no e-mail in windows 7

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:55:31 -0500, "Chris S"
wrote:

I found it trivial to just bring winmail to Win 7 from Vista. Outlook
Express 6, reborn!

Good show Chris!

As far as I'm concerned, Windows Mail was nothing but a later version
of Outlook Express, but with a different name rather than a different
version number. Microsoft often works hard to confuse people with the
names they give things--giving similar things different names (for
example, Outlook Express and Windows Mail) and giving dissimilar
things similar names (for example, Outlook, Outlook Express, and
Outlook.com).

No kidding? Windows Mail looks like OE6? I only know OE6 and WLM 2009
really well and they are very much different.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

"Ken Blake, MVP" schreef in bericht
...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:46:42 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:44:40 -0800, OldGuy wrote:

Have MS and GMail accounts.

So what is the best version of Outlook?



In my view? 2013, the latest version. With an occasional exception, I
think the latest version of almost every program is the latest one.


What a silly-looking typo. Everybody probably agrees with what I wrote
(but not necessarily with what I meant). Of course, what I meant was
"... the best one."




LOL, I thought this might have been some kind of weird humor...



--


|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

"Ken Blake, MVP" schreef in bericht
...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:10:59 +0100, "Linea Recta"
wrote:

hi, I'm in the process of moving from xp to windows 7.
Now, I was stupified to learn that there is no e-mail utility at all, not
even a primitive one.
Why do MS make life so hard?


My view is completely different from yours. Yes, Windows XP came with
a built-in e-mail client. Yes, Windows 7 came without one.

But in my view, that's good, not bad. It's a step forward. With
Windows XP, many people used Outlook Express because that's what they
had and they didn't even realize they had a choice of many others.

Windows 7, on the other hand, doesn't insist on, or even suggest,
which e-mail client to use. It lets each user choose for himself which
he thinks is best--Microsoft products as well as many non-Microsoft
products. That's *great*. (But unfortunately, Windows 8 comes with
one, and in my view, that's a step backward.)


Following that philosophy they'd better left out Explorer, Wordpad,
calculator, backup and the whole lot of applications, so as to have the user
choose those all by himself?
I think forcing an aplication is'nt good, but suggesting a way to go is
great, especially in the case where the user can't keep using the
application he got used to.





Outlook Express was great in windows XP.


That's your opinion. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong,
but I do want to point out that we don't all have the same opinions. I
didn't particularly like Outlook Express, and used it for only a short
time after I got XP.



Thanks,


--


|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:55:31 -0500, "Chris S"
wrote:

I found it trivial to just bring winmail to Win 7 from Vista. Outlook
Express 6, reborn!


As far as I'm concerned, Windows Mail was nothing but a later version
of Outlook Express, but with a different name rather than a different
version number. Microsoft often works hard to confuse people with the
names they give things--giving similar things different names (for
example, Outlook Express and Windows Mail) and giving dissimilar
things similar names (for example, Outlook, Outlook Express, and
Outlook.com).

And the worst "similar names" of all, Windows Explorer and Internet
Explorer.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reason for the oil shortage: nobody remembered to check the oil levels. Our
oil is located in the North Sea but our dip-sticks are located in Westminster.
(or Texas and Washington etc. - adjust as necessary!)

In message , OldGuy
writes:
Have MS and GMail accounts.

So what is the best version of Outlook?

For the home user, I suspect there's very little difference between them
all. I do know that 2010 forgets where you said to save attachments even
between emails, whereas 2003 only forgot between sessions.

What is the best verion without the darn ribbon?


I think the ribbon came in with 2007, so the latest - whether the best
is open to question (later versions _probably_ had minor enhancements,
but probably also required more resources) - without it is I think 2003.
(I know there are third-party utilities that give you your old menu back
for Word and some of the other parts of Office, though I'm not sure if
they do for Outlook.)

Outlook _Express_ doesn't work under 7 (I gather some have made it do so
but it requires a lot of work and is flaky). Windows Mail may be OE in
all but name, though, and apparently does.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reason for the oil shortage: nobody remembered to check the oil levels. Our
oil is located in the North Sea but our dip-sticks are located in Westminster.
(or Texas and Washington etc. - adjust as necessary!)

In message , Bob F
writes:
George wrote:
You might want to take a look at OE Classic:
http://www.oeclassic.com/

I haven't used it yet but it is supposed to be very similar to OE.


Minus message rules and other critical things.


Also in two versions, free ("evaluation") and pay: there's a comparison
table (on the orders page I think). Consensus on the 7 'group is that
OEC isn't great - I can't remember why, have a look
(alt.windows7.general) yourself, it was quite recent (last week or two I
think).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reason for the oil shortage: nobody remembered to check the oil levels. Our
oil is located in the North Sea but our dip-sticks are located in Westminster.
(or Texas and Washington etc. - adjust as necessary!)

In message , Linea Recta
writes:
"Ken Blake, MVP" schreef in bericht
.. .
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:10:59 +0100, "Linea Recta"
wrote:

hi, I'm in the process of moving from xp to windows 7.
Now, I was stupified to learn that there is no e-mail utility at all, not
even a primitive one.
Why do MS make life so hard?


My view is completely different from yours. Yes, Windows XP came with
a built-in e-mail client. Yes, Windows 7 came without one.

But in my view, that's good, not bad. It's a step forward. With
Windows XP, many people used Outlook Express because that's what they
had and they didn't even realize they had a choice of many others.

I second that view.

Windows 7, on the other hand, doesn't insist on, or even suggest,
which e-mail client to use. It lets each user choose for himself which
he thinks is best--Microsoft products as well as many non-Microsoft
products. That's *great*. (But unfortunately, Windows 8 comes with
one, and in my view, that's a step backward.)


Following that philosophy they'd better left out Explorer, Wordpad,
calculator, backup and the whole lot of applications, so as to have the
user choose those all by himself?
I think forcing an aplication is'nt good, but suggesting a way to go is
great, especially in the case where the user can't keep using the
application he got used to.

Explorer - difficult one, that; _arguably_ part of the OS, and you
certainly need _something_ of the sort right from the start, so one has
to be there.

Wordpad - interesting question; I haven't looked at the version that
comes with 7, but assuming it's not got _worse_, it probably would
satisfy the needs of the low and moderate user - and yet, throughout XP,
Vista, and 7 (and back into '9x), I don't think I know _anybody_ who
hasn't loaded something else (usually Word, occasionally WordPerfect,
sometimes the free Office suites), so the argument that it shouldn't be
there at all is less strong. I think WordPad gives a good flavour of
what might be possible with a word processor, and as such is worth them
including.

Calculator - more than most people need, and those who do need more, I
suspect are savvy enough to go find something. I can't see any harm in
_that_ being included.

Backup - you _could_ have a point there. It _could_ be argued (I'm not
doing so) that you don't need a backup facility from the start ("get-go"
for USians), and thus people should choose.

But Mail is quite a complex thing, and unlike the others we've discussed
requires some setting up with the mail provider (sever names, passwords,
and so on). Thus providing one, as was done with OE and perhaps whatever
Vista has, encourages their use (obviously), so there's not only Ken's
point about people not realising there _are_ alternatives, but also
there's the difficulty of transferring - settings and accumulated mails
- should they later decide to try something else. (_Most_ of the
alternatives offer to "import" settings, emails, etc. from whatever is
the default on the systems they're being installed under, but not all,
and also IME this isn't an error-free process.)

IMO, they should provide a "choose email client" window, much as they do
for browsers - or is that only in EU, and you've not seen it? Rather
than not mentioning the subject at all!

Outlook Express was great in windows XP.


That's your opinion. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong,
but I do want to point out that we don't all have the same opinions. I
didn't particularly like Outlook Express, and used it for only a short
time after I got XP.

I agree with both of you. Though I think for a beginner, OE was/is easy
to understand, and there was at least almost universal support for it,
which had its advantages. (I'd always install OE-quotefix fairly soon to
go with it, though.)


Thanks,


Personally, I'd say Thunderbird _is_ a fair choice: it may be big, but
(a) you don't have to _use_ the bits you're not interested in, (b) any
PC capable of running 7 won't worry about TB's requirements, (c) support
is pretty widespread. FWIW, I have an elderly gentleman who moved from
OE (on a 98SElite machine! Dialup!), to a Vista laptop his daughter
passed on to him: we tried using what came with Vista, and he didn't get
on with it at all (still dialup), and we have now moved to Thunderbird
(admittedly at the same time as going to broadband which does make
things easier), and he's getting on OK with it. But YMMV.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reason for the oil shortage: nobody remembered to check the oil levels. Our
oil is located in the North Sea but our dip-sticks are located in Westminster.
(or Texas and Washington etc. - adjust as necessary!)

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 12:02:20 +0100, "Linea Recta"
wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" schreef in bericht
...

My view is completely different from yours. Yes, Windows XP came with
a built-in e-mail client. Yes, Windows 7 came without one.

But in my view, that's good, not bad. It's a step forward. With
Windows XP, many people used Outlook Express because that's what they
had and they didn't even realize they had a choice of many others.

Windows 7, on the other hand, doesn't insist on, or even suggest,
which e-mail client to use. It lets each user choose for himself which
he thinks is best--Microsoft products as well as many non-Microsoft
products. That's *great*. (But unfortunately, Windows 8 comes with
one, and in my view, that's a step backward.)


Following that philosophy they'd better left out Explorer,


No. You can't run without a shell, so Windows should come with such a
program.


Wordpad, calculator, backup


Yes. All poor utilities and it would be better to let people choose
for themselves.

In the earliest days of Windows, finding alternative programs wasn't
so easy. But in these days of the Internet, it definitely is.


and the whole lot of applications,


*What* whole lot of applications? There are almost none--just a few
utilities, and mostly very minor ones.


so as to have the user
choose those all by himself?
I think forcing an aplication is'nt good, but suggesting a way to go is
great, especially in the case where the user can't keep using the
application he got used to.


The problem is that it's always much more than a suggestion. Except
for the skilled users, most people don't even realize there are other
choices.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 11:23:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:

As far as I'm concerned, Windows Mail was nothing but a later version
of Outlook Express, but with a different name rather than a different
version number. Microsoft often works hard to confuse people with the
names they give things--giving similar things different names (for
example, Outlook Express and Windows Mail) and giving dissimilar
things similar names (for example, Outlook, Outlook Express, and
Outlook.com).

And the worst "similar names" of all, Windows Explorer and Internet
Explorer.



Good point. I'm not sure it's the worst, but it certainly was very
bad. It's confused *many* people.

I'm not sure what it's like in other languages, but in English it's
very common for many people to shorten the names of things. So they
call Outlook Express and Outlook.com Outlook. And they call Internet
Explorer Explorer, and so on. It's as if Microsoft is completely
unaware of this tendency when they name things.

Another example of shortening (although it has nothing to do with
Windows) is that so many people call caffelatte latte. Go to Italy and
order a latte and see what you get!

| Another example of shortening (although it has nothing to do with
| Windows) is that so many people call caffelatte latte.

I've always called it kiddie coffee.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:24:29 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Another example of shortening (although it has nothing to do with
| Windows) is that so many people call caffelatte latte.

I've always called it kiddie coffee.


Sure. Go into a restaurant or bar, either in the US or Italy, ask for
"kiddie coffee," and see what you get.

Or let me tell you what you'll get. You'll get the reply "what"? g

OK, decided to give WLM a try. Seens to work. Although I seem to have made
many mistakes according to spelling checker. But it's great I have a
spelling checker at least for Dutch. This was a no go with Windows Mail
(Vista).
Which brings up the following annoyance: how to get double quotation marks
by pressing once? Who invents the nuisance...







"J. P. Gilliver (John)" schreef in bericht
...

In message , Linea Recta
writes:
"Ken Blake, MVP" schreef in bericht
.. .
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:10:59 +0100, "Linea Recta"
wrote:

hi, I'm in the process of moving from xp to windows 7.
Now, I was stupified to learn that there is no e-mail utility at all,
not
even a primitive one.
Why do MS make life so hard?


My view is completely different from yours. Yes, Windows XP came with
a built-in e-mail client. Yes, Windows 7 came without one.

But in my view, that's good, not bad. It's a step forward. With
Windows XP, many people used Outlook Express because that's what they
had and they didn't even realize they had a choice of many others.

I second that view.

Windows 7, on the other hand, doesn't insist on, or even suggest,
which e-mail client to use. It lets each user choose for himself which
he thinks is best--Microsoft products as well as many non-Microsoft
products. That's *great*. (But unfortunately, Windows 8 comes with
one, and in my view, that's a step backward.)


Following that philosophy they'd better left out Explorer, Wordpad,
calculator, backup and the whole lot of applications, so as to have the
user choose those all by himself?
I think forcing an aplication is'nt good, but suggesting a way to go is
great, especially in the case where the user can't keep using the
application he got used to.

Explorer - difficult one, that; _arguably_ part of the OS, and you
certainly need _something_ of the sort right from the start, so one has
to be there.

Wordpad - interesting question; I haven't looked at the version that
comes with 7, but assuming it's not got _worse_, it probably would
satisfy the needs of the low and moderate user - and yet, throughout XP,
Vista, and 7 (and back into '9x), I don't think I know _anybody_ who
hasn't loaded something else (usually Word, occasionally WordPerfect,
sometimes the free Office suites), so the argument that it shouldn't be
there at all is less strong. I think WordPad gives a good flavour of
what might be possible with a word processor, and as such is worth them
including.

Calculator - more than most people need, and those who do need more, I
suspect are savvy enough to go find something. I can't see any harm in
_that_ being included.

Backup - you _could_ have a point there. It _could_ be argued (I'm not
doing so) that you don't need a backup facility from the start ("get-go"
for USians), and thus people should choose.

But Mail is quite a complex thing, and unlike the others we've discussed
requires some setting up with the mail provider (sever names, passwords,
and so on). Thus providing one, as was done with OE and perhaps whatever
Vista has, encourages their use (obviously), so there's not only Ken's
point about people not realising there _are_ alternatives, but also
there's the difficulty of transferring - settings and accumulated mails
- should they later decide to try something else. (_Most_ of the
alternatives offer to "import" settings, emails, etc. from whatever is
the default on the systems they're being installed under, but not all,
and also IME this isn't an error-free process.)

IMO, they should provide a "choose email client" window, much as they do
for browsers - or is that only in EU, and you've not seen it? Rather
than not mentioning the subject at all!

Outlook Express was great in windows XP.


That's your opinion. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong,
but I do want to point out that we don't all have the same opinions. I
didn't particularly like Outlook Express, and used it for only a short
time after I got XP.

I agree with both of you. Though I think for a beginner, OE was/is easy
to understand, and there was at least almost universal support for it,
which had its advantages. (I'd always install OE-quotefix fairly soon to
go with it, though.)


Thanks,


Personally, I'd say Thunderbird _is_ a fair choice: it may be big, but
(a) you don't have to _use_ the bits you're not interested in, (b) any
PC capable of running 7 won't worry about TB's requirements, (c) support
is pretty widespread. FWIW, I have an elderly gentleman who moved from
OE (on a 98SElite machine! Dialup!), to a Vista laptop his daughter
passed on to him: we tried using what came with Vista, and he didn't get
on with it at all (still dialup), and we have now moved to Thunderbird
(admittedly at the same time as going to broadband which does make
things easier), and he's getting on OK with it. But YMMV.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reason for the oil shortage: nobody remembered to check the oil levels.
Our
oil is located in the North Sea but our dip-sticks are located in
Westminster.
(or Texas and Washington etc. - adjust as necessary!)

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
Another example of shortening (although it has nothing to do with
Windows) is that so many people call caffelatte latte. Go to Italy and
order a latte and see what you get!

Latte = milk in Italian, which I have heard that Starbucks barristas do
not generally know.

Mort Linder

In message , Linea Recta
writes:
OK, decided to give WLM a try. Seens to work. Although I seem to have made
many mistakes according to spelling checker. But it's great I have a
spelling checker at least for Dutch. This was a no go with Windows Mail
(Vista).
Which brings up the following annoyance: how to get double quotation marks
by pressing once? Who invents the nuisance...
[]
I've already replied that the WLM should be before version 15 or to look
at the WLM-quotefix (since I heard of that's existence, I've heard very
little about whether it works well or not - haven't tried it myself as I
don't run WLM), and asked for clarification of whether he means this
character --"--.

People, if you're going to email AND post, PLEASE put

EMAILED AND POSTED

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

The truth is, almost everyone in the world is lovely. But the world is ruined
for us by the sociopaths and those who aren't lovely. - Richard Osman to
Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" schreef in bericht
...
In message , Linea Recta
writes:
OK, decided to give WLM a try. Seens to work. Although I seem to have made
many mistakes according to spelling checker. But it's great I have a
spelling checker at least for Dutch. This was a no go with Windows Mail
(Vista).
Which brings up the following annoyance: how to get double quotation marks
by pressing once? Who invents the nuisance...
[]
I've already replied that the WLM should be before version 15 or to look


The version I have on Windows 7 is WLM 2012.




at the WLM-quotefix (since I heard of that's existence, I've heard very
little about whether it works well or not - haven't tried it myself as I
don't run WLM), and asked for clarification of whether he means this
character --"--.


Yes I was referring to the character --"--.




People, if you're going to email AND post, PLEASE put

EMAILED AND POSTED

as the first line of BOTH.
--


That was a mistake. Mea maxima culpa...