W7 Home Basic / Home Premium Should have Email Client

[jimbo45]

Hi all
In Offices etc it's not a problem as these places usually have an email server (probably something like Microsoft Exchange) and an email client such as Outlook.

So removing an email client from the more "Officy" versions of W7 like Professional and Ultimate makes 100% sense.

I do think they should have left an email client back in with W7 for the "HOME" versions as these installations won't normally have the full office suite in them (containing OUTLOOK) and I know a lot of people HATE webmail type solutions - although obviously better than nothing.

Some people might have some problems with getting their VISTA Internet mail stuff into an appropriate W7 email client as well.

Maybe this is all a part of Microsofts idea into getting more and more users to use Microsoft Live (and eventially "The Cloud").

I like pretty well everything I've seen in W7 so far -- including the yet to be included "XP compatability feature" -- much much better than the stupid "downgrade solution" but I still think the lack of a built in email client - especially for home users is a bit of a mistake. I actually quite liked Outlook express from XP -- simple, easy to manage multiple accounts etc.

Most webmail based services are an abomination -- slowish, hardish to manage attachments, difficult to track sent mail and loaded with tons of ads.

Just my views but of course YMMV.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Barman58]

Hi Jimbo,

Don't blame Microsoft for this blame the governments who tell them you can't use the virtual monopoly that you've worked for years to build up, to provide the user with added extras to the OS they need

The whole thing with the Windows Live suite of programs is Microsoft's attempt to avoid the regulators. It also means that you can now remove IE8 and WMC12 et al, if you so wish.

Hopefully when Windows 7 is released, the bureaucrats will still be too busy doling out money to the banks to bother Microsoft to much.

 

[LePoilu]

The only "internet software" the OS need is the web browser. The more MS include in Windows, the more they may have trial by third party editor for "abuse of dominant position".. and the more Gouvernement may survey MS (look at what the EU done with WMP & cie)

Email client is not hard to find and install if you need one.

 

[12eason]

who tell them you can't use the virtual monopoly that you've worked for years to build up

You say that like you think monopolies are a good thing that companies should work towards? It's like you don't understand that the market economics that allowed microsoft to climb to the top is the same one that stops MS dominating.

Where would MS be today if, when it was just a spark in Gates' eye, IBM were a monopoly that used its position to destroy competition?

 

[jimbo45]

If the stuff IS better than the competition then let them fight it out. I know the best doesn't always win in the end (Betamax vs VHS is the classic example) but we certainly shouldn't get too many people involved on inhibiting business especially at the present time.

You might not like TESCO (UK's nr 1 supermarket by far) but would the majority of people seriously want to shut it down.

( I know some do however -- TESCO has being trying to shut this site down for ages -- same Kangaroo courts that had a go against "The Bay will probably succeed here as well Tescopoly - Local campaigns against supermarkets. )

Whatever you might think of MS as a large monopoly it was THIS company which basically bought computing to the masses. Whilst at the time IBM had a far superior OS (OS/2 it was called or OS/2 Warp or something similar) it was almost IMPOSSIBLE for a home user to get hold of it as IBM was only interested in CORPORATES. Mr Gates showed there was a HUGE market for the home user and small companies.

Pity the 2 companies never worked out their differences - because Windows was designed as a single user OS to start with whilst OS/2 was a proper multi-tasking multi user system.

A lot of the security and performance issues could have been solved right at the start. It wasn't until Windows NT (dreadful by the way -- we used to call it Windows NEANDERTHAL or Windows NO THANKS) that windows was even considered as a Server system. Still thats for the history books.

I still feel that an EMAIL client should have been included -- OK as a selectable option why not.

The problem with some 3rd party apps - especially for serious users is that will these companies still be around and available to support the product in a few years.

We can individually without too much hassle change an email client but imagine a network of several 000's of PC's with literally zillions of emails being sent and received per day. The system has to be ROBUST and SECURE.

Microsoft whether we like it or not IS able to do this. I'm not sure about a small start up company -- 95% fail.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[12eason]

If the stuff IS better than the competition then let them fight it out...

...on an equal playing field.

You were almost there.

 

[LePoilu]

If the stuff IS better than the competition then let them fight it out.

Competition you allready have.

Users will ahve to make a choice on which email client they'll use.

Not integrate mail client in Seven is really better for competition and to improve MS email client and other.

The problem with some 3rd party apps - especially for serious users is that will these companies still be around and available to support the product in a few years

I Totally disagree

Look at the past: Outlook Express (included in XP) was totally out to date against lot of third party. Live Mail is really better since it's not on the system but as a stand alone client.
OE was not supported by MS fao a long time ago!
Now they put email client in the "live" software it will be more supported.

Ms and thrid party are now on the same line: the users have to choose te best for what they need.

 

[weh]

You are partially right about the MS/IBM split over operating systems; however, it was MS that caused the problems -- not IBM (I was there and in the middle of it all).

I fully appreciate all the things MS has done for the computing public; however, I have also seen the results of MS's extremely predatory marketing practices. There have been many an inferior product purchased by MS, reclothed in MS gloss, and then "incorporated" into either the OS or the office applications and strong-armed to the hardware manufacturers in order to undercut superior competition. Look what happened to Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro Pro and Word Perfect.

To be fair, MS really should be two separate companies: one producing an operating system & necessary adjuncts and the other producing applications. If MS is going to supply applications pre-installed with its OS, then it should also be forced to pre-install its two strongest competitors in each application category -- the old IBM anti-trust solution. "Here are three recommendations listed in random order. The choice is yours."

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

IBM wasn't purer than the white driven snow either -- I remember back in old MVS/370 mainframe days there were some pretty sharp practices going on between IBM and a firm called AMDAHL who were developing cheaper Mainframe's to "Big Blue" which could run the IBM OS .

Remember also when the BIOS was built into the "IBM PC" when it first came out. IBM thought by "Copyrighting the BIOS" it would stop anybody else from making not only a "competitive OS" but also even trying to stop possible competitors from making any (much cheaper) hardware.

Where were the Courts in those days. ?

However IBM definitely got the worst of all this stuff in the long run compounded hugely by buying up LOTUS as anybody who'se EVER had to use that absolutely HORRENDOUS Lotus notes rubbish (especially for email) will surely testify.

Microsoft Office remains the most populat BY FAR commercial office suite.

Whilst Word Perfect was OKish -- and maybe preferable to some people to WORD , you can't really say LOTUS 1-2-3 was better than EXCEL. The original DOS based 1-2-3 was FANTASTIC for the time - but things move on and now look there's OPEN OFFICE which does a lot of MS OFFICE stuff for FREE.

So even a big corporation has limited options for killing development although some people back in the USA might feel that General Motors stopped any progress on developing Electric Cars around 1930 -- and now look at the state they are in.

Competition will always win in the end no matter what restrictions are put on it.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[BrandonLive]

You are partially right about the MS/IBM split over operating systems; however, it was MS that caused the problems -- not IBM (I was there and in the middle of it all).

Well that's the oversimplification of the day. Perhaps that's what you believe from your perspective, but there are two sides to every story.