Newsgroups II

Are newsgroups available in Outlook?

On 01/12/2013 23:13, Jeff T wrote:
Are newsgroups available in Outlook?


No.

Jeff T wrote:

Are newsgroups available in Outlook?

No, not *in* Outlook. Corporations don't want that feature and that
market is Microsoft's biggest Outlook customer. At best, you can get an
add-on, like Newshound which is payware, that emulates NNTP support by
reusing the folder structure inside of Outlook. Typically Newshound
users find it too weak a client solution and end up finding something
else. At one time, there was a menu choice in Outlook to Go To
newsgroups but that didn't do newsgroups inside of Outlook. Instead it
called whatever was the default handler for NNTP, like Outlook Express.
So the newsgroups menu entry in Outlook merely started another program.

Presumably when you said "Outlook" that you meant Outlook. Outlook and
Outlook Express are NOT a family of products, they are unrelated,
Outlook Express is not a light version of Outlook. They are completely
different programs, like Word and WordPerfect are separate programs.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:13:05 -0600, "Jeff T"
wrote:

Are newsgroups available in Outlook?


No. No version of Outlook has ever provided newsreading capability..

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:13:05 -0600, "Jeff T"
wrote:

Are newsgroups available in Outlook?


No. No version of Outlook has ever provided newsreading capability..

Though at least one version of Outlook (I think one of the ones previous
to 2003) used Outlook Express in a way that seemed pretty seamless to
me; another has said that it actually used whatever was the default news
client, which may have been the case, but I certainly found it well
linked, to the extent that I wouldn't have known I wasn't using Outlook
for news. [On my works machine. Until the blocked news access
altogether. )-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm sometimes a bit bewildered by that, really - there are no young people in
it, there's no sex, there's no violence, no car chases and there's no action
and no vampires. - Colin Firth on the success of the film "The King's Speech".
Radio Times 10-16 September 2011

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:34:06 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Presumably when you said "Outlook" that you meant Outlook. Outlook and
Outlook Express are NOT a family of products, they are unrelated,
Outlook Express is not a light version of Outlook. They are completely
different programs, like Word and WordPerfect are separate programs.


A very minor comment: Outlook and Outlook Express are from the same
company--Microsoft--and it almost seemed like Microsoft worked very
hard to confuse people by giving two such similar names to two such
dissimilar products. But Word and WordPerfect are by two different
companies, and WordPerfect preceded Microsoft Word.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:14:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Though at least one version of Outlook (I think one of the ones previous
to 2003) used Outlook Express in a way that seemed pretty seamless to
me;

Yes, Outlook invoked Outlook Express if you asked it to read
newsgroups. The result was that *many* people thought Outlook had
newsreading capability even though it didn't. Another example of
Microsoft's unnecessarily confusing people.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:34:06 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Presumably when you said "Outlook" that you meant Outlook. Outlook and
Outlook Express are NOT a family of products, they are unrelated,
Outlook Express is not a light version of Outlook. They are completely
different programs, like Word and WordPerfect are separate programs.

A very minor comment: Outlook and Outlook Express are from the same
company--Microsoft--and it almost seemed like Microsoft worked very
hard to confuse people by giving two such similar names to two such
dissimilar products. But Word and WordPerfect are by two different
companies, and WordPerfect preceded Microsoft Word.

Actually Microsoft bought Outlook Express. It was first called
"Internet Mail & News" (hence the "imn" still in the executable file's
name). The only immediate change upon acquisition by Microsoft was to
change the trademark and copyright strings in the program to reflect
"Microsoft". It's been 17 years since Microsoft acquired IMN so I don't
remember the original developer/owner. I only remember upon hearing the
original author's or company's name that my reaction was "Who are they?"
That was before Google existed so forget about finding info online.
Later Microsoft decided to change the "Internet Mail & News" to "Outlook
Express" to roll it under a "family" of e-mail clients but only confused
users into thinking that OE was a light version of Outlook.

Look at the mess Microsoft has made in the naming of the local e-mail
clients bundled with Windows and the naming for their online services.
Sure looks like their marketers do LSD too often and at the wrong time.
Microsoft has a penchant for forgetting their own history.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:14:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Though at least one version of Outlook (I think one of the ones previous
to 2003) used Outlook Express in a way that seemed pretty seamless to
me;

Yes, Outlook invoked Outlook Express if you asked it to read
newsgroups. The result was that *many* people thought Outlook had
newsreading capability even though it didn't. Another example of
Microsoft's unnecessarily confusing people.

A side-effect of that confusion is that users thought they had to load
Outlook to then use its menu to pick "Newsgroups". Instead the users
could've speeded up the load of Internet Mail & News aka Outlook Express
by using a desktop or taskbar shortcut to directly load that NNTP
client.

VanguardLH wrote:
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:34:06 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Presumably when you said "Outlook" that you meant Outlook. Outlook and
Outlook Express are NOT a family of products, they are unrelated,
Outlook Express is not a light version of Outlook. They are completely
different programs, like Word and WordPerfect are separate programs.

A very minor comment: Outlook and Outlook Express are from the same
company--Microsoft--and it almost seemed like Microsoft worked very
hard to confuse people by giving two such similar names to two such
dissimilar products. But Word and WordPerfect are by two different
companies, and WordPerfect preceded Microsoft Word.

Actually Microsoft bought Outlook Express. It was first called
"Internet Mail & News" (hence the "imn" still in the executable file's
name). The only immediate change upon acquisition by Microsoft was to
change the trademark and copyright strings in the program to reflect
"Microsoft". It's been 17 years since Microsoft acquired IMN so I don't
remember the original developer/owner. I only remember upon hearing the
original author's or company's name that my reaction was "Who are they?"
That was before Google existed so forget about finding info online.
Later Microsoft decided to change the "Internet Mail & News" to "Outlook
Express" to roll it under a "family" of e-mail clients but only confused
users into thinking that OE was a light version of Outlook.

Look at the mess Microsoft has made in the naming of the local e-mail
clients bundled with Windows and the naming for their online services.
Sure looks like their marketers do LSD too often and at the wrong time.
Microsoft has a penchant for forgetting their own history.

Indeed. And isn't that what happened with Windows 8? And also the infamous
large "ribbon" in Office 2007 (etc) with no way to remove and replace it,
with some more usable and customizable menus)? Still, it might be a bit
much to ask for perfection, but some of this begs for more common sense.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:18:53 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:14:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Though at least one version of Outlook (I think one of the ones previous
to 2003) used Outlook Express in a way that seemed pretty seamless to
me;

Yes, Outlook invoked Outlook Express if you asked it to read
newsgroups. The result was that *many* people thought Outlook had
newsreading capability even though it didn't. Another example of
Microsoft's unnecessarily confusing people.

A side-effect of that confusion is that users thought they had to load
Outlook to then use its menu to pick "Newsgroups". Instead the users
could've speeded up the load of Internet Mail & News aka Outlook Express
by using a desktop or taskbar shortcut to directly load that NNTP
client.


Yes, good point.

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
VanguardLH wrote:
[]
Microsoft has a penchant for forgetting their own history.

Indeed. And isn't that what happened with Windows 8? And also the infamous
large "ribbon" in Office 2007 (etc) with no way to remove and replace it,
with some more usable and customizable menus)? Still, it might be a bit

Nothing built-in, no. There are third-party addins - I use one - that,
for example, give you the old menus back.

much to ask for perfection, but some of this begs for more common sense.

(-:

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

PEDANTYou didn't start that RANT/RANT block./PEDANT

No. I typed &ltrant&gt several years ago.
(Alisdair Wren and Stuart Brady, August/September 1998.)

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Let me guess. Starter Word is the old Microsoft Works? I bet it is.

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version 4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles and
usage overhead of Word.


I still contend that the small team inside Microsoft who were developing
Works were nobbled because it was eating into Office's market: as you
say, by version 4.x, it was quite good, certainly adequate for a lot of
the word processing (and other office tasks) that a moderate sized
business might require. (Also, if you're really paranoid and believe in
the alleged pact between MS and the hardware manufacturers, Works was a
lot less demanding of resources.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

PEDANTYou didn't start that RANT/RANT block./PEDANT

No. I typed &ltrant&gt several years ago.
(Alisdair Wren and Stuart Brady, August/September 1998.)

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:14:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Though at least one version of Outlook (I think one of the ones previous
to 2003) used Outlook Express in a way that seemed pretty seamless to
me;

Yes, Outlook invoked Outlook Express if you asked it to read
newsgroups. The result was that *many* people thought Outlook had
newsreading capability even though it didn't. Another example of
Microsoft's unnecessarily confusing people.

You can choose to think that if you wish; I found it convenient.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

PEDANTYou didn't start that RANT/RANT block./PEDANT

No. I typed &ltrant&gt several years ago.
(Alisdair Wren and Stuart Brady, August/September 1998.)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
VanguardLH wrote:
[]
Microsoft has a penchant for forgetting their own history.

Indeed. And isn't that what happened with Windows 8? And also the
infamous
large "ribbon" in Office 2007 (etc) with no way to remove and replace it,
with some more usable and customizable menus)? Still, it might be a bit

Nothing built-in, no. There are third-party addins - I use one - that,
for example, give you the old menus back.

much to ask for perfection, but some of this begs for more common sense.

(-:

I've got one used XP computer (a laptop) that came with Office 2007
installed on it. I just couldn't "take" the ribbon - what an incredible
waste of desktop (laptop in my case) screen space!! So I tried out both
UBitMenu and Office Classic Menu. Either one helps immensely, but it's
still not quite as clean as not having had the ribbon at all, like in the
previous versions. Whose "bright" idea was that? (nevermind). :-)