Microsoft has said that they won't be developing a new version of Outlook Express, and instead will be focusing on Hotmail and MSN.
Full Story.
Full Story.
No New Outlook Express
- Thread starter SteveC
- Start date
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
those comments are just a bunch of bull.
Most people using email in outlook or OE are using POP3. which is the most popular type of email around the web. To say that IMAP is not a rich protocol when most people are still using pop3 (which is 100 times less sophisticated than imap) is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that pop3 works perfect for most users.
IMAP also offers more features than does hotmail or MSN webmail... so if IMAP is "not sophisticated", then microsoft's webmail is a redneck scratching his crotch.
Another point I disagree with is that people use OE just because it was less "fat". People used OE because it was faster and offered more usefull features than the equivalently dated outlook. It also had less bugs and more security updates. Not to mention it was FREE, unlike the office license which could set you back a couple hundred $$.
In my opinion OE has always run better than Outlook and I'm sad MS is losing its competitiveness now that netscape is no longer in the running.
I am glad, however, that both outlook and IE are in very final stages and are still some of the ebst options for email/browsing around.
Some of the points about IE that really suck are the popups.. popups to install programs.. popups to install language support... popup ads... it's just stupid... IE could also use some of the features that make Opera and Moz nice like tabbed browsing and mouse gestures and a download manager.... but those are not necessary.
Most people using email in outlook or OE are using POP3. which is the most popular type of email around the web. To say that IMAP is not a rich protocol when most people are still using pop3 (which is 100 times less sophisticated than imap) is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that pop3 works perfect for most users.
IMAP also offers more features than does hotmail or MSN webmail... so if IMAP is "not sophisticated", then microsoft's webmail is a redneck scratching his crotch.
Another point I disagree with is that people use OE just because it was less "fat". People used OE because it was faster and offered more usefull features than the equivalently dated outlook. It also had less bugs and more security updates. Not to mention it was FREE, unlike the office license which could set you back a couple hundred $$.
In my opinion OE has always run better than Outlook and I'm sad MS is losing its competitiveness now that netscape is no longer in the running.
I am glad, however, that both outlook and IE are in very final stages and are still some of the ebst options for email/browsing around.
Some of the points about IE that really suck are the popups.. popups to install programs.. popups to install language support... popup ads... it's just stupid... IE could also use some of the features that make Opera and Moz nice like tabbed browsing and mouse gestures and a download manager.... but those are not necessary.
zx
Learning Storage Performance
So microsoft wants people to pay for e-mail clients? Well, I guess people will have to switch. There is no way someone will purchase office or a hotmail extended account to get e-mail.
I hope people will switch to Moz or Opera.
On a side note, I tried Outlook 2003 Web Access on microsoft's site. Very nice interface and it contains most of the functions in Outlook. I wonder if it could replace Outlook on a corporate network...
I hope people will switch to Moz or Opera.
On a side note, I tried Outlook 2003 Web Access on microsoft's site. Very nice interface and it contains most of the functions in Outlook. I wonder if it could replace Outlook on a corporate network...
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
webmail just always seems slow and bloated and has less fetures than a good IMAP mail program. The benefit of webmail is that you don't have to set it up (takes less than 30 secs for an experienced person) if you goto a new computer.
Webmail also ahs the benefit of not being as prone to virii as some mail clients [from microsoft].
Webmail is nice, and it has its uses, but if you have a permanent workstation you shouldn't be using webmail on it in my opinion.
webmail is for when you're at a friends computer, the library, or any station where you should not be changing settings...
Webmail also ahs the benefit of not being as prone to virii as some mail clients [from microsoft].
Webmail is nice, and it has its uses, but if you have a permanent workstation you shouldn't be using webmail on it in my opinion.
webmail is for when you're at a friends computer, the library, or any station where you should not be changing settings...
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
OWA is "just OK". There are still several functions that the full-featured Outlook client can handle that OWA just can't (although I can't think of any good examples at the moment, 'cause I'm nowwhere near a PC with Outlook) - seems to me that it's at least lacking in things like rule creation.
IMAP is where things should be, no question about it. If someone could work out a workable, standard client/server scheduling system, Exchange would be deader than a doornail.
IMAP is where things should be, no question about it. If someone could work out a workable, standard client/server scheduling system, Exchange would be deader than a doornail.
zx
Learning Storage Performance
Mercutio said:
There is rule creation in the 2003 edition.
GIANT
Learning Storage Performance
Outlook could be replaced (on Windows platforms) by an Entourage port.
zx
Learning Storage Performance
GIANT said:
Entourage is Microsoft's Office for Mac e-mail client. Has anyone tried this product? There's not much product info on Microsoft's site.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Apparently, people aren't fed up ith Microsoft's bugs yet, so they put a lot of pressure on MSFT to reconsider and Gate's monster decided that Outlook Express will continue to live and remain hacker's favorite running gag :