Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender name,
company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make modifications
or additions that would allow the user to quickly identify faxes in the fax
log. We have used other programs that allow these modifications which make
it very easy to edit, correct, and classify received faxes.

It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may be.
WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows 2000
Fax, and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax programs
intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to send or
receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or office use.
That functionality has always been relinquished to third party software, and
still is.
That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some very
nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will remain
in the purview of third party applications.
The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS should be
included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those are the only two
product groups that would have little or no use for it.
I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or passionate
about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I am only a dumb
cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If it were left up to
me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately and promote the fax
developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the product you want in a
heartbeat.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
> Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
> subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender name,
> company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make modifications
> or additions that would allow the user to quickly identify faxes in the
> fax log. We have used other programs that allow these modifications which
> make it very easy to edit, correct, and classify received faxes.

Amen, Russ. The irony is that, while Microsoft Fax and Scan is generally
inadequate, a number of mainstream fax software providers have apparently
also been discouraged from pursuing further development. For example,
Symantec allowed the highly popular WinFax Pro to wither on the vine and
finally discontinued the product to the dismay of loyal users. Furthermore,
like Microsoft, HP has included fax software with their all-in-one products
that frustrates the user more than it helps! Is there any 3rd party
affordable, stand-alone fax software you feel comfortable about recommending
for a small business?

Thanks

*****************************
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2351gqrVqHHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may
> be. WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows
> 2000 Fax, and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax
> programs intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to
> send or receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or
> office use. That functionality has always been relinquished to third party
> software, and still is.
> That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some
> very nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will
> remain in the purview of third party applications.
> The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS should
> be included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those are the
> only two product groups that would have little or no use for it.
> I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or passionate
> about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I am only a dumb
> cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If it were left up
> to me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately and promote the fax
> developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the product you want in a
> heartbeat.
> --
> Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]
> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
>> Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
>> subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender
>> name, company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make
>> modifications or additions that would allow the user to quickly identify
>> faxes in the fax log. We have used other programs that allow these
>> modifications which make it very easy to edit, correct, and classify
>> received faxes.
>

Snappy Fax

http://www.snappysoftware.com/

--
I Bleed Blue and Gold
GO BEARS!


"Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:A585E97F-97B8-499C-A6B0-5160AE4207C4@microsoft.com...
> Amen, Russ. The irony is that, while Microsoft Fax and Scan is generally
> inadequate, a number of mainstream fax software providers have apparently also
> been discouraged from pursuing further development. For example, Symantec
> allowed the highly popular WinFax Pro to wither on the vine and finally
> discontinued the product to the dismay of loyal users. Furthermore, like
> Microsoft, HP has included fax software with their all-in-one products that
> frustrates the user more than it helps! Is there any 3rd party affordable,
> stand-alone fax software you feel comfortable about recommending for a small
> business?
>
> Thanks
>
> *****************************
> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2351gqrVqHHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may be.
>> WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows 2000 Fax,
>> and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax programs
>> intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to send or
>> receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or office use.
>> That functionality has always been relinquished to third party software, and
>> still is.
>> That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some very
>> nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will remain in
>> the purview of third party applications.
>> The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS should be
>> included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those are the only two
>> product groups that would have little or no use for it.
>> I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or passionate
>> about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I am only a dumb
>> cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If it were left up to
>> me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately and promote the fax
>> developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the product you want in a
>> heartbeat.
>> --
>> Russ Valentine
>> [MVP-Outlook]
>> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
>>> Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
>>> subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender name,
>>> company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make modifications
>>> or additions that would allow the user to quickly identify faxes in the fax
>>> log. We have used other programs that allow these modifications which make
>>> it very easy to edit, correct, and classify received faxes.
>>
>

Thanks, Cal Bear, I will look into this option. I am finding that even the
major publications are not reviewing fax software with any regularity, so it
is hard to get a good review. What we would really like is an affordable,
integrated communications center that could consolidate and handle voice
calls, automated attendent routing, voice mail, faxes, emails, contacts,
tasks, instant messaging, etcetera, all from within the same program.
Outlook would be a natural for this capability, but it appears Microsoft
will never deliver on this type of useful consolidation.

Thanks

*****************
"Cal Bear '66" <xxx@xxx.org> wrote in message
news:4D16AE42-742A-447B-B748-C63BE5B0D2CC@microsoft.com...
> Snappy Fax
>
> http://www.snappysoftware.com/
>
> --
> I Bleed Blue and Gold
> GO BEARS!
>
>
> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:A585E97F-97B8-499C-A6B0-5160AE4207C4@microsoft.com...
>> Amen, Russ. The irony is that, while Microsoft Fax and Scan is generally
>> inadequate, a number of mainstream fax software providers have apparently
>> also been discouraged from pursuing further development. For example,
>> Symantec allowed the highly popular WinFax Pro to wither on the vine and
>> finally discontinued the product to the dismay of loyal users.
>> Furthermore, like Microsoft, HP has included fax software with their
>> all-in-one products that frustrates the user more than it helps! Is
>> there any 3rd party affordable, stand-alone fax software you feel
>> comfortable about recommending for a small business?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> *****************************
>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2351gqrVqHHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may
>>> be. WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows
>>> 2000 Fax, and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax
>>> programs intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to
>>> send or receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or
>>> office use. That functionality has always been relinquished to third
>>> party software, and still is.
>>> That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some
>>> very nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will
>>> remain in the purview of third party applications.
>>> The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS
>>> should be included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those
>>> are the only two product groups that would have little or no use for it.
>>> I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or
>>> passionate about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I
>>> am only a dumb cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If
>>> it were left up to me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately
>>> and promote the fax developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the
>>> product you want in a heartbeat.
>>> --
>>> Russ Valentine
>>> [MVP-Outlook]
>>> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
>>>> Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
>>>> subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender
>>>> name, company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make
>>>> modifications or additions that would allow the user to quickly
>>>> identify faxes in the fax log. We have used other programs that allow
>>>> these modifications which make it very easy to edit, correct, and
>>>> classify received faxes.
>>>
>>
>
>

I haven't the time or inclination to evaluate third party fax software, but
you have characterized the status of fax software very well. The fax
software Microsoft has provided free with its OS has always been little more
than a rudimentary afterthought and as such has been an open invitation to
third party developers to fill the need for reliable, robust fax software.
Suddenly, no one seems to be trying to address that need, at least not for
SOHO users. (I suspect there are still some good enterprise $olutions out
there).
I have no more knowledge about what Microsoft is thinking or doing on this
front than you do. But I see some interesting clues. I was frankly surprised
to see the enhancements and improved reliability that went into WFS,
especially when the fax module had undergone deprecation in every OS before
Vista. I also wonder if the marketing blunder that pushed the fax module
solely into the business users' realm might now create some pressure to
continue to enhance the product so that it belongs there. Yeah. I know.
Dream on.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:A585E97F-97B8-499C-A6B0-5160AE4207C4@microsoft.com...
> Amen, Russ. The irony is that, while Microsoft Fax and Scan is generally
> inadequate, a number of mainstream fax software providers have apparently
> also been discouraged from pursuing further development. For example,
> Symantec allowed the highly popular WinFax Pro to wither on the vine and
> finally discontinued the product to the dismay of loyal users.
> Furthermore, like Microsoft, HP has included fax software with their
> all-in-one products that frustrates the user more than it helps! Is there
> any 3rd party affordable, stand-alone fax software you feel comfortable
> about recommending for a small business?
>
> Thanks
>
> *****************************
> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2351gqrVqHHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may
>> be. WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows
>> 2000 Fax, and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax
>> programs intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to
>> send or receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or
>> office use. That functionality has always been relinquished to third
>> party software, and still is.
>> That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some
>> very nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will
>> remain in the purview of third party applications.
>> The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS should
>> be included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those are the
>> only two product groups that would have little or no use for it.
>> I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or passionate
>> about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I am only a
>> dumb cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If it were
>> left up to me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately and promote
>> the fax developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the product you want
>> in a heartbeat.
>> --
>> Russ Valentine
>> [MVP-Outlook]
>> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
>>> Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
>>> subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender
>>> name, company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make
>>> modifications or additions that would allow the user to quickly identify
>>> faxes in the fax log. We have used other programs that allow these
>>> modifications which make it very easy to edit, correct, and classify
>>> received faxes.
>>
>

On Jun 8, 12:23 am, "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russ...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may be.
> WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows 2000
> Fax, and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax programs
> intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to send or
> receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or office use.
> That functionality has always been relinquished to third party software, and
> still is.
> That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some very
> nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will remain
> in the purview of third party applications.
> The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS should be
> included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those are the only two
> product groups that would have little or no use for it.
> I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or passionate
> about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I am only a dumb
> cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If it were left up to
> me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately and promote the fax
> developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the product you want in a
> heartbeat.
> --
> Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]"Blue Max" <mailrich...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
> > Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
> > subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender name,
> > company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make modifications
> > or additions that would allow the user to quickly identify faxes in the
> > fax log. We have used other programs that allow these modifications which
> > make it very easy to edit, correct, and classify received faxes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Russ,

> WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows 2000
> Fax, and Windows XP Fax

While this is undoubtedly true some work has been going on under the
hood which could be significant. The fax engine in 2003R2/Vista/
Longhorn now supports fax service Class 2.0 which allows the modem to
undertake much more of the low level protocol work. When combined
with a new generation of fax hardware (boards and DSP's) we are
beginning to see performance, compatibility, and reliability that are
similar to that obtainable with third party fax servers. Obviously,
this cannot address the functional limitations associated with MS Fax
but could at least deliver a robust solution for the first time.

I cannot say whether the Class 2.0 support has made it into the XP SP2
fax engine. This is something our engineering team is looking into.

As a company we have never supported the MS Fax products because they
did not meet the performance and reliability criteria that our
customers demand. With luck this is about to change.

We do maintain a list on our website of fax software that has been
through our test process. This is primarily for mid to high end
solutions;

http://www.mainpine.com/software.html

We are about to announce support for a significant number of other
packages with our new PCI Express products.

Regards

ANDREW RINALDI
Mainpine Limited - Support
USA +1 503 822 9944 | Asia/Europe +44 1225 869439
andrew.rinaldi@mainpine.com | www.mainpine.com

That's good information to have. It may take a while to see how WFS fares in
real world use. The only users to whom it is available are the ones who have
learned to avoid MS Fax products in the past.
--
> Russ,
>
>> WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows 2000
>> Fax, and Windows XP Fax
>
> While this is undoubtedly true some work has been going on under the
> hood which could be significant. The fax engine in 2003R2/Vista/
> Longhorn now supports fax service Class 2.0 which allows the modem to
> undertake much more of the low level protocol work. When combined
> with a new generation of fax hardware (boards and DSP's) we are
> beginning to see performance, compatibility, and reliability that are
> similar to that obtainable with third party fax servers. Obviously,
> this cannot address the functional limitations associated with MS Fax
> but could at least deliver a robust solution for the first time.
>
> I cannot say whether the Class 2.0 support has made it into the XP SP2
> fax engine. This is something our engineering team is looking into.
>
> As a company we have never supported the MS Fax products because they
> did not meet the performance and reliability criteria that our
> customers demand. With luck this is about to change.
>
> We do maintain a list on our website of fax software that has been
> through our test process. This is primarily for mid to high end
> solutions;
>
> http://www.mainpine.com/software.html
>
> We are about to announce support for a significant number of other
> packages with our new PCI Express products.
>
> Regards
>
> ANDREW RINALDI
> Mainpine Limited - Support
> USA +1 503 822 9944 | Asia/Europe +44 1225 869439
> andrew.rinaldi@mainpine.com | www.mainpine.com
>

Very interesting, Russ, thank you for your insights!

****************
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OKkvtUhqHHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I haven't the time or inclination to evaluate third party fax software, but
>you have characterized the status of fax software very well. The fax
>software Microsoft has provided free with its OS has always been little
>more than a rudimentary afterthought and as such has been an open
>invitation to third party developers to fill the need for reliable, robust
>fax software. Suddenly, no one seems to be trying to address that need, at
>least not for SOHO users. (I suspect there are still some good enterprise
>$olutions out there).
> I have no more knowledge about what Microsoft is thinking or doing on this
> front than you do. But I see some interesting clues. I was frankly
> surprised to see the enhancements and improved reliability that went into
> WFS, especially when the fax module had undergone deprecation in every OS
> before Vista. I also wonder if the marketing blunder that pushed the fax
> module solely into the business users' realm might now create some
> pressure to continue to enhance the product so that it belongs there.
> Yeah. I know. Dream on.
> --
> Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]
> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:A585E97F-97B8-499C-A6B0-5160AE4207C4@microsoft.com...
>> Amen, Russ. The irony is that, while Microsoft Fax and Scan is generally
>> inadequate, a number of mainstream fax software providers have apparently
>> also been discouraged from pursuing further development. For example,
>> Symantec allowed the highly popular WinFax Pro to wither on the vine and
>> finally discontinued the product to the dismay of loyal users.
>> Furthermore, like Microsoft, HP has included fax software with their
>> all-in-one products that frustrates the user more than it helps! Is
>> there any 3rd party affordable, stand-alone fax software you feel
>> comfortable about recommending for a small business?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> *****************************
>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2351gqrVqHHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> It appears that reality has escaped you, however understandable that may
>>> be. WFS is the same fax module that existed in NT Personal Fax, Windows
>>> 2000 Fax, and Windows XP Fax. As we all know, those are rudimentary fax
>>> programs intended only for the occasional fax a home user might need to
>>> send or receive. In no way have they ever been useful for production or
>>> office use. That functionality has always been relinquished to third
>>> party software, and still is.
>>> That fact has not changed with Vista's WFS. While there have been some
>>> very nice enhancements to WFS, the features you are seeking are and will
>>> remain in the purview of third party applications.
>>> The irony here is that the marketers at Microsoft decided that WFS
>>> should be included only with Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Those
>>> are the only two product groups that would have little or no use for it.
>>> I have met no developers at Microsoft who are more talented or
>>> passionate about their product than the ones who are working on WFS. I
>>> am only a dumb cardiologist managing the largest practice in the US. If
>>> it were left up to me, I would fire Microsoft's marketers immediately
>>> and promote the fax developers. I bet they could turn WFS into the
>>> product you want in a heartbeat.
>>> --
>>> Russ Valentine
>>> [MVP-Outlook]
>>> "Blue Max" <mailrichard@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:A8982968-B6D6-48C3-A9B2-476F848F8678@microsoft.com...
>>>> Why not allow the user to add or modify a sender name, company name, or
>>>> subject field for received faxes? Many faxes do not have the sender
>>>> name, company name, or subject. This would allow the user to make
>>>> modifications or additions that would allow the user to quickly
>>>> identify faxes in the fax log. We have used other programs that allow
>>>> these modifications which make it very easy to edit, correct, and
>>>> classify received faxes.
>>>
>>
>
>

"Andrew Rinaldi" <andrew.rinaldi@mainpine.com> wrote in message
news:1181380599.331421.54480@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 8, 12:23 am, "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russ...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>While this is undoubtedly true some work has been going on under the
>hood which could be significant. The fax engine in 2003R2/Vista/
>Longhorn now supports fax service Class 2.0 which allows the modem to
>undertake much more of the low level protocol work. When combined
>with a new generation of fax hardware (boards and DSP's) we are
>beginning to see performance, compatibility, and reliability that are
>similar to that obtainable with third party fax servers. Obviously,
>this cannot address the functional limitations associated with MS Fax
>but could at least deliver a robust solution for the first time.

Thank you, Andrew, this does provide a very small glimmer of hope.
Furthermore, your guarded optimism is justifiably warranted since Microsoft
would have to add a great wealth of fax and voice features before winning
over any meaningful audience of home or small office users. Nevertheless,
with the diminishing number of 3rd party solutions for the home and small
office, this may be a logical time to fill this market need. We'd love to
see Outlook evolve into a central communications center for home and small
offices where all forms of communication could be consolidated and archived,
including call origination and answering, call recording, automated
attendant, voice mail routing, email, fax, newsgroup communications,
etcetera, etcetera! A number of programs over the years, often under
$100.00, have very adequately met these very needs, but for some unknown
reason, were unexpectedly pulled from the market?