Windows Live Mail

VanguardLH wrote:
"...winston‫" wrote:

Having the full installer is always a good idea regardless of the
version (2009, 2011, 2012).

2012 requires Win7 Sp1 and Win8x.
2011 requires Vista SP2 or Win7 SP1
- thus both should continue to be available.

From a use and support perspective there really is no business value
for MSFT to continue to host XP specific versions of their software.

I'm assuming that "wlsetup-all.exe" means it's the installer that
contains all componentns of Windows [Live] Essentials. They seem too
big to contain only Windows Live Mail.

2009 wlsetup-all.exe = 134 MB
2011 wlsetup-all.exe = 214 MB (big jump there)
2012 wlsetup-all.exe = 130 MB

Why the big jump in size for the 2011 installer?

While I've repeatedly trialed WLM along with other e-mail clients, I've
found WLM has problems and not to my liking regarding behaviors.
However, I decided to download these in case I want them later or
someone else wants one of them. I haven't bothered to [re]install them
so I can look at the EULA to see if there would be a problem with
uploading them to a well-known archival site, like oldversion.com.

Movie Maker was not included in 2009. It was in 2011 as a stand-alone
application and thereafter....2012 omitted Live Mesh with
PhotoGallery/Movie Maker in a single package. Additionally code was
added in 2011 for robustness and reliability for indexing and databases
used by a variety of the suite's programs (Mail, Contacts, Calendar,
Photo Gallery etc.) - 2009's indexing and databases were horrible and at
times unreliable.

As far as I know....distribution of MSFT property to another source
(including hosting sites or personally managed) still requires their
permission. I'm quite certain if one could ask the question, the answer
would be 'No'

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

"...winston‫" wrote:

BillW50 wrote:
""...winston?"" wrote in message
...
[...]
From a use and support perspective there really is no business value
for MSFT to continue to host XP specific versions of their software.

Really? Microsoft has no interest in cashing in on XP users? Why did it
make business sense for Microsoft to continue to issue "OEM licensing
for Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on embedded systems continued to be
available until November 1, 2008" then?

Windows 3.1x - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x

The ecosystem has changed...MSFT will never again be everything for
everyone - two operating systems - current and past is the business
model (this was clear and resounding when Win8.0 loses support and
requires a mandatory upgrade to 8.1 or later).

The accrual cost for supporting older out-of-mainstream/extended
support operating systems is a function of the revenue receipts for the
paid support. As XP use declines, so do both...eventually no longer
providing any bottom line benefit.

What was done with WfW3.11 is about as relevant as asking why GM
continued to sell Oldsmobiles when few bought them. (Lol...those same
olds-people were not much different than another declining population -
desktop pc users like you and me)

I suspect Microsoft didn't have numerous customers willing to pay for
extended support (which is pricey). The only ones doing that were
corporations that budgeted for support costs usually by buying a block
of incident tickets and doling them out only if the company's own IT or
helpdesk folks couldn't solve the problem (another expense to the
company but cheaper than going outside for employee support).

That a product is in extended support doesn't mean us users are going to
fork out the high bucks to call them to get that extended support. For
us end users, mainstream support for XP ended back in 2009. Saying that
support for XP ends this April belies that support really ended 4 years
ago. Us freeloaders appreciate getting the updates after that but we're
certainly not paying Microsoft for it. That we continue to get bug
fixes and security updates until the end of extended support is gravy to
us. We're freeloading on Microsoft's willingness to provide those
updates long after they know they aren't going to generate any revenue
from incidents filed and paid for during the extended support period.
Even after Microsoft drops extended support, you can certainly call
Microsoft to get XP support if you're willing to pay the cost of them
reallocating their personally into a special-interest support group just
for yourself. Got a million or two? Tis cheaper to find outside
support companies to give you that support but it's still pricey for a
single user forking out of his own shallow pocket.

Seems the ones that complain the most about Microsoft or any author
dropping support have never ran their own business. What customers want
does not necessarily equate into revenue. Goodwill is an expense. Look
at the other software you have installed on your host. How many of them
have authors willing to provide extended support even at extra cost when
they decide to drop support on an old version of their product? We're
used to support going dead on other products so why not with Microsoft?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Blue wrote:

BillW50 wrote:

Why you little lowlife liar!

Typical. Bull****Bill has nothing significant to say, so he attacks the
poster, making **** up.

Plonk.

Yep.

Be careful when citing who insulted who first. From the hierarchy of
posts, you were the first to insult Bill followed by others saying he
was stupid because his experience with Tbird has been less than stellar.
Seem Bill countered with insults as the result of being insulted, and
you were among them.

No, I'm not saying Bill is an exemplary post but neither are you. I'm
not a cuddly responder, either, compelled to stroke the egos of others
but if someone calls me stupid then I probably will retort just like you
do. If you can't take **** then don't toss it.

On 3/6/14 12:39 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:

BTS, did you not see my post where I have the freeze problem BillW50 is
referring to?

No, I don't remember that I did. My reason for participating in this
discussion is because Bull****Bill said *everyone* has his problem. I
replied, stating that *I* do not have this problem, ever. Then he started
calling me names and calling me a liar for stating my experiences.

Here's my first post about it:


A follow up later in the day:


If he were a nicer guy, I might invite him to my house to watch my
computer for a day or two. Then he'd shut up.

Your conduct has not been exemplary either.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0

On 3/6/14 2:40 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
"...winston‫" wrote:

BillW50 wrote:
""...winston?"" wrote in message
...
[...]
From a use and support perspective there really is no business value
for MSFT to continue to host XP specific versions of their software.

Really? Microsoft has no interest in cashing in on XP users? Why did it
make business sense for Microsoft to continue to issue "OEM licensing
for Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on embedded systems continued to be
available until November 1, 2008" then?

Windows 3.1x - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x

The ecosystem has changed...MSFT will never again be everything for
everyone - two operating systems - current and past is the business
model (this was clear and resounding when Win8.0 loses support and
requires a mandatory upgrade to 8.1 or later).

The accrual cost for supporting older out-of-mainstream/extended
support operating systems is a function of the revenue receipts for the
paid support. As XP use declines, so do both...eventually no longer
providing any bottom line benefit.

What was done with WfW3.11 is about as relevant as asking why GM
continued to sell Oldsmobiles when few bought them. (Lol...those same
olds-people were not much different than another declining population -
desktop pc users like you and me)

I suspect Microsoft didn't have numerous customers willing to pay for
extended support (which is pricey). The only ones doing that were
corporations that budgeted for support costs usually by buying a block
of incident tickets and doling them out only if the company's own IT or
helpdesk folks couldn't solve the problem (another expense to the
company but cheaper than going outside for employee support).

That a product is in extended support doesn't mean us users are going to
fork out the high bucks to call them to get that extended support. For
us end users, mainstream support for XP ended back in 2009. Saying that
support for XP ends this April belies that support really ended 4 years
ago. Us freeloaders appreciate getting the updates after that but we're
certainly not paying Microsoft for it. That we continue to get bug
fixes and security updates until the end of extended support is gravy to
us. We're freeloading on Microsoft's willingness to provide those
updates long after they know they aren't going to generate any revenue
from incidents filed and paid for during the extended support period.
Even after Microsoft drops extended support, you can certainly call
Microsoft to get XP support if you're willing to pay the cost of them
reallocating their personally into a special-interest support group just
for yourself. Got a million or two? Tis cheaper to find outside
support companies to give you that support but it's still pricey for a
single user forking out of his own shallow pocket.

Seems the ones that complain the most about Microsoft or any author
dropping support have never ran their own business. What customers want
does not necessarily equate into revenue. Goodwill is an expense. Look
at the other software you have installed on your host. How many of them
have authors willing to provide extended support even at extra cost when
they decide to drop support on an old version of their product? We're
used to support going dead on other products so why not with Microsoft?

You don't want to forget the negative reactions to problems created by a
flaw in the product that MS produced. I.E., security flaws that allow
hackers to compromise your system. Not unlike the current General
Motors ignition switch problem if the user has a heavy key ring.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0

Blue wrote:

BillW50 wrote:

Blue typed:

It's obvious you don't like Thunderbird. Don't use it and watch your
Thunderbird problems go away.

Why you little lowlife liar!

Plonk.

Geez, no one here knows how or is too lazy to trim the quoted content in
their reply?

VanguardLH wrote:
Geez, no one here knows how or is too lazy to trim the quoted content in
their reply?

Sorry about that.

--
Blue

BillW50 wrote:

After all they tried to drop XP support before. Then the netbook craze
came in and they had to extend it. This is their second attempt on
killing XP. I know they wish it to happen, but if enough pressure comes
their way they just won't ignore it. Yes Microsoft maybe many things,
but one thing they are not is really stupid. At least not yet. ;-)


This is it....at 28% XP Market share...it was over 40 last
year....there's no turning back. The reallocation of resources, budget,
expense, and accrual is off the books and wht remains is tapering
rapidly.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:37:20 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

OE6 and WLM are easily fixable with a simple macro. Thunderbird isn't
easy or very useful! Nor can you fix Thunderbird's problems with a
simple macro. Try to find replies to your posts sometime with
Thunderbird. What a piece of junk!

Is that why you post all of the stupid stuff that you post? Just to see if
you can get replies?

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:59:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:29:42 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:

BillW50 wrote:

That is because you don't try all of the features and your kind make
lousy testers. How do you know what the software can do if you never
test the limits?

You have no idea how I use the software, so stop making **** up. Though if
you didn't, you wouldn't have much to post...


LOL! A reply I almost never use, but I'll do it this time:

+1

And another +1 from me.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:22:31 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
That is because you don't try all of the features and your kind make
lousy testers. How do you know what the software can do if you never
test the limits?

You have no idea how I use the software, so stop making **** up. Though
if you didn't, you wouldn't have much to post...

LOL! A reply I almost never use, but I'll do it this time:

+1

Thank you for the support.

I see in _his_ reply to your above post, he is still making **** up. Says
I called myself "blind as a bat." False. Said he can "find it on my
machine in 30 seconds." That's false, too. He knows nothing about my
machine.

Every village has one, and you have met ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_idiot

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:14:15 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

You know what I think; I think this is just a scare tactic to scare as
many away from XP as they can. If they succeed, their job is finished.
Although I predict that I would guess like maybe 60% tops might buy that
crap.

When you predict your own guesses, you should be able to hit 100%.

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:56:32 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

"Paul" wrote in message
...

When I found a bug in Windows 8, and the same bug was present in
Windows 8.1 Preview, where could I report it ? Not to any publicly
visible bugtracker, that's for sure. The fact it wasn't fixed in
Windows 8.1 Preview, tells you how good the bug detection techniques
(telemetry) are at Microsoft.

Odd, I send mine to Microsoft and the next patch Tuesday, it is fixed
for me.

That would be a fairly tall claim if it had happened once. We could chalk it
up to coincidence. When you imply that it has happened more than once, it
simply becomes completely made up.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:55:38 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
Bob Henson typed on Thursday, March 06, 2014 3:27 AM:

I reported a bug a while back which happens in every
instance on every machine - purely an error in Thunderbird. There is
a marked difference between that and a problem that has happened to a
tiny, weeny minority of users.

What makes you believe this problem only affects a small number of
users? Heck just in the last few months just in this newsgroup, about
half complain about it and about half doesn't. That doesn't sound like
just a small number of users to me.

Meanwhile, in reality-land, the rest of us realize that this newsgroup makes
up a *tiny* proportion of the total user base, regardless of the particular
piece of software being discussed.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:43:59 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/6/14 3:04 AM, Bob Henson wrote:

If any of the few people that have the problem find it really annoying,
switching to using plain text might be a workaround?

Maybe. But, that means you are moving back in time rather than forward.
Sort of like insisting on driving that 1989 car instead of a modern
vehicle. G

Just in case you're referring to Usenet, bear in mind that Usenet *is* plain
text.