Why don't I get a Cancel option if I accidently close Outlook?

[Guest]

I sometimes accidently click on the close button in the top righthand corner.
The only options I get when this happens, is "Are you sure you want to
delete the items in your deleted items box?" I know it's not serious, but it
can be very annoying. I've heard quite a few of my colleagues complain about
this as well. Is this so with a reason, by accident, or a "feature"?

I'm using Outlook 2000 SP-3.

 

[Vince Averello [MVP-Outlook]]

I think it's because most programs don't have "Do you want to exit" dialogs
unless they involve unsaved document creation

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

Go to the Outbox, and choose New Post in This Folder. Save the post. Now Outlook won't close without giving you a "you have items in the outbox - are you sure you want to exit?" prompt.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003

and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers

 

[CMM]

Since its inception years and years ago I've always thought Outlook would
benefit from an "always loaded" option like IM apps where you can *close*
the main window and still receive new mail, appointment, and task alerts. In
fact I started a 'suggestion' thread the other week where I was bashed for
implying that Outlook wasn't perfect. No, the Minimize to Tray option in
OL2003 isn't the solution. I like to be able to minimize Outlook
normally.... I would just like for it to stay "loaded in the background"
when I close (the main window).

 

[CMM]

babsiep, I wrote this tool exactly for this purpose many years ago.
http://www.cflashsoft.com/olload.htm
It works great with Outlook 2000 and 2002 and it's free.

It clashes a little (aesthetically) with Outlook 2003 because 2003 puts its
own icon in the tray. Also, startup macros don't run when it starts.

You can also check out another tool there (Outlook Sidebar) that
accomplishes a similar function in a different way.... but the first one
(Outlook Loader) is the easiest one to use.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Since its inception years and years ago I've always thought Outlook
would benefit from an "always loaded" option like IM apps where you
can *close* the main window and still receive new mail, appointment,
and task alerts. In fact I started a 'suggestion' thread the other
week where I was bashed for implying that Outlook wasn't perfect.

This is worlds different from what you said in the other thread and I think
this is a good idea. Some small TSR or service that would provide only
notifications would be a benefit.

 

[CMM]

I guess we were (unfortunately) arguing semantics. Whatever "TSR" (what an
outdated terminology! you give me flashbacks to HIMEM every time you use
it!) you're talking about must load Outlook in the background to do its work
(LOTS and LOTS of reasons for this). Truth is, Outlook doesn't *need* a
"TSR" in order to accomplish this. It just has to change its behavior (based
on a user-selectable option).

 

[Brian Tillman]

I guess we were (unfortunately) arguing semantics.

Not at all. There is a huge difference (at least to me) between having the
full-blown Outlook image running hidden somewhere and a small utility that
implements only the alert portion. The former is what you seems to be
desiring in the earlier thread and the latter what you seems to be
suggesting in this thread.

 

[CMM]

Well, as I see it (and I know A LOT about this considering I've been coding
Outlook in a corporate environment for 7 years), Outlook would most likely
be accessed (via whaever mechanism- likely COM- unless you prefer the TSR to
reproduce a whole bunch of the code already in Outlook). This makes the
Outlook.exe process load whether or not a user-interface is shown. That is
the "full-blown Outlook image." If all you wanted were POP alerts or
whatever there are countless utilities to do that (including most IM apps,
which have it built-in). But, if you want Calendar Appointment alerts,
Overdue Tasks alerts, as well as Exchange new mail, the only (good) way to
do it using Outlook's own mechanisms (albeit hidden).

Outlook.Exe does not equal that big 3-pane window with the pretty icons you
see when you load Outlook... and vice versa.

We are indeed arguing semantics.

 

[CMM]

Look at this way:

The "TSR" (god I hate that term) would have to implement its own Exchange
communication protocol, its own IMAP protocol, its own POP protocol, its own
whatever other protocol Outlook supports. It would have to read the Outlook
Calendar data and Tasks data. It will probably also have to be able to
process rules in order to determine what messages have arrived in the Inbox
and which ones have dropped to the Junk E-mail folder (you don't want e-mail
alerts for the latter).

Um, it would be a whole reproduction of Outlook. That's stupid. Outlook has
a VERY GOOD (albeit long-in-the-tooth) Automation Object Model just for this
exact purpose.

And in the end... the TSR isn't even necessary. There's no technical reason
Outlook can't implement its own "stay in the background, access through the
tray" mechanism all on its own (as an option at least). I think you're just
having a problem separating *Outlook Explorer* (yes, that's what it's called
believe it or not) with Outlook "the Win32 process."