"Gary VanderMolen" <gary@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ehrwsvZpIHA.2256@xxxxxx
Quote:
> "Liviu" <lab2k1@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eSfJF7YpIHA.3960@xxxxxx Quote:
>>
>> "N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:ivhdr5nrbu7s$.dlg@xxxxxx Quote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:26:00 -0700, Maffysdad wrote:
>>>
>>>> First you stop new Hotmail accounts from using Outlook Express to
>>>> access their email.
>>>
>>> MSFT's explanation is that WebDAV wouldn't scale. As they increased
>>> the storage capacity of the accounts, to keep up with Google (5GB)
>>> and Yahoo! ("Unlimited"), there were problems.
>>
>> That seems to be the official line, indeed. And it completely ignores
>> users who have no interest in or use for the extra capacity, for whom
>> WebDAV worked - especially compared to no OE access at all - and
>> could still work but for the politics of change. >
> The fact remains that most users demanded (and the competition
> delivered) larger mailboxes. You are effectively proposing that
> Microsoft maintain two sets of mail servers, some handling WebDAV,
> and the rest for DeltaSync. I imagine that the economics for such a
> dual structure would be prohibitive. You are probably right, and so was I in calling it "politics".
Many users have also long demanded free POP and/or IMAP access (which
gmail, for example, delivers) but that wish fell on deaf ears. Now don't
get me wrong, I don't dispute for a second that MS has the right to pick
and choose what services it offers for free. All I am saying is that not
all changes mean progress, nor are they necessarily being done for the
greater good of end users, so attempting to sell them as such only adds
insult to the injury.