I am just at a complete loss as to why I can’t sort emails in Outlook by the sender’s domain name. As much as I use searching and search folders, as well as color-coded rules, I use sorting once I get to a point where I have a reasonable number of results to look at. And I am simply fed up after 7+ years of using Outlook everyday that I have never been able to sort by the sender’s domain name. I have even gone through the trouble of writing my own formula to display the sender’s domain, but I can’t sort by my own formula field…
So, I want to know 2 things:
1. Is there anyone else that finds this to be as annoying as me (and/or would find this feature to be incredibly useful)?
2. Does anyone know of a way to make this happen (yes, I will even pay money for code, instructions, or even to have an add-in built)?
I happen to think there is simply no better email client on the market, but this one little feature request has eluded me for years.
This one drove me crazy for a while…and the solution is even wilder. So hopefully, this will help someone.
If you are working on PowerPoint slides and you find that your words are somehow splitting onto new lines, you can follow the below steps to correct this.
- Close PowerPoint
- Navigate to Start –> Programs –> Microsoft Office –> Microsoft Office Tools –> Microsoft Office Language Settings
- Add Japanese (don’t ask why, just do it)
- Navigate to the slide master. Navigate to Line Spacing (or Line Breaks) in your menu (or ribbon)
- You will notice a tab for Asian Language support. Uncheck the second check-box (Allow Latin text to wrap in the middle of a word).
- You’re all set.
- Navigate to Start –> Programs –> Microsoft Office –> Microsoft Office Tools –> Microsoft Office Language Settings and remove Japanese if you’d like.
Taken straight from the SP2 documentation:
“Report model generation from Oracle data sources that run on version 184.108.40.206 or later is supported. You can generate Oracle-based models by using Report Manager, Management Studio, or Model Designer.”
This is huge and wonderful news. We were connecting SQL Server to Oracle, and then creating models off of the SQL Server tables to accomplish this. Needless to say, we didn’t do too much of this. And perhaps more needless to say, we will be using the feature heavily. I didn’t like that it was not included in the original release of SSRS 2005, but I guess it is one of those things you really appreciate more since you didn’t have it in the first place. Now to test how well it works…I’m assuming it’ll be fine like most everything we have experienced with SSRS.
- Web-based email
- Not made for access other than the web
- Some HTTP accounts can be checked given the right client tool (like Outlook can check Hotmail)
- Not made for keeping multiple computers/devices and web in sync
- Generally, mail is downloaded from the server upon checking it (unless you use a tool like Outlook which has the ability to leave it on the server)
- Even if you leave messages on the server, if you delete on remote device, it will not delete on the server (unless you have a client tool like Outlook which will give you some options)
- If you send from remote device, it is not pushed to a sent items folders on the server
- Only brings messages down in the Inbox (not sub-folders)
- No good push capability for mobile devices (as of this writing)
- POP is low cost
- Most personal email accounts use POP (i.e. Gmail)
- Keeps multiple computers/devices and web in sync
- Mail is left on the server when checked
- Inbox and sub-folders are brought down to client machine/device
- Push mail available on mobile devices, but many complain of poor support
- Newer than POP
- Catching on among personal users who do not have Exchange
- The most robust email platform
- Mail is kept on the server
- Allows calendar, tasks, notes, etc. in addition to email
- Allows group collaboration of calendars, etc. when used in a group environment
- Excellent about keeping everything (PCs/mobile devices/web) in sync
- Push email for mobile devices (Blackberry and non-Blackberry with Exchange ActiveSync)
- Pretty much the standard for medium size and enterprise email/collaboration
- Gaining popularity among small businesses and personal users as it becomes more affordable
…maybe, one day, I’ll turn this into a more complete matrix of features to allow for generic comparison. But I will note that there is a different connotation, a different aura that doesn’t fit into a particular feature list about each of these. For now, I will suggest that you should use Exchange since you are a blog reader of mine and are therefore technically-savvy, business-savvy, and/or someone who copies what I do since I know what I’m doing.
Update on 7/15/10: I don’t have much time to maintain or update old posts like this, but did want to add that Gmail (and Google Apps) support IMAP and also now support Exchange Active Sync capabilities for certain devices (like the iPhone, but not Outlook unless you have Google Apps Premier Edition). I should also add that I have switched over to Google’s email services at some point last year for a variety of reasons (but mainly for the TCO benefits and wanting to verify the hype). I’ve been pretty happy, but I might consider going back to Exchange one day since I still feel it is the best service. Having good choices is always nice — a little education and a positive attitude is what creates email success, not the technology.
I hope Microsoft is not trying to do with Office 2007 what many software companies have done with so many other products: confuse the purchasing community. Well, here is a little insight with some quick info for those of you who are trying to figure it all out:
Compare features included within Office 2007 Standard, Small Business, and Professional:
Compare products included within the various Office 2007 Suites:
Compare the prices for the various Office 2007 offerings:
Good luck…you might need it. But hopefully, the above will get you there faster.
Okay, everyone should take the “Yahoo Challenge”: try to find something using Google, and then take the same search term and try with Yahoo. Report on which engine gave you better and more pertinent results. I have to say, I am getting less quality with Google these days which has left me to try Yahoo and MSN from time-to-time — they actually are quite a bit better sometimes.
I am a pretty big Google fan (and I’m sure they will come up with another huge revenue stream like they did with AdWords), but Yahoo! et al are coming out with some really nice, user-friendly offerings that are worth noting. And perhaps more importantly, the perception (and perhaps reality, since in business, they are no different), is that Google is not making as many strides as Yahoo!/Microsoft on their core search engine offering.
My opinion: Google will need to hit it fairly big on their next revenue stream bet or we will see them take a hit.
In some cases, I just don’t like the field-by-field logging when creating an audit trail for my database tables. While it might be needed in some cases (and it might make sense), most of the time, I am find that a simple audit table that stores an entire record of fact data is more useful and easier to manage for reporting, etc.
So, instead of a generic audit table that captures all old and new values for many tables, I prefer creating an audit table for each of my important fact tables. Drop me a line if you are struggling with how to implement auditing (on Oracle, SQL Server, or MySQL) and we can chat.
The release date for Office 2007 is finally here…November 7, 2006. I believe many enterprises will find new features in this version of the Office System to be beneficial. The introduction of the “ribbon” for navigation is a new concept, and one of the first fairly major UI improvements Microsoft has made to the Office Suite in many years.
Along with the client tools, the server technologies offered in this version, including SharePoint and Project Server, may also be nice surprises to large organizations.
This was an interesting play. I assumed Oracle would look to get into the OS game at some point, but I didn’t anticipate this particular play.
For those of you who don’t know, Oracle is now offering support for Red Hat Linux since they feel they have a better infrastructure and ability to offer the kind of support enterprises are looking for from their OS vendor; of course, this means Oracle thinks Red Hat is not currently offering this level of support and/or is not capable of doing so in the near future.
Of course, this begs the question: “why doesn’t Oracle just buy Red Hat?”. Well, who’s to say they didn’t try? It seems reasonable that a buy out was explored to some extent and it just didn’t seem like the best option (either due to price or due to the idea that this strategy might prove more useful to Oracle). Why not just take away a good chunk of Red Hat’s revenue stream; they will either go belly-up or make it much more of a bargain for a buy out at that point.
In either case, I think it certainly seems Oracle is getting into an arena that is incredibly interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised if we will see “Oracle Linux” in the not-too-distant future, but then again, there may be another option that proves more profitable and beneficial than that which will be discovered. In either case, I think we can safely welcome Oracle into the OS market, as they have positioned themselves squarely inside it. I’ll be watching carefully as we see what happens to Red Hat as a company, Linux as an enterprise OS, and even Microsoft with Windows (XP, Vista, and Server products).