Ken Blake wrote:
On 11 Mar 2018 16:09:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

What other alternative is there where the kids can play their games
created to run on Windows, or the wife's interior design software
created for windows, or music editing software my son uses, the
image editing software my daughter uses... all this software would
be useless on a Mac or other system. And we all used OE6 and
WindowsMail before that.

Indeed! Classic example of shooting the messenger, instead of blaming
Microsoft for not providing an alternative for Outlook Express / Windows
Mail.

I disagree that Microsoft should be blamed, for several reasons.

Ah, disagreement! What *would* NetNews be without it! :-)

So on with it, let me trash each and every one of your reasons!

But seriously, I will just give my view on and response to your
points. Happy reading!

1.Windows 10 *does* come with an alternative to Outlook
Express/Windows Mail. The mail program that comes with Windows is
essentially an upgraded version of Outlook Express. I personally think
it's a poor choice, but it is a choice.

Is it anything other than the Mail app which came with Windows 8.1?

If not, then I don't consider it to be an alternative, because it's
totally different and offers no migration/import part from OE/WM.

If it is totally different from the Windows 8.1 Mail app, then it's
too late, because WM died with Vista.

2. Many people thought Outlook Express was a poor choice. I never
thought it was a very good choice, but I didn't think it was as
terrible as many people thought. On the other hand I thought Windows
Mail was a poor choice

This is not about MUA *choices*, it's about Microsoft not providing
a migration path for its *existing* users.

Microsoft's users had OE or WM. Microsoft did not provide a migration
part when WM died with Vista.

3. Windows Live Mail is another choice. I also think that's a poor
choice, but it too is a choice.

See my other response. WLM is bug-ridden, bordering on unuseable.

*If* WLM would be a realistic migration path, I would still be on it.

4. Outlook.exe (part of Microsoft Office) is still another choice.
It's not free, but it's available, and in my view it's a decent
choice.

Outlook is totally different from OE/WL/WLM. It is *not* a migration
path. Trust me, I know. I've used Outlook for many.many years during my
professional life.

5. The web-based Outlook.com is still another choice

Webmail!? Go wash your mouth boy! :-)

6. Although most versions of Windows have come with an e-mail program,
as far as I'm concerned, there's no particular reason why they should.
Sending and receiving e-mail is not an operating system function, and
there's no more reason for Windows to come with one than there is for
Windows to come with a spreadsheet program, database program, etc.

All true, but Windows *did* come with an e-mail program for many, many
years (decades?) and hence Microsoft should provide its gigantic user
base with *some* decent kind of migration path, but they didn't.

To be specific: If they would fix WLM, I would have no issue. But they
can't be bothered. After all, what's a few hundred million of users in
the grand scheme of things!? :-(

7. Regardless of whether or not Microsoft provides an e-mail program
with Windows, there are lots of third-party e-mail programs available,
many of them free, and many better than what comes with Windows.

See my earlier arguments. It's about a migration path.