no e-mail in windows 7

[Linea Recta]

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?
Outlook Express was great in windows XP.
Then we got Vista with "windows mail" which was worse...
And now there is no e-mail function at all, not even a primitive one, in
this so called improved modern OS?
What e-mail clients can be used on Windows 7? I suppose OE not...
I want to use my imap accounts on my provider.

I have tried Thunderbird (some time ago on Vista) and didn't like it cause
it was big, clumsy and slow.

Thanks for any advice.



--


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

 

[BillW50]

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?
Outlook Express was great in windows XP.
Then we got Vista with "windows mail" which was worse...
And now there is no e-mail function at all, not even a primitive one, in
this so called improved modern OS?
What e-mail clients can be used on Windows 7? I suppose OE not...
I want to use my imap accounts on my provider.

I have tried Thunderbird (some time ago on Vista) and didn't like it
cause it was big, clumsy and slow.

Thanks for any advice.

Windows Mail has been replaced with Windows Live Mail, which is a free
download. Careful though, later versions are worse then earlier
versions. I like WLM 2009 the best myself. Not as good as OE6 though.

Thunderbird? Yes, Netscape (now reborn as Mozilla) always employed the
worst programmers on the planet. They couldn't program their way of a
wet paper bag if they tried.

 

[Ken Springer]

Windows Mail has been replaced with Windows Live Mail, which is a free
download. Careful though, later versions are worse then earlier
versions. I like WLM 2009 the best myself. Not as good as OE6 though.

And, as I understand it, WLM is web based, it's not a client like OE6 was.

Likewise, would not recommend it.

Thunderbird? Yes, Netscape (now reborn as Mozilla) always employed the
worst programmers on the planet. They couldn't program their way of a
wet paper bag if they tried.

This is posted with Thunderbird, but I'm about to switch back to
Outlook. Just have to decide to spend the money.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

 

[Linea Recta]

And, as I understand it, WLM is web based, it's not a client like OE6 was.

Likewise, would not recommend it.


This is posted with Thunderbird, but I'm about to switch back to Outlook.
Just have to decide to spend the money.

.... and to abandon news groups?



--


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

 

[Ken Springer]

... and to abandon news groups?

I'll switch to a dedicated newsgroup reader.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

 

[OldGuy]

Have MS and GMail accounts.

So what is the best version of Outlook?

What is the best verion without the darn ribbon?

 

[Bob F]

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.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

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.)

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.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

And, as I understand it, WLM is web based, it's not a client like OE6 was.

No, it's not web-based.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

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 is the best verion without the darn ribbon?

I can't remember what the last version without the ribbon was. 2007, I
think, but I'm not sure.

 

[Ken Springer]

No, it's not web-based.

I "sit" corrected. LOL


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

 

[Chris S]

Windows Mail has been replaced with Windows Live Mail, which is a free
download. Careful though, later versions are worse then earlier versions.
I like WLM 2009 the best myself. Not as good as OE6 though.

Thunderbird? Yes, Netscape (now reborn as Mozilla) always employed the
worst programmers on the planet. They couldn't program their way of a wet
paper bag if they tried.

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

Chris

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

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."

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

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).

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed:
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.

 

[Linea Recta]

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

 

[Linea Recta]

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.

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

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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!)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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!)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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.
[/QUOTE]
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!)