Vista - Fixing something that isn't broke!

Well, congratulations Microsoft... you've managed to do it yet again, fixing
something that isn't broke!...

First you stop new Hotmail accounts from using Outlook Express to access
their email.

You TRIED to stop long time hotmail users previously from using Outlook
Express at the same time as the above, but we all strongly objected.

Next you then stop users who haven't accessed their Hotmail via Outlook
Express after what was it, 90 days.

Now you've managed to fulfill your goal... Congratulation!...

Now we find that half the features we've got used to aren't there, those
that are are much, much more complex to set up, if it's even possible!.

On top of that you remove security features such as the "Identity Login",
informing us that we must create an individual login account. Wonderful!...
One computer, 20 users, 20 accounts... Previously one computer, 20 users 1
account, 20 identities... SO MUCH EASIER!!!... You're making technical
maintenance a nightmare...

And I've hardly started... RULES!... Jesus!... What are you on!...

Outlook was around since Windows 3.10 (that's before Windows95) if I
remember correctly... And it worked perfect!... Why can't we choose between
the two, WL & OE... Our choice, not have it forced on us!...

Why can't you just leave something alone when it works perfectly already!...
Who else agrees, Please, write your comments... Good or bad, Agree or
disagree... I don't care... Just so long as MS actually take notice!...

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:26:00 -0700, Maffysdad wrote:
Did you need assistance, or are you just here to rant?
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.
Unofficially, I've heard that spammers were able to compromise WebDAV and
hijack MSN mail hosts to send spam. They relented, and grandfathered older
accounts which already had a clean reputation with them.
That is pretty normal for free web mail providers. Even those offering "free
for life" accounts, remove the stored email if you don't access your account
in as little as 30 days.
And what "goal" would that be? You still get free access. You can still use
a desktop client for access (Windows Live Mail). They can increase the
mailbox size (from 2GB; I haven't looked to see where they will go with
that).
Now there is a helpful critique; cite "features", and yet not list them.
Whoa. The first part of your rant was about Windows Live Hotmail (WebDAV,
and Outlook Express access). Now you are switching to Windows Live Mail.
Learn to organize your thoughts!
No way. Who, in their right mind puts 20 users on one computer. Dr. Jerry
Pournelle, a science fiction author, used to write about computers, in the
late 90s: "One user many computers" was his rule.

The MS Outlook Express "Identity Login" feature was so much "eye candy";
looked good, did nothing to secure user data. Whomever had access to the
file system (all 20 of your users) had access to all of the data on the file
system (all 20 MSOE accounts). How secure is that?

So you have to set up a User Account for each user in Windows; and each user
must log off his account? The user's data is more secure than it ever was
under MSOE.
Rules work well in Windows Live Mail. They never worked on IMAP and HTTPMail
accounts in MSOE. They work on the Local Storage folders in WLM just as well
as they ever worked in MSOE.
Switching the topic again, already? From Hotmail (an online service) to
Outlook Express (a component of Internet Explorer) to Windows Live Mail, to
Outlook (a component of MS Office). My, you like to ramble.

BTW, Windows 3.1 was not an operating system, nor was it network capable. It
was a GUI application installed over MS DOS (I installed it over MS DOS
6.22; some preferred to stay with MS DOS 5). And I had to add a third party
"winsock" program to get Internet access capability. I used Novell Personal
NetWare 1.0 to set up a LAN (using 10Base2; a.k.a., "ThinLAN", using RG-58
(50-ohm coaxial cable)).
You don't...

| Outlook/Entourage
| Main articles: Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Entourage
|
| Microsoft Outlook, not to be confused with Outlook Express, is a personal
| information manager and e-mail communication software. The replacement for
| Windows Messaging, Microsoft Mail and Schedule+ (Plus) starting in Office 97,
| it includes an e-mail client, calendar, task manager and address book.
| Although historically it has been offered for the Mac, the closest to an
| equivalent for Mac OS X is Microsoft Entourage, which offers a slightly
| different feature set.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office

For Windows 3.1, you would have had Office 4.3; no Outlook in Office 4.3.

If you are confusing Outlook with Outlook Express (common), the earliest
version of Outlook Express was OE4, which came with Internet Explorer 4.
With Internet Explorer 3 you got: "MS Internet Main & News". The executable
filename for MSOE6 still reflects its non-Outlook origin: 'msimn.exe'.
It worked like your memory; rather less than perfect. (WordPerfect, not MS
Word, worked "perfectly".)
For the same reason Ford doesn't let you choose between Model-T and
Thunderbidrd. Some products are just obsolete, and the manufacturer moves
on.
MS Outlook Express never "worked perfectly". Its rules are lame; not even
simple wildcard expressions, much less complex "regular expressions". And
the rules only apply to some limited header lines; MSOE can't examine the
most useful headerlines. Even Mozilla Thunderbird beat out MSOE in that
department. MSOE is the most inflexible, and delicate email client available
(or have you never scrambled your .dbx files?)

Windows Live Mail has some improvements over MS Outlook Express; but,
mostly, keeps a lot of the lameness of MSOE.

Say, if MS Outlook Express is so great, why aren't you using it to post your
little rant?

X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000

In your headers tells me that you are using a web browser to access these
NNTP groups, instead of Outlook Express (like some others in this group):

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

From the headers of another poster.

Wood-and-cloth biplanes look neat, but they aren't the "most perfect"
airplanes in aviation. And you can't really do much with them. MS Outlook
Express is a museum piece of software...

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Hey Maffy,

If it helps...I'm with you...I liked the old O. E. product. This package
looks as if they used an intern to write it. Let's talk about RULES, just
RULES no other problems just RULES. I used O. E. Message RULES extensively
to AUTO-SORT my mail. Unless I'm missing something LIVE MAIL doesn't appear
to be sorting properly. Not only that I had to re-configure every
sub-folder manually, no drag and drop! This appears we have gone back to
Windows 386, it is not a very elegant program, it is sparse, works poorly
and doesn't seem to have legacy features one would expect to have included
in a new package. I am now looking for a new email frontend. If you find
one let us know. Windows LIVE leaves me with a brain-dead feeling!



"Maffysdad" <Maffysdad@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:216E5D4D-0A14-4351-83C7-1FD00E90CCF8@xxxxxx

AFAIK, WLM's message rules are identical to OE's message rules.
You do have to factor in things like Blocked Senders, Safe Senders,
and internal Junk E-mail filters.

--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)


"orygunguy" <orygunguy@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:BCCB35EB-116F-4E7F-A2FB-A0016BE5ADDC@xxxxxx

"N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ivhdr5nrbu7s$.dlg@xxxxxxThat 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.
Identities.
I use 3 separate identitites in OE for work mail, personal mail, usenet.
That makes managing and backups easier, also is perfectly secure for me.
And, thank you, I don't need 3 different logon accounts for something as
basic as that.
Technically true, but then none of the 9x/me windows was an OS.

"Liviu" <lab2k1@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:eSfJF7YpIHA.3960@xxxxxxThe 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.

--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:08:53 -0500, Liviu wrote:
I also stated the unofficial line: Vulnerability to spam abuse. Whether that
is true, or not, there is no money in offering free services.

Also, there is no pressure like competition. In order to keep up, you have
to match the offering.

There is a great deal of cost and complexity in maintaining two sets of
parallel servers. WebDAV is going away; get used to it.
I have used them. They aren't such a deal breaker.
The way Windows Live Mail works is to have each POP3 account as a separate
entity. You don't need identities in that layout. You would set up your
"Personal" POP3 account, and your "Work" POP3 account. Each will be listed
in the account tree in the left pane. Usenet is already separate, even in MS
Outlook Express, and does not need a separate Identity.
Windows 9x/Me came with an operating system included, Windows 3.1 did not.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"Gary VanderMolen" <gary@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ehrwsvZpIHA.2256@xxxxxxYou 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.

Thank you!... You explored OE & realised that you never needed to purchase a
"Junk Mail Filter" coz all you had to do was set half a dozen rules... It was
SO simple!...

I so totally agree with almost every comment you make, OE RULE''s...err
RULE!!!... Yeah!... WLM rules are not brill...

Help me out here, see if you experiance the same problem as I'm getting...
I have my POP folders on the left, I'd like my "Storage Folders" at the top,
so I moved that up to the top. (but on each restart of WLM it ended up back
at the bottom!)...

Also, If you RULE sort your emails into different folders, (do you have
child folders within them by chance?)... if so, does it auto expand to show
them every time you open WLM?...

Finally, "Storage Folders", remember how OE used to kinda hide all the POP
accounts & just follow the rules to sort them, so you didn't see all the
individual accounts like you do now. Have you found a way of removing their
visibility without actually deleting the account?...

All I want to see is :-
Storage folders (at the top) with just the folders I want to see that I RULE
sort my mail into, no other child folders auto expanded.
My Hotmail account after it.

Thats it... Oh, & if I do find a decent email program I will let you know,
but I'm staying away from something incrediable!...

Thanks for reading!...
"orygunguy" wrote:

"N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13rrze2xzsce$.dlg@xxxxxxDidn't mean to imply they were literally a deal breaker. Just an example
of a simple useful facility "rationalized" away.
My 3 OE identities have between 2 and 5 accounts each. Also, the OE
address books are per-identity (with a wab /all option only when
needed). I don't see how that maps directly into the WLM paradigm. Does
that make WLM unusable? No. Does it take away an existing feature while
providing no equivalent (or better) functionality? Yes.
That's largely a matter of packaging. Win9x could still be manually set
up on top of an existing DOS. And Win3x did come preinstalled with some
new computers, too. But we digress, and I'll stop nitpicking ;-)