to burn off on reentry
- cebert 7mo agoDo you have a source for that? I don’t see what impact consumer email software would have with the composition of the heat shield.
- anonymars 7mo agoI believe this one would fall under "incongruity theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor#Incongruity_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor#Incongruity_...
- john_strinlai 7mo agoits a joke, no sources required
- esafak 7mo agoHe's saying it's bulky junk that's best torched.
- NortySpock 7mo agoWell "Outlook (new)" finally stopped OOM-ing on my very normal-sized inbox, so I went back to using it over Outlook Classic... Can't say I notice a difference much these days. (Not a residential inbox, the "I work in IT" sized inbox with all the email alerts about jobs failing...)
- greatquux 7mo ago"Classic" was never very stable to begin with, and seems to be getting less stable every monthly patch cycle. Decades-old problems remain unfixed, and "new" Outlook still doesn't have all the features of the old one (or compatibility with in-house programs that use MAPI integration, or COM add-ins). "Classic" must have been such a spaghetti-fied mess that they thought they couldn't actually fix it at all and needed to replace it. But I'm not sure that's really the solution... is it ever?