你知道时间管理者和时间消费者之间的最大区别在哪里？？

时间管理者总是随身携带一个小本，一只笔，而时间消费者只带一个脑子就足够了。呵呵～～

你可以用这个规则去审视一下你周围的人，看看是否准确。

为什么笔纸如此受到时间管理者的亲睐呢？

GTDLife.cn认为：因为笔纸可以为时间管理者做任何事。

任务分解

任务清单

行动清单

思维导图（头脑风暴）

收集篮

便条

等等。。。

具体怎么做，我就不说了，大家自己有自己的方法，我想归纳一下是笔纸的什么特性，让他能够做这么多事情，并且得到大家的亲睐。

最快速的工具，不遗漏任何Idea

笔纸是目前为止大家所公认的最快的记录工具，我们在头脑风暴，或者灵光一闪的时候，是没有时间去打开电脑，或者打开软件，或者打开手机去挨个敲字，大脑在那个时候就像是网住了一只蝴蝶，稍微漏出一点缝，那只蝴蝶就是翩翩飞去，只留下你后悔不已。以我们几十年的写字修炼，已经将这个技能联系到了炉火纯青的地步，写字的时候完全不需要任何思考，大脑的占用率接近0%，这样可以保证你不遗漏任何Idea

可随时撕下单独页

当你要给别人留便条，或者写个电话号码给别人的时候，比如说，你在吃饭时看到一个心仪的姑娘，想跟她说句话，或者要她的电话号码，这时候其他的数码工具都不太好使（除非007用的工具），只有在纸上真诚的写下一段话，然后让服务员递给她。

修改方便

只要你自己能看的懂，你可以随时的、随意的修改你记录的东西，觉得不好就修改，如果是用数码产品的话，打开、关闭、打开、关闭，一会就没电了，呵呵

携带方便

善于利用时间的人总是会抓住零碎的时间，比如说在长途车上，飞机场，火车上，这时候你的高级工具肯定是发挥不了作用的，甚至怕偷都不敢拿出来，而笔纸则不一样，随时随地，随心所欲。

当然，和数码产品比，纸质工具也有自己的缺点，至于什么缺点，大家可以在这里和超过800个时间管理者一起探讨，成长。

标签：软件, gtd, 时间管理

相关内容

• 介绍一个可以用于(10+2)*5方法的计时器 (评论数:5)
• 如何保证工作可以按时完成 (评论数:3)
• 免费多功能闹钟程序-Citrus Alarm Clock (评论数:2)
• Procrastinator’s Clock - 让你不再迟到的钟 (评论数:2)
• MonkeyGTD-又一个基于TiddlyWiki的单网页GTD系统 (评论数:7)

你知道时间管理者和时间消费者之间的最大区别在哪里？？

时间管理者总是随身携带一个小本，一只笔，而时间消费者只带一个脑子就足够了。呵呵～～

你可以用这个规则去审视一下你周围的人，看看是否准确。

为什么笔纸如此受到时间管理者的亲睐呢？

GTDLife.cn认为：因为笔纸可以为时间管理者做任何事。

任务分解

任务清单

行动清单

思维导图（头脑风暴）

收集篮

便条

等等。。。

具体怎么做，我就不说了，大家自己有自己的方法，我想归纳一下是笔纸的什么特性，让他能够做这么多事情，并且得到大家的亲睐。

最快速的工具，不遗漏任何Idea

笔纸是目前为止大家所公认的最快的记录工具，我们在头脑风暴，或者灵光一闪的时候，是没有时间去打开电脑，或者打开软件，或者打开手机去挨个敲字，大脑在那个时候就像是网住了一只蝴蝶，稍微漏出一点缝，那只蝴蝶就是翩翩飞去，只留下你后悔不已。以我们几十年的写字修炼，已经将这个技能联系到了炉火纯青的地步，写字的时候完全不需要任何思考，大脑的占用率接近0%，这样可以保证你不遗漏任何Idea

可随时撕下单独页

当你要给别人留便条，或者写个电话号码给别人的时候，比如说，你在吃饭时看到一个心仪的姑娘，想跟她说句话，或者要她的电话号码，这时候其他的数码工具都不太好使（除非007用的工具），只有在纸上真诚的写下一段话，然后让服务员递给她。

修改方便

只要你自己能看的懂，你可以随时的、随意的修改你记录的东西，觉得不好就修改，如果是用数码产品的话，打开、关闭、打开、关闭，一会就没电了，呵呵

携带方便

善于利用时间的人总是会抓住零碎的时间，比如说在长途车上，飞机场，火车上，这时候你的高级工具肯定是发挥不了作用的，甚至怕偷都不敢拿出来，而笔纸则不一样，随时随地，随心所欲。

当然，和数码产品比，纸质工具也有自己的缺点，至于什么缺点，大家可以在这里和超过800个时间管理者一起探讨，成长。

标签：软件, gtd, 时间管理

相关内容

• 介绍一个可以用于(10+2)*5方法的计时器 (评论数:5)
• 如何保证工作可以按时完成 (评论数:3)
• 免费多功能闹钟程序-Citrus Alarm Clock (评论数:2)
• Procrastinator’s Clock - 让你不再迟到的钟 (评论数:2)
• MonkeyGTD-又一个基于TiddlyWiki的单网页GTD系统 (评论数:7)

之前以为在Linux下对SCSI设备的支持个数可以是没有限制的，从命令来看，至少可以做到这点,sda-sdz,sdaa-sdzz.......
看来我错了，其实任何事物都是有限制的，哪怕是Linux里的SCSI设备。
在核心源代码的include/scsi/sd.h里这样定义了


也就是sda-sdzzz个SCSI设备，数量是18278个。

厄，有变态的用到了这个数吗？或者我们来计算一下，要用完这个数，大概需要一个什么样的规模。

如果是系统主机自带这么多设备的话，那么就需要18278/15=1218.5 块SCSI卡。

如果是采取连接存储，然后访问LUN的方式呢？
按照就（host，channel，target，id）层次来计算一个target最多有8个LUN，因此需要18278/8=2284.75个target。
一个channel上最多可以接15个target，那么大约需要2284.75/15=152.3个
目前的scsi卡，我见到的最大channel也就是双通道了，我们按照双通道好了，那就是152.3/2=76个。
那么要不就是在主机系统上搞上76块双通道SCSI卡，要不就放到存储上。我想现在的存储应该有这么卡的吧，只是谁会去划那么多LUN呢？

哦，补充一句，SCSI设备抢到的主设备号，为大众所知的是8,65-71,136-143

（感觉有点晕晕的，好像计算不太准确，有人能告诉确切的计算方法吗？）


Tags - scsi

侦听的关闭需要绝对的小心，因为在9i中，如果没有设置密码，侦听能轻易的关闭远程的侦听。有时候，生产库的侦听被宕不是因为被黑客入侵了，而是错误的操作而已。最近就遇到了这样的事情：

一次工程迁移，需要将原来的两台rp 4440换成两台rp 8440（有两台，是因为要做MC双机热备）。
当前网络情况：
主机 型号 IP 浮动IP
A机 rp 4440 192.168.3.11 192.168.3.10
B机 rp 4440 192.168.3.12 192.168.3.10
C机 rp 8440 192.168.3.61 未配
D机 rp 8440 192.168.3.62 未配

目标网络情况：
主机 型号 IP 浮动IP
C机 rp 8440 192.168.3.11 192.168.3.10
D机 rp 8440 192.168.3.12 192.168.3.10
A机 rp 4440 192.168.3.61 未配
B机 rp 4440 192.168.3.62 未配

由于是做成MC双机热备的，在listener.ora文件中配置的IP地址需要是浮动IP的地址，因此，在ABCD中的这个文件中的地址均配置成了192.168.3.10。

好，待工程完成，AB双机被替换成了CD双机，其他的条件都不变。此时CD双机作为生成库，开始提供服务，应用连接到了primary C机，而由于我们的AB主机需要历旧，A机被作为了报表数据库的服务器（单机，无MC双机热备模式），当我们把原报表的存储迁移到A机器上，启动数据库，再用lsnrctl status检查侦听时，发现service为生产库的侦听已经启动！奇怪，我们是在报表的机器上，为什么能在报表机器上看到关于生产库的侦听已经启动呢？赶紧关了吧……

坏了……问题就出在这里了，由于这边报表数据库（A机）的listener.ora文件就是原来生产库的配置，里面的IP就是192.168.3.10，它在lsnrctl status看的时候，就是看192.168.3.10(即当前用于生产的primary C机)，而不是本机报表机的侦听！！当你使用lsnrctl stop关闭侦听的时候，9i的数据库可以远程关闭侦听，因此，远程的生产库的侦听就被宕下来了，应用程序开始狂报连接数据库失败……

关闭侦听时，特别是在工程割接时，关闭侦听千万要记得格外的小心。

As Baron writes it is not the number of rows returned by the query but number of rows accessed by the query will most likely be defining query performance. Of course not all row accessed are created equal (such as full table scan row accesses may be much faster than random index lookups row accesses in the same table) but this is very valuable data point to optimize query anyway.

The question of optimizing number of rows accessed is what would be the optimal number indicating query is typically well optimized ? Of course in the perfect world we would like to see rows returned = rows analyzed. though this is only possible to reach for small fraction of queries.

If you’re joining multiple tables or if you have GROUP BY query the number of rows which need to be utilized to create the result set will be larger than number of rows returned.

What I would like to see (for example as another slow query log record) is the number of rows which MySQL used to generate result set. Comparing this number with number of rows query actually accessed we can guess (what is important automatically !) there is potential for optimizing this query.

For example:

SELECT GENDER, COUNT(*) FROM PEOPLE GROUP BY GENDER

This query will return only couple of rows but it is clear all rows from the table were used to generate result set and it is not possible to optimize this query directly to only access couple of rows (though this gives us another idea to possibly keep cache table with couple of rows in it)

Now if we have the same table with no indexes and query

SELECT GENDER, COUNT(*) FROM PEOPLE WHERE COUNTRY=’USA’ GROUP BY GENDER

even though full table scan is performed only rows with COUNTRY=’USA’ are used in results set which clearly puts query as optimization candidate.

It is not always possible to optimize queries so the number of rows accessed is same as number of rows used to generate result set - for example any filter which can’t use indexes will make these number different, though such filter will be suboptimal and you may think how to fix the situation.

For example if you have clause like TITLE LIKE “%MYSQL%” you may instead use Full Text Search indexes. If you have WHERE ID%100=0 you can have extra column divisible_by_hundred and keep it indexed. Of course in all cases there is extra cost involved and you should weight if it make sense to optimize such queries. I’m just describing the possibility.

Sounds nice as described right ? Unfortunately it is not that easy to implement it in the general sense as you can’t always track the future of individual row. Queries with temporary result set are especially complicated, for example:

SELECT * FROM (SELECT COUNTRY,COUNT(*) FROM PEOPLE GROUP BY COUNTRY) C WHERE COUNTRY=’USA’

As of MySQL 5.0 MySQL will materialize the subquery in the from clause fully and so “use” all rows in result set while in reality only fraction of them will be needed for end result set as most of the groups are filtered out. There are many similar cases when decision of whenever row is used for result set or not is taken long after it stop existed as individual row which just was accessed.

At the same time I think starting with something and covering basic “single level” queries keeping in account JOINs, GROUP BY, LIMIT would already be helpful for many cases.

---

Entry posted by peter | 5 comments

Add to: | | | |

股市暴跌。 偶像啊~~~要给自己打气。 商业周刊这期的节目挺应景的，经济有周期，周星驰竟然也知道控制成本—我的励志榜样。

Shared by Edward
Outlook 还是 Gmail，是个问题。

Editor: Being digital vagabonds without an Exchange server, we Lifehacker writers use online apps like Gmail and Google Calendar to get things done. But can an Outlook user make the switch without losing out? Guest contributor Jared Goralnick's here today to take a look.
Gmail launched in 2004 and has matured each year, but Microsoft Outlook (with Exchange) is still the most popular tool for accessing email. Comparing the two side by side, is it time to jump ship from either platform? Let's find out.

This comparison below is based on Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 with Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 and Google Apps for your Domain's free version of Gmail.

There are many differences between the two products in terms of how they can be configured and the type of workflow that they support. I'll go through each area of difference below, comparing and contrasting. At the end, you'll find an overall comparison and some recommendations.

Search

Microsoft greatly improved its search capabilities with Outlook 2007. This is probably the most important reason users of earlier versions would upgrade—because, let's be honest, searching in Outlook used to take hours to perform. Their search is now powered by Windows Desktop Search and does a good job of returning results fast.

But Gmail is still much faster. And as an added hassle, if Outlook ever returns incorrect or incomplete search results you have to dig into the settings to tweak or rebuild your search index, hoping that you can fix the problem.

One advantage of Outlook search is that it searches within attachments. Google Desktop Search would accomplish this if you used a separate email program (even Outlook!), but the Gmail web interface does not. Still, the inability to search within attachments is a small price to pay for the superior speed and accuracy of Gmail's search.

Search Verdict: Gmail wins for a faster and more reliable search. Outlook is just a step behind with full attachment search.

Folders vs. Labels: How To File Messages

Gmail departs from the traditional folder tree by using "labels," which are essentially tags. What's nice about labels is that one message can be assigned multiple labels (effectively making it appear in what seem to be separate folders) without having to copy the message. For instance, if a message relates to both "family" and "work," then with Gmail you can mark it with both labels and find those messages in either of those label-folders. In a traditional tree, you would have to choose only one folder (or duplicate the message).

Outlook has always had categories, which behave similarly. In version 2007, Outlook created a faster system that used color-coded/named categories and Search Folders to perform nearly the same functionality as Gmail. Most people are not aware of this feature because it's less noticeable than the Outlook folder tree and would require setting up search folders for each category to function like Gmail labels. However, since categories have no relationship to the folder location of an item they're not a complete replacement for the folder tree.

On the surface, labels seem superior to a folder tree—after all, tags are the preferred method of identifying data on many new web sites. There are a few problems with labels, though:

• There's no such thing as "sub-labels." As such, if you decide to use Google like a folder tree, you'll quickly discover that the hierarchy is only one-level.
• There is no drag and drop functionality in the Gmail web interface (most likely since applying a label isn't necessarily moving it from one label to another).
• Gmail's labels are not 100% compatible with IMAP support. They're mostly compatible, but some people (like me) may run into synchronization issues.

Even with these slight limitations, Google was wise to eschew the top-down methodology to which many of us have grown accustomed. Since Gmail's search is very fast, the need for finding items by how they've been filed becomes less important.

In Outlook, a label-like feature is available but harder to access. It has additional filtering and organizational capabilities, but most users might not dig that deeply into the software to find them, especially since in Outlook one still has to work with the folder tree to move items out of the Inbox.

Folders vs. Labels Verdict: Gmail wins for a simpler, generally more flexible approach.

Rules vs. Filters: How To Automatically Process Mail

Outlook has many more options for routing messages than Gmail, or at least it appears so. Compare these two screenshots (Gmail above, Outlook below) for an idea:

While it appears there are more options available within Outlook, Google has done a better job of helping people get to the most relevant options right away. Gmail also allows you to test exactly how the filter would behave before you save it:

Outlook has taken a step in the right direction by providing a right-click option called "Create Rule...." It does a better job of exposing the most relevant information, but it's still not as easy to configure or test as with Gmail.

Note that Microsoft Exchange users may benefit more from rules than standalone Microsoft Outlook users. Gmail is a server-side tool, so its filters will affect Gmail mail, regardless of where you access it. Microsoft Exchange users will also have this benefit. However, if you do not have Microsoft Exchange and your Microsoft Outlook is not running, the rules will not be processed. This can be frustrating when checking mail remotely.

Once again we have a similar divide—most people will be better off with the faster to configure and easier to test Gmail results, but Outlook has more features.

In my experience with clients and colleagues, people don't use as many Outlook rules as they do Gmail filters, even though filtering is a huge help with the volume of email many of us receive. This leads me to believe that Outlook's rules are more intimidating.

Rules vs. Filters Verdict: Google wins for a simpler, more approachable interface.

Contacts

Contacts are one of the core features of any email application. Both Gmail and Outlook do a great job. A main difference, however, is that Gmail automatically creates contacts based on your email correspondence, whereas you must create contacts yourself in Outlook.

If you don't keep an address book and don't plan to, Gmail's Contacts feature is a sufficient Band-Aid in that you never to have to visit Contacts to get some benefits. That is, it remembers email information long after a correspondence.

Outlook also remembers the email addresses of people you've corresponded with, but it stores the addresses in a hard to find text file (called an NK2 file) that people often forget to backup. As such, when people get a new workstation or reinstall Windows they often lose the email information that they thought they had "stored."

If most of your contact activities are about email correspondence, then Gmail and Outlook are roughly comparable since they both hold onto the core data.

But depending on your needs, the products differ greatly beyond that:

• If you use a lot of shiny new web applications, they can often import your contacts directly from Gmail (much faster than your Outlook contacts).
• If you want to track customer correspondence, Gmail's "Recent Conversations" view makes this a snap. Outlook still hasn't figured this out—it's "Activities" area should be the answer, but it's painfully slow and inaccurate at best. (Instead Microsoft recommends either Outlook Business Contact Manager or Microsoft CRM, two tools that are no walk in the park to implementÖbut are darn cool if you can swing it).
• If you regularly mail merge in Word or do anything that involves contact data in Windows, Outlook contacts are your best option (yes, anything is possible, but it's fewer steps with Outlook contacts).
• If you synchronize with a mobile device, Outlook is your best option since it works with nearly every PDA device (BlackBerry, PalmOne, Windows Mobile, the iPhone, iPods, etc.) whether the synchronization is USB or over the internet.
• If you work in an office with Microsoft Exchange, contacts can be shared and synchronized, which is very helpful.
• If you have lots of contacts, then Outlook offers dozens of ways to organize and view them, from separate folders to flags to categories to "recently added," and it also offers privacy settings for sharing only some of them

If you have an internet connection and work independently, primarily via email or chat, then Gmail contacts will do as good a job or better than Outlook. If you use a lot more business-oriented features or need greater mobility, then Outlook might trump.

Contacts Verdict: No winner. If you're in a business environment, Outlook likely wins. Otherwise, there's no clear choice.

Spam Filtering

Gmail's Spam Filtering is top notch, Outlook's is not. But most businesses don't use the out-of-the-box Outlook spam filtering, whereas most Gmail users do use the default spam blocking.

My two issues with Gmail's spam filtering are:

• It doesn't completely eliminate the stuff that's obvious as spam (you still have to wade through it). With Google's purchase of Postini we'll hopefully see some improvements in this area, but I find it difficult to skim through 500 spam messages per day, and inevitably don't bother
• There are still occasional false positives (non-spam that gets sent to the Spam folder), which is unfortunate when a lot of people never read through the Spam folder

Outlook's spam filtering is no good without either a client-side email spam filtering program or, better yet, a server solution like Google's Postini or MX Logic's Email Defense (what I use). These will likely cut spam to under a dozen quarantined messages per day (which is a reasonable number to review for the occasional false positive).

Gmail wins on spam, since there's no installation necessary. For businesses, or people who subscribe to a Hosted Exchange service, a commercial anti-spam service will likely perform better than either product out-of-the-box. (However, most commercial anti-spam solutions can be used with Google Apps for Your Domain as easily as they can be used with Exchange.) Note: the spam count in the image above is a joke.

Spam Filtering Verdict: Gmail wins for doing a decent job without any installation.

Storage Space

Outlook with Microsoft Exchange often has a high price associated with server storage space. In other words, most companies limit the amount of storage space for an "Exchange store"—the amount of Exchange data you're allowed to store on the server. Usually this equates to somewhere between 100 MB and 2 GB (since email storage is expensive for businesses).

Gmail users have 6.76 GB for no charge (or 25 GB for $50/year). The storage they provide regularly increases.

Businesses might feel they are offering reasonable limits to their users, except that many people still attach big files to emails rather than linking to them. Thus there are often many people who have to clean up or archive their email every few weeks. While there are reasons for this (due to the cost of storage), it's a complaint I encounter frequently with clients.

People who use Outlook without an Exchange connection have nothing to worry about with regard to storage space, but they should be careful to backup and split their PST (Personal Storage files) regularly after they hit a couple GB.

Another caveat is that storing your email in the Google cloud is a tough pill to swallow for some people and many businesses. As such, that factor alone may be a deal-breaker, regardless of the convenience.

Both Outlook and Gmail offer plenty of options for file storage, but I, for one, am sick of all the work I have to do to keep my Exchange store size trimmed. Until Exchange storage gets less expensive or businesses suck up more of the costs (sorry!), I'm handing this category to Google.

Storage Space Verdict: Gmail wins for generally offering more space for less (or no!) money, but this depends on a whole host of factors.

User Experience

Outlook and Gmail offer very different user interfaces, with Gmail generally being simpler and Outlook often being more full-featured. Here are some differences:

• Gmail's Threaded view is much simpler than Outlook's Arrange By Conversation (and better yet, it always takes up less screen space to display threads, whereas Outlook's often takes more)
• Search is what you live for in Gmail, and it's near the core of the user experience, in a good way
• Outlook allows you to drag-and-drop messages for filing (or creating tasks)
• Outlook has a sort feature. I partially understand why Gmail views don't sort, but I still have trouble getting past this conspicuous shortcoming
• Both programs have keyboard shortcuts (see Gmail's), but Outlook's are easier to discover (since they're displayed)
• Gmail shows the first few words of an email in the one-line view; Outlook offers a reading pane that makes it easier to get the whole story fast (similar to Google Reader)

If you're familiar with the Office suite, Outlook is easy for you to use. If you're starting fresh in the email world (yeah, right!), then Gmail is a better candidate for getting started.

User Experience Verdict: No winner. This is even more a matter of opinion than my other verdicts!

Workflow

I use both Gmail and Outlook because they offer very different options for workflow. Outlook offers many ways to process your email and manage your responsibilities, and it works particularly well with top-down / hierarchical / everything-has-a-place approaches. Gmail does not offer as many workflow options, but it's very easy to find items regardless of where you placed them.

Certain activities fit nicely within Gmail's confines and others benefit from Outlook's larger feature-set. You can read more about how I've resolved which scenarios fit which tool, and why I use both.

For the business user with many responsibilities, Outlook's expanded feature-set (tasks, task sharing, message flagging, shared contact list, etc.) is a huge reason why the product is dominant in the workforce.

If little or none of your email turns into tasks, Gmail's filtering, labeling, and search make it a good choice. But since for many people, email inevitably leads to deferred responsibilities, and Google Apps does not yet natively support tasks, I'm going to hand the workflow to Outlook. Fortunately Remember the Milk makes tasks possible in Gmail.

Workflow Verdict: Outlook wins, for natively supporting tasks and offering more workflow flexibility.

Mobility

Depending on the device, you might have better luck with one or the other. Gmail provides a Java-based application that works well on the BlackBerry, and it has a great interface for most mobile devices, including the iPhone. Microsoft Exchange includes Microsoft ActiveSync, which is a full-featured over-the-air synchronization technology that keeps not just email but task, calendar, and contact items up to date.

Both Microsoft Exchange and Gmail offer scaled down interfaces that work well via web access on mobile devices. (Gmail's is available by accessing their site from a mobile browser or by visiting m.google.com/a. Microsoft Exchange users can access an often overlooked tool called Outlook Mobile Access—just ask your Exchange administrator for the URL to "OMA" on your server.)

Many people have never seen Microsoft's full mobile experience because they are simply using the desktop version of Outlook and/or are not on a Microsoft Exchange server. But I have to hand this to Microsoft, since Exchange not only synchronizes email but also calendar, contacts, and tasks, making this information fully accessible offline via ActiveSync (or other third-party services like BlackBerrys').

If you don't have access to an Exchange server but prefer Outlook most of the time, your best bet is to use Gmail as your email host and Outlook as an IMAP application—then you'll at least get much better mobile access than what is likely provided by your Internet Service Provider. We'll see if/how MobileMe changes the landscape.

Mobility Verdict: Outlook with Exchange wins. And non-Exchange Outlook users could host their email with Gmail to get its mobile tools anyway.

Support

Just today I tried to help a friend with her Google Apps for your Domain configuration, and she had signed up for the paid plan. She ultimately gave up. Like it or not, it's easier to find business-level support on the Microsoft Outlook/Exchange platform than Google's.

I happily use both Hosted Exchange and Google Apps for different purposes, but I know that for critical business needs there's a person who I can get on the phone to help with Exchange problems. Google offers support, but they have a very different model and are not providing the "on call support" that many businesses depend on.

If you're a do it yourself-er, you have much less chance of messing things up with Google Apps for your Domain than by setting up Exchange yourself. However, Hosted Exchange providers and a large pool of qualified technicians are a better alternative for the tricky issues that come up when you least expect them.

Note: if you're the "family geek," I highly recommend getting Google Apps for your Domain. I recently switched siblings, parents and grandparents to this and it's a breath of fresh air. Exchange was a bit too costly and unnecessary an option for family technical support.

Support Verdict: Outlook wins for having a larger support ecosystem.

Findings Table

The Fine Print: These are merely my opinions. Don't take these as Lifehacker's, the Word From Above, etc. I like both products a lot (even Outlook!), and they're just very different.

Conclusions, And What The Future Holds

Outlook and Gmail are very different approaches to email organization. Over time, Google has begun to add more features and Microsoft has improved its search and scaled-down complex features. They have very different and very apparent roots, but things are changing.

I personally use Outlook for business correspondence and managing responsibilities, and Gmail for social media and most web activities. Some people combine their activities and choose just one email application, and that's fine, too.

If one thing is clear, it's that Gmail has become an increasingly mature product that can be used for business. With the Postini acquisition, Google is beginning to offer enterprise-level services (like compliance archiving, service level agreements, and more comprehensive spam policies). I foresee the addition of tasks and integration with the Google Search Appliance positioning Google squarely against Microsoft.

At the same time, Microsoft has long been making progress in the Software as a Service space, primarily with their hosted Exchange offering and now with hosted Microsoft CRM. Earlier this month, Microsoft announced that it would begin offering these services directly instead of just through partners, with starting prices well under $10/user per month (as of now with 5 user minimums). This positions them squarely against Google.

Competition here is crucial for our success, as it's a large part of our own productivity as knowledge workers. Regardless of the tool you pick (Thunderbird's pretty awesome, too!), you'll have plenty of company and some welcome changes ahead.

Jared Goralnick is a Productivity Evangelist for AwayFind, a tool that helps you to stop checking email. Check out his time-saving hacks on his blog at Technotheory.com.