Why is the "New" Outlook for Windows client so awful...deliberately???

Anonymous
2024-02-26T17:21:00+00:00

While I believe I understand some of the reasoning behind the marginally improved "New" Outlook while lamenting the overall deprecated experience - namely, an effort to normalize the look and feel across the desktop, mobile and web versions - the path taken is regressive in nature, at least for those of us who've long relied upon the desktop variant to manage much of their eMail, task and scheduling affairs.

I've been comfortable with the working knowledge that detailed work associated with eMail, tasks and scheduling has been the province of the desktop client, while the mobile and web versions offered very functional and not as detailed abilities.

Now, after having lived with the "new" Outlook desktop client for months now, I can conclude that the 'improvements' to this client when compared to its current and soon former versions is far less capable and far more mobile/web like in function - overall, a deprecated experience.

One notable issue is the mere fact that one can seemingly no longer remove attachments directly from an eMail. While this may seem trivial to some, having attachments to eMail AND the ability to download same simply increases the already arduous task of managing one's documents, while increasing the overall storage footprint (since these could now be stored in at least two places), which could represent increased subscription costs over time.

Microsoft, PLEASE revisit this intended direction for the desktop client, and instead consider introducing some of the long-favored desktop client functions into the mobile and web variants, in turn genuinely introducing "new" functionality all around.

Outlook | Windows | New Outlook for Windows | For home

Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.

0 comments

124 answers

Sort by: Newest
Most helpful Newest Oldest
  1. Anonymous
    2024-10-05T19:46:06+00:00

    There is no excuse for what they have done to Outlook. None.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  2. Anonymous
    2024-10-05T15:12:40+00:00

    I have a gmail account and I have to use the new Outlook because the old one will not allow gmail use. My subscription renewal for 365 2 days ago has led me to lose about 3 hours trying to make it all work. However. the new Outlook is truly awful and is far from an improvement on what we had before. I understand the need for new features and upgrades but this version is a total re-write by people who do not know what their customers want. There are so many things wrong with it, I do not have room here to list them. Microsoft. please sort out this mess asap.

    Was this answer helpful?

    1 person found this answer helpful.
    0 comments
  3. Anonymous
    2024-10-04T08:37:59+00:00

    I have tried to move to new outlook a number of times and every time I find I return to the older outlook desktop client due to missing functionality. Everything from the loss of Notes (now it is only accessible as a separate app on windows outside of outlook) to even the loss of a status bar for email count etc. The UX has suffered due to this dumbing down of this critical application.

    Overall the experience is sub standard. One of the poorest "upgrade" releases I have ever seen from Microsoft.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  4. Anonymous
    2024-10-04T02:08:19+00:00

    Another problem I'm having is a deluge of junk mail since I had to use New Outlook. Whatever filter Microsoft has, it ain't working. Reporting and blocking individual messages is essentially useless - the user has to be able to block domains and international codes.

    Is there a solution to this problem folks?

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  5. Anonymous
    2024-10-04T01:21:01+00:00

    Ronnie, thanks for trying to help mate.

    With New Outlook the issue seems to be that if the incoming message is in plain text then my reply, in HTML, won't attach my signature.

    Yesterday I had two messages from the same person, one sent from their work and one sent from home. The first in plain text, the second in HTML. I could attach my signature to my reply to the second, but not the first..

    My work around was to reply to the first in plain text, add my signature (which came across in plain text) and then change the font in the signature to my usual Times New Roman and 14pt.

    It may seem to some to be a pedantic problem. But as an octogenarian my tired old eyes are greatly helped by a font with seriphs and at least 14pt.

    Why do we have to go through all this? Well, because the new program was not road-tested by a global cohort of users with different technical abilities, needs and preferences. Fortunately I caught the "computer wave" through work, but not the "phone wave." Older people without family to help them are marginalised by all this stuff. They will wait patiently at the checkout queue in the supermarket because they can't cope with the self-checkout. And, of course, many have English as only their second language. Microsoft just didn't think.

    Was this answer helpful?

    1 person found this answer helpful.
    0 comments