Vista - New WLM intention

Isn't the apparent replacement for Windows Mail, that is, Windows Live
Mail, just part of an overall strategy to get users drawn into using on
line services, specifically MS owned ones? Nothing wrong with that if
that's what you want, but I personally don't. It seems almost impossible
for them to talk about anything new these days without the word "Live"
cropping up somewhere. Signs of the near future maybe?

Welcome any comments, as I have recently ceased use of WM as too
simplistic for what I need, and rather than go the "Live" route I will
probably go to Thunderbird. Appreciate any thoughts from folk who know
more than I do (not hard). Am I talking daft, or are my suspicions
carrying some validity?
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

Who cares what WLM may morph into at some future date?
Windows Live Mail doesn't currently require you to sign up for any
online services. It doesn't even have ads. As soon as any of those
policies change, I will jump ship and switch to either Thunderbird or Outlook.
I'm not married to my email client.

Gary VanderMolen


"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:#3or3DWsHHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't the apparent replacement for Windows Mail, that is, Windows Live Mail, just part of an overall strategy to get users drawn
> into using on line services, specifically MS owned ones? Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want, but I personally
> don't. It seems almost impossible for them to talk about anything new these days without the word "Live" cropping up somewhere.
> Signs of the near future maybe?
>
> Welcome any comments, as I have recently ceased use of WM as too simplistic for what I need, and rather than go the "Live" route
> I will probably go to Thunderbird. Appreciate any thoughts from folk who know more than I do (not hard). Am I talking daft, or
> are my suspicions carrying some validity?
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and compulsive computer fiddler.

Firstly - I am not anti/pro any OS or program.
I will try all out any program to see if I feel comfortable with it.
Have been using Thunderbird for several years now and recently downloaded
WLM to give it a go.
I suppose it is because we are creatures of habit, WLM did not seem to work
the way I am used to, I still have it installed but have reverted back to
Thunderbird.
Have three computers - one with Vista Home Premium - one with Windows XP and
another with Linux, because computing is a hobby and a challenge.
All communicate with each other and connect to the one Internet connection
and share printer, scanner and fax.
The one ting I have found is that most problems I encounter are caused by
the user (Me) not abiding by the rules (so to speak).
I use discussions groups such as this one to get advise as to what may be
wrong and how to help solve problems I encounter (Never posted a query)
Computing is suppose to be enjoyed not bashing your head against a brick
wall -

"Prior Preparation and Plannining Prevents P*ss Poor Performance"--
Regards
Bob J


"Peter in New Zealand" wrote:

> Isn't the apparent replacement for Windows Mail, that is, Windows Live
> Mail, just part of an overall strategy to get users drawn into using on
> line services, specifically MS owned ones? Nothing wrong with that if
> that's what you want, but I personally don't. It seems almost impossible
> for them to talk about anything new these days without the word "Live"
> cropping up somewhere. Signs of the near future maybe?
>
> Welcome any comments, as I have recently ceased use of WM as too
> simplistic for what I need, and rather than go the "Live" route I will
> probably go to Thunderbird. Appreciate any thoughts from folk who know
> more than I do (not hard). Am I talking daft, or are my suspicions
> carrying some validity?
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.
>

> "Prior Preparation and Plannining Prevents P*ss Poor Performance"--
> Regards
> Bob J
>
Hmmm. I should try saying that five times out loud very fast . . .

On second thoughts I might never recover! lol

Good points. I will stay with TB for the present. The only thing that
makes me a little wary of it is the fact that as long as I can remember
there has been a little issue with address book groups. They seem kind
of flakey. Drag and drop to populate them seems to sometimes work, and
other times entries just don't go over, or disappear altogether. I have
experienced that since 1.5. At present I'm running 2.0.0.3 and so far it
seems OK.

I know this is a Vista group, but just while I have you guys here, has
anyone has Firefix downloading the update to 2.0.0.4 and then apparently
not installing it - in that it keeps on doing it every time I use
Firefox. Getting a bit weary of it to tell the truth. Has anyone else
experienced that, and is it a Firefox or a Vista issue?

Thanks.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:%233or3DWsHHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't the apparent replacement for Windows Mail, that is, Windows Live
> Mail, just part of an overall strategy to get users drawn into using on
> line services, specifically MS owned ones? Nothing wrong with that if
> that's what you want, but I personally don't. It seems almost impossible
> for them to talk about anything new these days without the word "Live"
> cropping up somewhere. Signs of the near future maybe?
>
> Welcome any comments, as I have recently ceased use of WM as too
> simplistic for what I need, and rather than go the "Live" route I will
> probably go to Thunderbird. Appreciate any thoughts from folk who know
> more than I do (not hard). Am I talking daft, or are my suspicions
> carrying some validity?
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.

I think you are correct.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
Do not send mail.

I pretty much agree with you.

I use ThunderBird for my email, and Agent for newsgroups. I used Outlook
Express only a bit for newsgroups. I'm using Outlook 2003 now, but only for
the calendar.

I've been using Windows Mail & Windows Live Mail since they were released,
for testing purposes, and to give me something to do since I retired.

IMHO, MS has waaaay too many "Live" programs, and I'm not very interested in
them. I suppose they are trying to attract what I refer to as "the young &
stupid" crowd.


"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:#3or3DWsHHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Isn't the apparent replacement for Windows Mail, that is, Windows Live
> Mail, just part of an overall strategy to get users drawn into using on
> line services, specifically MS owned ones? Nothing wrong with that if
> that's what you want, but I personally don't. It seems almost impossible
> for them to talk about anything new these days without the word "Live"
> cropping up somewhere. Signs of the near future maybe?
>
> Welcome any comments, as I have recently ceased use of WM as too
> simplistic for what I need, and rather than go the "Live" route I will
> probably go to Thunderbird. Appreciate any thoughts from folk who know
> more than I do (not hard). Am I talking daft, or are my suspicions
> carrying some validity?
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.

"Dave" <dave@beepbeep.com> wrote in message
news:OAlbVEbsHHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I pretty much agree with you.
>
> I use ThunderBird for my email, and Agent for newsgroups. I used Outlook
> Express only a bit for newsgroups. I'm using Outlook 2003 now, but only
> for the calendar.
>
> I've been using Windows Mail & Windows Live Mail since they were released,
> for testing purposes, and to give me something to do since I retired.
>
> IMHO, MS has waaaay too many "Live" programs, and I'm not very interested
> in them. I suppose they are trying to attract what I refer to as "the
> young & stupid" crowd.

lol I wouldn't personally put it that strongly :-)
I don't like WLM, I dropped it like a hot potatoe when I saw it "lose" an
email. I got the notification but it just vanished into the ether.
I opened another email app & the mysterious email was there...not like it
was junk or anything either, it was a regular correspondant.
....but it is a beta after all I suppose.

One thing I hate about it is the lack of customiseable toolbars.
A lot of people over in the live mail group are complaining about it, but I
bet MS won't listen.
For whatever reason (what is it?) they seem intent on dumbing down toolbars
& restricting the customising options.
IMO this is a step backwards & one reason why i will not touch WLM.

> One thing I hate about it is the lack of customiseable toolbars.
> A lot of people over in the live mail group are complaining about it,
> but I bet MS won't listen.
> For whatever reason (what is it?) they seem intent on dumbing down
> toolbars & restricting the customising options.
> IMO this is a step backwards & one reason why i will not touch WLM.
>
>
Yes, I totally agree. IMHO Outlook Express had matured into a reasonable
client, albeit at a certain level of capability, and really only needed
the database system changed to make it a pretty reasonable program. What
a shame they have decided to can it altogether with Vista. I feel
neither WM nor WLM are worthy successors to it at all, but I understand
the word beta. However, it will hardly endear end users to MS, and the
confusion surrounding the new email clients smacks of a frantic scramble
to get things out the door at the last minute.

I'm using Vista Home prem, and I'm pretty happy with it overall. I like
it, and find much to appreciate in it, but I'm gonna be a Thunderbird
fella from now on I think.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:OT9RJZesHHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> One thing I hate about it is the lack of customiseable toolbars.
>> A lot of people over in the live mail group are complaining about it, but
>> I bet MS won't listen.
>> For whatever reason (what is it?) they seem intent on dumbing down
>> toolbars & restricting the customising options.
>> IMO this is a step backwards & one reason why i will not touch WLM.
>>
>>
> Yes, I totally agree. IMHO Outlook Express had matured into a reasonable
> client, albeit at a certain level of capability, and really only needed
> the database system changed to make it a pretty reasonable program. What a
> shame they have decided to can it altogether with Vista. I feel neither WM
> nor WLM are worthy successors to it at all, but I understand the word
> beta. However, it will hardly endear end users to MS, and the confusion
> surrounding the new email clients smacks of a frantic scramble to get
> things out the door at the last minute.
>
> I'm using Vista Home prem, and I'm pretty happy with it overall. I like
> it, and find much to appreciate in it, but I'm gonna be a Thunderbird
> fella from now on I think.


Yes I also use thunderbird along with WM. Very good email client.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:eeBkrKZsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I know this is a Vista group, but just while I have you guys here, has anyone has Firefix downloading the update to 2.0.0.4 and
> then apparently not installing it - in that it keeps on doing it every time I use Firefox. Getting a bit weary of it to tell the
> truth. Has anyone else experienced that, and is it a Firefox or a Vista issue?

My Firefox is at 2.0.0.4. It got there by auto-updating itself.
--
Gary VanderMolen