Vista - I miss the elegant simplicity........

..........of Outlook Express.

When I upgraded to Vista I thought Windows Mail was a buggy mess, but had
high hopes for WLM.

Alas, it has lots of functionality I don't want (all the Live stuff); lots
of minor bugs and user interface inconsistencies (it talks about 'Junk
Email' when you're actually reading newsgroups, it hard-codes a Vista-like
appearance so it ignores your Windows fonts, themes, etc) and some important
features seem to have disappeared forever (like OE's ability to prune
blocked senders from already-downloaded newsgroup messages).

On the other hand, the way it displays your email accounts separately is
better than OE.

But... I dunno...... it just feels kinda "messy" to use.

Anyway, I've just discovered Mozilla Thunderbird, and it's wonderful! It
shows your accounts separately, like WLM, which is good, but it's free of
all that "Live" ********. It behaves itself properly in XP and Vista.
Using two or three add-ons you can make it very much like an improved OE.

One of the things that really bugs me in WLM is the inability to integrate
the Contacts into the lower left pane: it always open up in its own window.
But using a simple add-on, Thunderbird will put the Address Book in the
lower left pane, just like OE did. Hooray!

It isn't perfect: you need to explore the Tools | Options to get it just as
you like it. It doesn't seem obvious how to choose between sending plain
text and HTML emails. And it still doesn't have that wonderful OE feature
of pruning blocked senders from already-downloaded newsgroup messages. In
fact, you are well advised to explore the add-ons, which really do make it a
better product.

I'm pretty sceptical about open source software (I think most of it is
crap), but Thunderbird has created a very good first impression with me. If
you're a Vista user (so OE isn't an option) and you think Microsoft has gone
down the wrong road with WM and WLM, then I strongly recommend you give
Thunderbird a try.

SteveT

Note the formatting glitch! I'm still learning........

SteveT

"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O0IbvgE2IHA.5512@xxxxxxI like WLM and will like it even more when it stops downloading email of
it's own volition

"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:#qOvoiE2IHA.4476@xxxxxxWhat glitch? There's an extra space here and there, but...
--
Noel

Depending on your newsreader, there's a line in there without a break in it
(I was messing with the settings whilst editing the file). It's the line
that begins 'of pruning blocked senders.....'.

WLM kindly breaks the line anyway, whereas Thunderbird leaves it alone.

SteveT

"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O0IbvgE2IHA.5512@xxxxxxI've been using Outlook, OE, WM, WLM and Tbird for some time and there seems
to be pros and cons to each with no real perfect solution. The primary
reason I rely on WLM is for it's HTTP access to Windows Live accounts, I
host my domains on the Microsoft infrastructure and overall find HTTP access
to be quick and reliable. Unfortunately this isn't an option in Tbird and I
have tried moving to Google Apps hosting but found that IMAP introduces
message processing delays that were not apparent when using HTTP. I rely on
server based email as I have multiple computers and ways of accessing my
email. While there are bugs to be fixed in WLM and I still really miss the
Calendar functionality that disappeared from the final builds, I'm hoping
that the next release of WLM (rumoured for the fall) will resolve those
issues and make WLM the front runner for my use.

Tbird is quick and quite capable with add-ons but there are some flaws.
While you prefer quick access to contacts in the side pane, I dislike the
local based addressbooks in Tbird and prefer the web\server based access to
contacts that WLM provides. If you're working on one machine with one set of
addressbooks it works fine but when you switch between multiple machines
having them all synced on a server is far better from my perspective. I
also like the appearance of WLM over Tbird or OE. It seems to have a modern
look and feel to it while OE and Tbird seem old. I like the capabilities
that the Lightning add-on provides to Tbird and while it is quite flexible
in some ways it seems overly complex. You can sync a Calendar with
Google\Gmail but you can't presently sync your tasks. Setting up Calendars
rely upon entering paths to them. While I ddn't find this difficult the
Microsoft way is much more integrated in that you simply sign-in to your
account and you have access to all of these or at least did before they
removed these capabilities from WLM..

I really like Outlook. When paired with an exchange server it seems to
provide rock solid reliability and the most extensive capabilities. The
draw back is that exchange hosting tends to be more expensive and offers
lower storage limits than WLM or Gmail. I also feel that Microsoft has
destroyed the reliability in the more recent releases of Outlook Connector,
it use to sync reliably but when they made changes for deltasync and gave
free access it is no longer the reliable product it once was. This is a
real shame because it use to give you similar flexibility to exchange but by
no longer being reliable in my book it is useless. The other drawback to
Outlook is the lack of built in NNTP capabilities. There are add ons
available but none work as well as OE, WLM or even Tbird for news reading.

The draw back to WM is the lack of HTTP capabilities. It still blows me
away that MS released a mail client that was unable to access their own
Hotmail\WLHotmail servers asuming you didn't have POP access. WLM was
progressing well when it was in beta and they seemed to have a great team
who were responsive to those of us offering suggestions, feedback and bug
reports. Obviously someone made the decision that it had to be released at a
certain point though, against many beta testers recommendations and so it
was bugs and all. At the time WL Calendar was still in beta and that was
likely the reason access to Calendar and Task functionality is hidden in the
current version of WLM. Once it was released I had hopes of on-going
develpment and new releases but the development teams web site just seemed
to die. I think MS made the right decision in backing down on their plans
to force users of OE to upgrade to WLM for HTTP access at this stage of the
game. Once WLM has added features and bug fixes that might be a different
story but for now at least it isn't quite ready in my opinion.

I don't anticipate HTTP access being added to Tbird so I'll continue to use
them all until the next release of WLM comes out. Once it does if they add
the Calendar and Task capabilities back in and fix some of the current bugs
I hope to make it my primary email, RSS and NNTP client. Hopefully they
will open up the beta testing again for the next version and allow folks to
test the heck out of it to make it as bug free as possible. This version
was rushed out the door before some known bugs were fixed and it would be
nice to avoid a repeat of that. I like WLM and the potential it has to be a
great email client I just hope MS understands it's potential and doesn't let
us down.

I don't understand your railing against the "Live" stuff in WLM.
It is easy enough to turn all that Live stuff off.

The one thing that Thunderbird has going for it is lots of add-ons,
so you can customize it to your liking.

--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (Mail)


"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:O0IbvgE2IHA.5512@xxxxxx

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:22:58 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:
I used WLM and rather liked it, and even considered using it exclusively
until I realized WLM didn't have mail rules for Hotmail accounts. If I had
to manually shunt e-mail into folders I'd go crazy. This is quite
extraordinary because you do have rudimentary mail rules if you access
Hotmail on the web. I just don't understand this, particularly when
messages are in separate files in WLM instead of *.dbx files.

I've found there's no one-size-fits-all in this type of software. To me
nothing is better than 40tude Dialog for newsgroups, Binary News Reaper for
binary downloads, and OE for mail.

Thunderbird is very good, and there's a plug-in for web mail which I've
never tried. Sometimes these plug-ins work very well, sometimes not.

One thing you've got to admit, we're spoiled for choice when it comes to
free or open source e-mail and Usenet clients.

> I don't anticipate HTTP access being added to Tbird so I'll continue to useYou raise some excellent points. I don't think Thunderbird is remotely
suitable for people like yourself who prefer to manage their emails and
contacts "on-line", from multiple computers.

It happens that I work from one computer almost all the time, so the
simplicity of Thunderbird is very appealing. On the odd occasion I must
access my emails on the road, I have browser-based access to the mail
servers I use, which is OK at a pinch.

Similarly I don't want any calendar or similar functionality - my PDA looks
after that. Just something to managed POP/SMTP emails and NNTP newsgroups.

I guess there may be plenty of people like me, who find WLM a bit messy and
prefer the simplicity of OE. Although I use plenty of heavy duty software,
I often find myself preferring applications which are focussed on one or two
things, rather than trying to be all things to all people like WLM.

Totally off topic, other examples of highly focussed, highly effective apps
that I admire include VideoReDo for editing the files from your digital TV
recorder; Ashampoo Burning Studio for burning disks; Xara3D for making 3D
logos; Opera for web browsing; to name four which come to mind. I'm tempted
to add Thunderbird to that list!

SteveT

Concur...

I certainly prefer OE.

DSH

"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ulSfStI2IHA.548@xxxxxx