OT - home network setup and networked Outlook?

I'd like to rejig my home network a bit... we currently have a desktop PC and sundry wifi-linked laptops amongst other things, and the vast majority of our data files reside on the desktop PC, along with Outlook

2003 which is used for SWMBO's and my email (we have a single Outlook setup which links to several email servers; with the whole lot working from a single .pst file).

What I would like to achieve is essentially to use all the PCs more or less like terminals, and have a central NAS for all data files, including email; so that either SWMBO or myself could log on to any PC and access 'live' Outlook (currently we can only use that on the desktop PC). Would it be feasible/realistic/safe/sensible to set up my envisaged system with the .pst file saved on the NAS - then would whoever opens Outlook first on whichever computer has access rights to the .pst file?

Even if it worked (would it?) it's no doubt a very dinosaurish way to do it - I'm sure a fully web-based email system would be better; however I do like the current PC-based Outlook, not least because I have all my email archive saved on a local machine, under my control. And it works...

Thanks David

Reply to
Lobster
Loading thread data ...

Outlook will whinge, and PSTs on network drives, while they work, are not such a good idea.

The best way to do it would be to run a home email server and connect with IMAP from the PCs. You can use fetchmail or similar to retrieve mail from remote POP boxes.

Reply to
Chris Bartram

It's overkill and a pain to set up, but M$ Exchange, which will let you share a live database between all your users, showing the latest changes on all machines, is now available as a subscription based cloud service, so you can access your data from any web connected computer, not just your home ones. There is also a version that keeps your data on your network, but that costs the other arm and both legs.

Reply to
John Williamson

Yes, it is dinosaurish. Just forget keeping mail on your own PCs and stick to web mail. You are *way* less likely to lose anything important that way and you can check your mail from anywhere.

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

Like most things that are reliable, safe and secure, the modern twit looks down upon it. Like wired networks, not leaving your email lying around where other people can read it, using some crappy email provider that anyone can crack the password to if they wont..

Thunderbird is quite happy to keep its mail on a networked server. By the way,.

Just forget keeping mail on your own PCs and stick

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Its what I do in essence - but not with outlook. I have a thunderbird profile folder on a NAS, and then mount that on a consistent drive letter on the machines I want to use it from (TB still has issues with using UNC paths at times I find, hence the archaic drive letter!). You can only access it from one machine at a time, but it works well enough for mail and news without needing to setup a dedicated server, and I don't like web mail solutions.

Reply to
John Rumm

It's also extremely easy to back up all the info in Thunderbird, and if necessary, synchronise a number of copies as often as you wish.

Reply to
John Williamson

Mine happens automagically every night anyway.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

John Williamson wrote: [snip]

Or you could set up dovecote, or buy a QNAP NAS.

Reply to
Steve Firth

That sounds like a plan, as in, the easiest answer - somebody else mentioned it wasn't a good idea to network Outlook in this fashion - is TB not susceptible to the same limitations?

I already use TB for news-reading but not yet tried it for email; I'm happy about doing so myself; however is the Plan likely to attract resistance from the direction of SWMBO!?

David

Reply to
Lobster

Be careful of introducing a single point of failure and restricting what users want to do...

I have a similar requirement and use a NAS, not running Windows, as a LAN file synchronisation server for the Windows or other clients, plus another that is part of a hosted offsite back-up for a SME.

The master files for any LAN user are on their currently active machine they are using until it gets synchronised with the same Outlook .PST file, or any other programs working files, on the NAS - similar to a Private Cloud, as I know know. Another LAN user can also be working with their own mail or program files in parallel since they are working with their own working files. File locking prevents incorrect access to the NAS. The only paid-for software I use to manage this is GoodSync from

formatting link
(I'm only a user...) Sometimes I use a desktop and sometimes a netbook - the user data is the same.

Each night, this LAN NAS backs up it's files to another server that can also be accessed over the Internet, with suitable access controls and encryption. This exchanges any updated files with a similar one across the other side of the country - I store their company data and they store mine. I can also access this system securely, via the internet if I'm away and want to access or refresh the master files - even more like a Private Cloud...

This has worked for me for several years and is manageable, with known and tested points of failure, unlike using Public Clouds...

Reply to
John Weston

Nope, TB can keep its data files anywhere you tell it to, and it keeps

*all* its data files there. The only stuff that it likes to keep local is the profile info, and that can be backed up using Mozbackup on one machine and restored to another machine, and it's not even that fussy about what versions the copies are. That's how I kept the accounts in version 10 (The long term support version) on a Windows 7 machine in sync with version 2 on an XP machine, until I got fed up with version 10's idiosyncracies.

Outlook was written by MS to either be a standalone application for a single machine or one that links to a single copy of Exchange Server on multiple machines.

It depends how hard she finds it to learn to use new programs. They're both easy to use, but some of the assumptions behind how the user wants to do things are different.

Reply to
John Williamson

Not really - its more flexible regarding storing its "stuff" and configuration.

It creates a lock file when you run it, so you can't run a second copy at the same time. The only time you may get a difficulty is if you abnormally terminate a copy and then can't run again because the lock file still exists. (needless to say, deleting it fixes it)

I would not have thought she would see that much different. The UI is similar. Obviously things like quoting work in TB out of the box ;-)

Reply to
John Rumm

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.