New Windows Live Betas Available for Download

[Tiberius]

http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=39504

Microsoft has released new betas for Windows Live Messenger (8.5 Beta 1),
Windows Live Mail (Beta 1), and Windows Live Writer (Beta 2). The Windows
Messenger blog (linked in the headline) offers an overview of what's new in
each product. In-depth views of Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Writer
are available on their respective blogs.

 

[Ben Dover]

Kroger Trading Suggests more buyout Speculation

Read it here first:

http://supermarketnews.com/retail_financial/kroger_buyout_speculation/

P.S. I have added no commentary, Just FYI

 

[MICHAEL]

This will be my first and last post with the
"new" Windows Live Mail.

*Some* improvement, but it still wants to choke
on newsgroups and there's no customizing the
toolbar. Since I use Outlook for email, not using
this is no big deal. Windows Mail was awful before
and Windows Live Mail blows a little less. I'll stick
with Thunderbird for newsgroups.

I expected better. Oh well.


-Michael

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Michael

WLM is still a beta product. If you know what you want it to do or look like
when it's released, use it and suggest changes that you feel would make it
better. You could make a difference.

Windows Live Mail: Windows Live Mail Beta now available for download!:
http://morethanmail.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B7DD1FF3F141F9A1!3459.entry

 

[Tiberius]

lots of people were asking about vista-messenger 8.1 problems...

perhaps these have been solved in the beta 8.5

 

[MICHAEL]

Ronnie,

What I want most out of WLM, better newsgroup performance and
functionality, is more than likely *not* going to happen. First, there
is a fundamental flaw with how messages are stored and accessed in
WLM, it's the same problem WM had. It just can not handle large newsgroups.
The very first group I went to after installing WLM was this group,
and WLM practically died trying to download the headers.
Thunderbird does this almost instantly, without blinking.
The same two day experience it takes to "catch up" or "mark all messages read"
still happens. Once again, with Thunderbird "mark all read" is instant.
Not being able to customize the toolbar is totally unacceptable, it's how
I navigate through newsgroups and the posts. Please, don't tell me about
keyboard shortcuts, I know. *I* want to use the toolbar and customize it like
you could in OE, like you can in Windows Mail, and like Thunderbird.
Personally, I don't think Microsoft cares about newsgroups. Most users don't
even know what they are. Although, Microsoft did have the Microsoft newsgroup
server already setup in WM. Of course, even then, many users still used that stupid
web based newsgroup access.

I can tell you some positives things about WLM; my compose and reply
windows appear instantly, that was not the case for WM. Being able to
get your Hotmail- I'm sure this will please many. No ads, and I do give
Microsoft a lot of credit on this. The ads were the primary reason I hated
WLMD. You can even turn off the search pane with its "relevant links".
It looks nice. Like Outlook, you can now minimize WLM to the notification
area or system tray (whatever people are calling that now).

Maybe I'll try it again. But the newsgroup performance and lack of toolbar
customization will keep me from seriously using it often. Thunderbird is just
far superior, maybe that will change. I doubt it, though.

Take care,

Michael

* Ronnie Vernon MVP:

 

[Ray Herring]

I just installed the latest beta build of WLM and didn't experience this
problem at all, it downloaded the first 300 headers and then I just kept
clicking on the 'headers' button and it downloaded the next 300.

Downloading 300 at a time probably isn't practical but I don't mind, and I
believe there is a way you can increase it.

 

[MICHAEL]

Retrieving a limited amount of headers at a time may be
easier on WLM, but, that can also cause other problems.
Some headers/messages not showing up, gaps in threads.
Even if you download the first 1,000- the count can get
screwed up royally. Trust me, on this.

If a user is not a big newsgroup reader or participates in
small groups, they may not really notice how terrible WLM
is at handling newsgroups. Also, the performance degrades
over time. The more groups you subscribe to and the more
posts you download will start to kick WLM's arse.


-Michael

* Ray Herring:

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Michael

I agree but support newsgroup access has been a low priority with Microsoft
and many other corporate sponsored news servers for some time now. With the
advent of so many different web based support forums, blogs, and etc, many
high level people are looking at newsgroups as the "dinosaur" of support
communication. This makes it very difficult to push for features that
promote what is perceived as outdated technology.

See the following website, this is a very interesting debate.

Forums vs. Newsgroups Redux:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jim_glass/archive/2007/05/29/forums-vs-newsgroups-redux.aspx

 

[MICHAEL]

<quote>
Obviously I’m biased towards the forums, but I really do believe that having the two channels
living side-by-side helps us reach our entire customer base with peer-to-peer support.
</quote>

That's from Joe Morel @ http://blogs.msdn.com/joemorel/archive/2006/02/22/537177.aspx

I don't see Microsoft making much of effort anymore in having
newsgroups and forums "living side-by-side". And, I feel the neglect
is intentional.... drive users towards the forums.

While the web forums have attracted many new users, many of the ones answering
those forum questions are doing so via a newsgroup reader and a news server.
I may not answer 100 questions a day, but I do feel like I make a contribution,
and I can promise you if the only access was through the web forums, my participation
would drop tremendously... probably to nothing. I absolutely can not stand the web
forums. I'm sure many other users who are the ones actually answering the questions
that all those web forum posters ask, would agree.

Also, expecting WM or WLM to perform like they *should* is not a feature
request, and handling newsgroups at least as well as an open source free
product does should be a simple undertaking. I mean come on, this is the
largest and most profitable software company in the world. Something as
simple as toolbar customization was taken out of WLM, that's just dumb.

I would bet that practically all of us who take the time to help out in these
forums do so using the news server. And most of those asking most of the
questions are doing so through the web based crap. It just seems logical to
me that Microsoft would try to help it's free support staff be a little more happy
by offering a better product. Besides, I've always felt if something is actually part
of a program it should work and work well, otherwise don't offer it all.

Take care,

Michael

* Ronnie Vernon MVP:

 

[Charlie Tame]

Michael

I agree but support newsgroup access has been a low priority with
Microsoft and many other corporate sponsored news servers for some time
now. With the advent of so many different web based support forums,
blogs, and etc, many high level people are looking at newsgroups as the
"dinosaur" of support communication. This makes it very difficult to
push for features that promote what is perceived as outdated technology.

See the following website, this is a very interesting debate.

Forums vs. Newsgroups Redux:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jim_glass/archive/2007/05/29/forums-vs-newsgroups-redux.aspx

Ronnie, I agree 100% with what Michael has said but to me the issue is
this. Thunderbird and numerous Linux readers I've tried handle the
headers and post downloads almost "Instantly". Outdated technology or
not there is something fundamentally screwed up in ALL the recent MS
newsreaders that they take MINUTES or sometimes actually HOURS to do
what others do with no effort at all. These are THE SAME servers, so
it's nothing to do with servers.

Aside from Michael's other issues, which are valid but would not stop me
using it, the time problem would stop me using it.

Outlook Express is slower than others, but not horrendously slower and
it does not degenerate with time.

 

[Charlie Tame]

<quote>
Obviously I’m biased towards the forums, but I really do believe that having the two channels
living side-by-side helps us reach our entire customer base with peer-to-peer support.
</quote>

That's from Joe Morel @ http://blogs.msdn.com/joemorel/archive/2006/02/22/537177.aspx

I don't see Microsoft making much of effort anymore in having
newsgroups and forums "living side-by-side". And, I feel the neglect
is intentional.... drive users towards the forums.

While the web forums have attracted many new users, many of the ones answering
those forum questions are doing so via a newsgroup reader and a news server.
I may not answer 100 questions a day, but I do feel like I make a contribution,
and I can promise you if the only access was through the web forums, my participation
would drop tremendously... probably to nothing. I absolutely can not stand the web
forums. I'm sure many other users who are the ones actually answering the questions
that all those web forum posters ask, would agree.

Also, expecting WM or WLM to perform like they *should* is not a feature
request, and handling newsgroups at least as well as an open source free
product does should be a simple undertaking. I mean come on, this is the
largest and most profitable software company in the world. Something as
simple as toolbar customization was taken out of WLM, that's just dumb.

I would bet that practically all of us who take the time to help out in these
forums do so using the news server. And most of those asking most of the
questions are doing so through the web based crap. It just seems logical to
me that Microsoft would try to help it's free support staff be a little more happy
by offering a better product. Besides, I've always felt if something is actually part
of a program it should work and work well, otherwise don't offer it all.

Take care,

Michael

You are again 100% correct, the BIG advantage is that using the groups
(And OE or Thunderbird) you have more time to read and therefore more
time to answer questions than you would using the clunky CDO or whatever
the cursed thing is

Unfortunately it's become quicker to use that than ANY of the latest
readers from MS, and this is sad. They can't even come up with software
to communicate realistically with their own servers, so what hope is
there for other things?

Is it going off trawling for things like post ratings that we don't use
or something?

 

[MICHAEL]

* Charlie Tame:

You are again 100% correct, the BIG advantage is that using the groups
(And OE or Thunderbird) you have more time to read and therefore more
time to answer questions than you would using the clunky CDO or whatever
the cursed thing is

Unfortunately it's become quicker to use that than ANY of the latest
readers from MS, and this is sad. They can't even come up with software
to communicate realistically with their own servers, so what hope is
there for other things?

Is it going off trawling for things like post ratings that we don't use
or something?

Charlie, I really don't know why Microsoft can't make a mail client that
can handle newsgroups properly. Heck, OE did a better job. The only
thing I can come up with is that they just don't care about newsgroups
and the neglect is intentional. It's not like accessing a news server is some
new technology, but WLM is flawed and it starts with the database structure
that is totally different than OE. The guts of WLM are the same as WM and what
was WLMD. They've known about this for a long time. The way that those
programs store and access data is just not suitable for newsgroups, nor do I
think it will be down the road for a lot of users whose inboxes, sent, and other
folders start to grow really large. That's why I've seen users who've made posts
that say "WM worked great when I first started using Vista, but it's really sluggish now".
The same thing will happen with WLM, the base code and structure are the same
as Vista's Windows Mail. As soon as I started accessing newsgroups with WLM,
I knew what I wanted fixed the most had not been. More than likely, it won't be, either.
Unless there is some major rewrite, or some miracle of coding takes place, I'll be
sticking with Thunderbird. I wanted to like WLM and was excited about it when
Microsoft announced it in early May... made some posts around these parts that
could barely contain my glee. I actually thought Microsoft might get it right.
Oh well. I've got Thunderbird, and I'm so over WLM. Time to move on... next.


Take care,

Michael

 

[Alias]

* Charlie Tame:

Charlie, I really don't know why Microsoft can't make a mail client that
can handle newsgroups properly. Heck, OE did a better job. The only
thing I can come up with is that they just don't care about newsgroups
and the neglect is intentional. It's not like accessing a news server is some
new technology, but WLM is flawed and it starts with the database structure
that is totally different than OE. The guts of WLM are the same as WM and what
was WLMD. They've known about this for a long time. The way that those
programs store and access data is just not suitable for newsgroups, nor do I
think it will be down the road for a lot of users whose inboxes, sent, and other
folders start to grow really large. That's why I've seen users who've made posts
that say "WM worked great when I first started using Vista, but it's really sluggish now".
The same thing will happen with WLM, the base code and structure are the same
as Vista's Windows Mail. As soon as I started accessing newsgroups with WLM,
I knew what I wanted fixed the most had not been. More than likely, it won't be, either.
Unless there is some major rewrite, or some miracle of coding takes place, I'll be
sticking with Thunderbird. I wanted to like WLM and was excited about it when
Microsoft announced it in early May... made some posts around these parts that
could barely contain my glee. I actually thought Microsoft might get it right.
Oh well. I've got Thunderbird, and I'm so over WLM. Time to move on... next.


Take care,

Michael

In all fairness, it's still in BETA. I will wait until it's in final
release before making a judgment.

Alias

 

[MICHAEL]

* Alias:

In all fairness, it's still in BETA. I will wait until it's in final
release before making a judgment.

Alias

I honestly do not believe it being a beta or a "final" product
will matter one bit as far as newsgroups are concerned. The
basic structure, code, and accessing of stored data is flawed,
at least for newsgroups.

-Michael

 

[Alias]

* Alias:


I honestly do not believe it being a beta or a "final" product
will matter one bit as far as newsgroups are concerned. The
basic structure, code, and accessing of stored data is flawed,
at least for newsgroups.

-Michael

That bad, eh?

Alias

 

[MICHAEL]

* Alias:

That bad, eh?

Alias

Yes, I think so.


-Michael

 

[Charlie Tame]

In all fairness, it's still in BETA. I will wait until it's in final
release before making a judgment.

Alias

Yes that is a valid enough point, however the difference between "Any"
of the recent attempts and Thunderbird, Knode and others is almost
astronomical

It seems like the storage / retrieval method is slow and also as if it's
going off to do something else as well as reading the message headers.
This is why I wondered if extra info like "Post Ratings" had anything to
do with it.

I'm like Michael I think, WLDM should have been the perfect answer for
my preferences, OE was close. Instead it seems to have gone the opposite
direction.

 

[Kevin Young]

Yes that is a valid enough point, however the difference between "Any" of
the recent attempts and Thunderbird, Knode and others is almost
astronomical

It seems like the storage / retrieval method is slow and also as if it's
going off to do something else as well as reading the message headers.
This is why I wondered if extra info like "Post Ratings" had anything to
do with it.

I'm like Michael I think, WLDM should have been the perfect answer for my
preferences, OE was close. Instead it seems to have gone the opposite
direction.

I have to agree. While performance has been improved in terms of switching
between accounts and messages, downloading newsgroup headers and marking a
group read lag way behind Thunderbird. Like you I also suspect that the
cause is the underlying file\record structure.

It is almost as if someone made a design decision back in the switch to WM
and now won't face up to the fact even with significant feedback from users
saying otherwise that the new structure just isn't adequate. I suspect that
changing this structure would also add significant delays in getting a new
client to market so instead time and effort is being spent on effectively
tweaking the interface and features but continuing to build upon a flawed
foundation.

I was hoping the delays on new beta releases of WLMd and then the
announcement of WLM was an indication that MS had recognized this and it
would be changed in WLM but that does not appear to be the case. A lot of
the changes between WLMd and WLM appear to be GUI related but just like
building a pretty house on a poor foundation the foundation will eventually
come back to haunt you.

Having moved to Vista, OE is no longer an option for me. While I'm positive
with the progress being made on the look of WLM the separation of newsgroups
from my other accounts and the performance concerns referenced will make it
very difficult for me to settle on WLM as an OE replacement. If I end up
moving to Thunderbird full time I will also likely ditch my MSN\Hotmail
accounts due to the lack of HTTP access in that product and move more to my
IMAP account.

At present MS does not seem to have an efficient NNTP newsgroup solution for
Vista users so I sure hope they listen and make the changes needed. I'm
sure these changes will be difficult and delay release of the final product
but I know if these changes are not made I will have no choice but to move
to a different reader.

 

[MICHAEL]

* Kevin Young:

I have to agree. While performance has been improved in terms of switching
between accounts and messages, downloading newsgroup headers and marking a
group read lag way behind Thunderbird. Like you I also suspect that the
cause is the underlying file\record structure.

It is almost as if someone made a design decision back in the switch to WM
and now won't face up to the fact even with significant feedback from users
saying otherwise that the new structure just isn't adequate. I suspect that
changing this structure would also add significant delays in getting a new
client to market so instead time and effort is being spent on effectively
tweaking the interface and features but continuing to build upon a flawed
foundation.

I was hoping the delays on new beta releases of WLMd and then the
announcement of WLM was an indication that MS had recognized this and it
would be changed in WLM but that does not appear to be the case. A lot of
the changes between WLMd and WLM appear to be GUI related but just like
building a pretty house on a poor foundation the foundation will eventually
come back to haunt you.

Having moved to Vista, OE is no longer an option for me. While I'm positive
with the progress being made on the look of WLM the separation of newsgroups
from my other accounts and the performance concerns referenced will make it
very difficult for me to settle on WLM as an OE replacement. If I end up
moving to Thunderbird full time I will also likely ditch my MSN\Hotmail
accounts due to the lack of HTTP access in that product and move more to my
IMAP account.

At present MS does not seem to have an efficient NNTP newsgroup solution for
Vista users so I sure hope they listen and make the changes needed. I'm
sure these changes will be difficult and delay release of the final product
but I know if these changes are not made I will have no choice but to move
to a different reader.

Sorry for the late reply, but you are spot on in your observations.
Especially, this;

<quote>
so instead time and effort is being spent on effectively
tweaking the interface and features but continuing to build upon a flawed
foundation.
</quote>

I absolutely agree. I remain hopeful, but doubtful things will change.


-Michael