That is interesting! I will take a look on the MS site for the Virtual
PC and see how it goes. Not a perfect solution, but it just might
work.
Dab wrote:
There is a way you can cheat it.

On one of your workstations - or better, a server if you have one, install a
copy of MS virtual PC (now free). Set the virtual PC to start up
automatically (using your start up folder), then Install Outlook on the
Virtual PC and have Outlook start automatically on the Virtual PC.

You can then connect to the virtual PC (and the copy of Outlook running on
it) from anywhere on your network using a Remote Desktop Connection directly
to the virtual PC.

Of course this won't work unless the Virtual PC (and the host PC that its
running on) are running when you need to access Outlook from one of your
network workstations (you can get around this by leaving that workstation
running all the time). In addition, there are performance issues with
running Virtual PC (ie: it can be slow - more horsepower is better), and
drag and drop stuff won't work between your desktop and a remote desktop
session, but you can set up drive shares (or folder shares) to pass data
back and forth between all the PC's on your network (including the virtual
PC).

You could just skip the virtual PC part and install Outlook on a workstation
and access that workstation directly using a remote desktop session. That's
probably the best option if you have a spare PC that no one else uses.
Using the virtual PC allows the host workstation to be used by others while
a remote desktop session is active to the virtual PC.

Note that you'll still be limited somewhat; although you'll be able to get
to Outlook from any workstation, only one user at a time can have that
access.

Make sense?

--
Dab

Cut off: yourhead to respond

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know, I know, www.slipstick.com. But I guess what I really want
to get across is just how frustrating it is to have to, in this day and
age, where more and more folks are using home networks, that we Outlook
users have to go to third-party programs to accomplish the sharing that
should be built in to Outlook. This feature really hinders the
potential productivity that Outlook offers. So many of us are over the
learning curve of the sickly sweet GUI of AOL and the narrow reach of
MS Works, and are ready to ride the technological wave of the now, and
of the future. I want to have the ability to share email, scheduling,
contacts, etc., over my home network without becoming an IT
professional in my home (using Exchange ) and without having to find
some other PIM; I really love Outlook!

So my question for you MVPs is, can I do this with Outlook? Will I
ever be able to? Is the MS Live going to be this kind of an option?
Did I vent in the proper forum? I have done my research in the
groups here, and I would like some more insight on why MS has not
developed this possibility more. Thanks!!!

Michelle
(SeaShel)

However regarding to your posts you have a lot of restrictions as I can
see. It might work the last proposition. I will look at it too. Thanks
mate. Now I use the add on for MS Outlook in my work.. and I do not
have complaints, but as you stated above it would be nice to have a
simple solution to share Outlook folders in a local network. I think
Outlook 2007 will have this feature or already has in a beta version.
Meanwhile I suggest to try what I am using. It is the plug in.... I
think worth the money I paid. hmmm where to look... oh he
http://shareo.4team.biz/?pcode=6083101948f43tk

raše:
That is interesting! I will take a look on the MS site for the Virtual
PC and see how it goes. Not a perfect solution, but it just might
work.
Dab wrote:
There is a way you can cheat it.

On one of your workstations - or better, a server if you have one, install a
copy of MS virtual PC (now free). Set the virtual PC to start up
automatically (using your start up folder), then Install Outlook on the
Virtual PC and have Outlook start automatically on the Virtual PC.

You can then connect to the virtual PC (and the copy of Outlook running on
it) from anywhere on your network using a Remote Desktop Connection directly
to the virtual PC.

Of course this won't work unless the Virtual PC (and the host PC that its
running on) are running when you need to access Outlook from one of your
network workstations (you can get around this by leaving that workstation
running all the time). In addition, there are performance issues with
running Virtual PC (ie: it can be slow - more horsepower is better), and
drag and drop stuff won't work between your desktop and a remote desktop
session, but you can set up drive shares (or folder shares) to pass data
back and forth between all the PC's on your network (including the virtual
PC).

You could just skip the virtual PC part and install Outlook on a workstation
and access that workstation directly using a remote desktop session. That's
probably the best option if you have a spare PC that no one else uses.
Using the virtual PC allows the host workstation to be used by others while
a remote desktop session is active to the virtual PC.

Note that you'll still be limited somewhat; although you'll be able to get
to Outlook from any workstation, only one user at a time can have that
access.

Make sense?

--
Dab

Cut off: yourhead to respond

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know, I know, www.slipstick.com. But I guess what I really want
to get across is just how frustrating it is to have to, in this day and
age, where more and more folks are using home networks, that we Outlook
users have to go to third-party programs to accomplish the sharing that
should be built in to Outlook. This feature really hinders the
potential productivity that Outlook offers. So many of us are over the
learning curve of the sickly sweet GUI of AOL and the narrow reach of
MS Works, and are ready to ride the technological wave of the now, and
of the future. I want to have the ability to share email, scheduling,
contacts, etc., over my home network without becoming an IT
professional in my home (using Exchange ) and without having to find
some other PIM; I really love Outlook!

So my question for you MVPs is, can I do this with Outlook? Will I
ever be able to? Is the MS Live going to be this kind of an option?
Did I vent in the proper forum? I have done my research in the
groups here, and I would like some more insight on why MS has not
developed this possibility more. Thanks!!!

Michelle
(SeaShel)

ShareO is one of the programs I've been looking at; clearly it's one of
the more popularly used ones. Thanks for the suggestion. --M
Jasy wrote:
However regarding to your posts you have a lot of restrictions as I can
see. It might work the last proposition. I will look at it too. Thanks
mate. Now I use the add on for MS Outlook in my work.. and I do not
have complaints, but as you stated above it would be nice to have a
simple solution to share Outlook folders in a local network. I think
Outlook 2007 will have this feature or already has in a beta version.
Meanwhile I suggest to try what I am using. It is the plug in.... I
think worth the money I paid. hmmm where to look... oh he
http://shareo.4team.biz/?pcode=6083101948f43tk

raše:
That is interesting! I will take a look on the MS site for the Virtual
PC and see how it goes. Not a perfect solution, but it just might
work.
Dab wrote:
There is a way you can cheat it.

On one of your workstations - or better, a server if you have one, install a
copy of MS virtual PC (now free). Set the virtual PC to start up
automatically (using your start up folder), then Install Outlook on the
Virtual PC and have Outlook start automatically on the Virtual PC.

You can then connect to the virtual PC (and the copy of Outlook running on
it) from anywhere on your network using a Remote Desktop Connection directly
to the virtual PC.

Of course this won't work unless the Virtual PC (and the host PC that its
running on) are running when you need to access Outlook from one of your
network workstations (you can get around this by leaving that workstation
running all the time). In addition, there are performance issues with
running Virtual PC (ie: it can be slow - more horsepower is better), and
drag and drop stuff won't work between your desktop and a remote desktop
session, but you can set up drive shares (or folder shares) to pass data
back and forth between all the PC's on your network (including the virtual
PC).

You could just skip the virtual PC part and install Outlook on a workstation
and access that workstation directly using a remote desktop session. That's
probably the best option if you have a spare PC that no one else uses.
Using the virtual PC allows the host workstation to be used by others while
a remote desktop session is active to the virtual PC.

Note that you'll still be limited somewhat; although you'll be able to get
to Outlook from any workstation, only one user at a time can have that
access.

Make sense?

--
Dab

Cut off: yourhead to respond

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know, I know, www.slipstick.com. But I guess what I really want
to get across is just how frustrating it is to have to, in this day and
age, where more and more folks are using home networks, that we Outlook
users have to go to third-party programs to accomplish the sharing that
should be built in to Outlook. This feature really hinders the
potential productivity that Outlook offers. So many of us are over the
learning curve of the sickly sweet GUI of AOL and the narrow reach of
MS Works, and are ready to ride the technological wave of the now, and
of the future. I want to have the ability to share email, scheduling,
contacts, etc., over my home network without becoming an IT
professional in my home (using Exchange ) and without having to find
some other PIM; I really love Outlook!

So my question for you MVPs is, can I do this with Outlook? Will I
ever be able to? Is the MS Live going to be this kind of an option?
Did I vent in the proper forum? I have done my research in the
groups here, and I would like some more insight on why MS has not
developed this possibility more. Thanks!!!

Michelle
(SeaShel)

Here's an interesting article that does provide insight into why I am
doomed
http://tinyurl.com/l33yb

"Microsoft Brings the Works Online"
The software goliath squares off with tiny online competitors, Google,
and-possibly-itself

You might think the folks at Microsoft (MSFT ) have bigger fish to fry
than a tiny Bay Area startup named ThinkFree. The company, which offers
Web-based word-processing and spreadsheet programs, counts about 60,000
active users, none of whom even pay for the service yet. But there on
page six of Microsoft's annual 10-K filing with the Securities &
Exchange Commission, submitted in August, Microsoft lists ThinkFree as
a rival to its $11.8 billion Office business, used by more than 400
million people around the globe. "It's official now," laughs ThinkFree
CEO TJ Kang. "We're definitely on their radar."

No kidding. Microsoft, which scoffed at the rise of online alternatives
to Office, isn't looking the other way anymore. BusinessWeek has
learned that the software giant is developing a strategy to put some of
the technology from its Works software-the barebones word-processing
and spreadsheet program that often ships with new consumer PCs-at the
heart of a new online offering.

The company is working on plans to offer a free version hosted on its
Office Live Web site, as well as a subscription flavor with more bells
and whistles. While it's not a done deal, the company is throwing a lot
of manpower at the project. "It's not a small number (of people working
on the project) to be sure," says Chris Capossela, vice-president for
Microsoft's Business Division Product Management Group. "This is core.
We want to win this space."

WORKS ONLINE. Microsoft is still working out the details for its
online offering. And nothing will likely be decided until after its
flagship productivity software, Microsoft Office 2007, ships early next
year (see BusinessWeek.com, 11/18/05, "Microsoft's New Word:
Accountability"). But after that, Microsoft will likely put tweaked
versions of the Works spreadsheet, word-processing, and project
management programs on the Web.

It's a delicate dance for Microsoft, though. The company is keen to
compete with new offerings from Google (GOOG) and others that provide
free productivity applications online. But offering a rich set of
services could undermine its lucrative Office hegemony.

The services will be designed to help consumers share documents they
create and collaborate on projects with friends and colleagues, rather
than just e-mailing files around. Parents can post soccer schedules for
the kids. Small businesses can create customer contact lists for their
employees. The Microsoft brass sees it as filling a niche the company's
PC offerings can't touch. "The sharing scenario that the Internet
offers us is an awesome opportunity to do things we aren't doing well
today," Capossela says.

RISK OF CANNIBALIZATION. Bringing Works functionality to the Web is a
tricky proposition for the software giant that threatens an existing
business-with no guarantees that the new one will replace lost
revenue. To see where Microsoft is headed, look at Office Live. That
service, still in testing, offers companies Web hosting and e-mail with
a personalized domain name. There is a free version, with five e-mail
accounts, that's paid for with advertising served up by Microsoft. And
Office Live offers a subscription version, which includes 50 e-mail
accounts at a monthly cost of $29.95 once the trial period ends (see
BusinessWeek.com, 9/13/06, "Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?"). With
online word processing and spreadsheets, Microsoft would likely let
Netizens choose from basic versions available for free and supported by
ads, or subscription services with more robust features.

While there's some risk of cannibalizing Works sales, the bigger fear
is draining users from Office. While the company doesn't break out
Works sales, Goldman Sachs (GS ) analyst Rick Sherlund believes that
the retail sales of Works, at $49.95 a pop, are scant and the licensing
fees from computer makers-which he estimates are between 50 cents and
$2 a copy-don't add up to much, even when multiplied by the tens of
millions of PCs that ship with it each year. But Microsoft will tread
lightly with its online offering for fear of consumers using it instead
of Office, which starts at $149 (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/16/06,
"Microsoft's Office-Come-Lately").

FENDING OFF GOOGLE. Sherlund discounts that danger, saying Microsoft
faces a much bigger problem trying to unseat Google. The Web kingpin
generates more revenue from its search and other businesses than
Microsoft does online, and threatens to extend that lead with new
word-processing and spreadsheet services. To counter that, Sherlund
believes Microsoft should go even farther than it's contemplating and
offer much of the rich Office functionality online. That would be
costly, but would put Google on the defensive. "You need to be
aggressive in dealing with Google," Sherlund says. "Don't tie your
hands behind your back. Come out swinging. Embrace the new model."

Such a strategy would only put at risk Microsoft's sales of Office to
consumers, Sherlund figures, since businesses are typically reluctant
to put corporate documents online. That amounts to roughly 6% of
Microsoft's annual earnings-about $1 billion in the last fiscal
year-money better spent putting Google at a disadvantage.

For now, that seems unlikely. But even if it's not the giant step some
think Microsoft should take, there's little doubt that Google
Spreadsheets-and ThinkFree-are about to get some new competition.


wrote:

So my question for you MVPs is, can I do this with Outlook? Will I
ever be able to? Is the MS Live going to be this kind of an option?
Did I vent in the proper forum? I have done my research in the
groups here, and I would like some more insight on why MS has not
developed this possibility more. Thanks!!!

Michelle
(SeaShel)

There are some useful online browser based platforms which can dill
with most sort of document types and also keep the documents available
all over the world. It still haven't full functionality of a word
processor, but does all the basic things you will need. See
http://sanderbold.blogspot.com/2006/...documents.html
for more information.

Regards,
Vish

If any of you are still around, I had an idea, any reason it won't
work?

Create a unique email address for each computer using Outlook.
Configure Outlook to Send/Receive only that machine's email and not the
other ones, since Outlook won't know which machine you are on. Then
each time you create a new Appointment, choose Accounts, set it to send
from that machine's unique address, and then "Invite Attendees" to send
it to the other machines. Each machine using Outlook will receive any
new Appointments, and must "Accept" to put it in the Calendar. Changes
will be Updated and sent out again automatically. The Contact entries
can be forwarded to the other user email addresses

The only down side I see to this is that an Attendee cannot change the
Appointment (am I right about that)?

I'm trying it today and it seems ok so far...am I missing something
that might be a dealbreaker? If not, I am one happy woman today!

Michelle


wrote:
I know, I know, www.slipstick.com. But I guess what I really want
to get across is just how frustrating it is to have to, in this day and
age, where more and more folks are using home networks, that we Outlook
users have to go to third-party programs to accomplish the sharing that
should be built in to Outlook. This feature really hinders the
potential productivity that Outlook offers. So many of us are over the
learning curve of the sickly sweet GUI of AOL and the narrow reach of
MS Works, and are ready to ride the technological wave of the now, and
of the future. I want to have the ability to share email, scheduling,
contacts, etc., over my home network without becoming an IT
professional in my home (using Exchange ) and without having to find
some other PIM; I really love Outlook!

So my question for you MVPs is, can I do this with Outlook? Will I
ever be able to? Is the MS Live going to be this kind of an option?
Did I vent in the proper forum? I have done my research in the
groups here, and I would like some more insight on why MS has not
developed this possibility more. Thanks!!!

Michelle
(SeaShel)