«

Fredd Wright wrote:

> I finally ugraded my 7-year old PC and, to date, have been using Outlook
> Express since the dawn of time. Unfortunately, Windows 7

You don't mention WHICH edition of Windows 7. There are several and
some include XP Mode (which is a license of Windows XP running in a
virtual machine). If you have an edition of Windows 7 that supports XP
Mode, be sure to get BOTH of the 2 downloads to install XP Mode (the
Windows XP license for use only under Windows 7) and Windows VirtualPC
(the virtual machine manager).

If you have a spare UNUSED license for Windows XP (i.e., it wasn't used
as the basis for an upgrade that is still currently inuse), you could
use other VMMs, like VMware Player, VirtualPC 2007, or VirtualBox.

>does not have OE

But Windows XP does come with Outlook Express. OE and IE were bundled
together but Microsoft stopped bundling OE with IE as of version 7.
That means IE6 was the last version with OE bundled with it. Luckily
IE6 is the base version included in Windows XP.

No point in telling you how to add XP Mode to Windows 7 unless you want
to go that route and you have the Pro, Ultimate, or Enterprise editions
of Windows 7.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...indows-xp-mode

> but uses Windows Live Mail which i've heard mixed reviews about.

Most arguments here is that the v15 screwed up indentation of quoted
content - in that it doesn't do that. Unless a respondent using WLM v15
manually indents with a prefix characters the quoted content, they might
as well not quote any posts to which they reply. As for e-mail usage, I
haven't bothered using it so you probably should ask the folks over in
microsoft.public.windows.live.mail.desktop on how it might compare with
other e-mail clients.

> I do have
> Microsoft Office 2003 which includes Outlook. Would it be better to migrate
> my email into Outlook 2003 or to use Windows Live Mail? I"m thinking the
> Outlook migration may be easier but i don't know if Windows Live Mail is a
> better program (newer doesn't always mean better).

I gave up on OE a long time ago ever since I got Outlook (at version
2000, I believe). However, I still configure it for use as a backup
e-mail client (but also configure it to leave messages up on the server
so they go into Outlook when I return to using that).

You can go ask the WLM group if that product incorporate Deltasync
control. This is Microsoft's proprietary communications protocol that
emulates IMAP access to your mailbox plus, I believe, adding other
features, like calendar and contact sync. However, when I last trialed
WLM, I didn't like that when I had WLM go online to do the calendar and
contact sync that I lost my local calendars and contacts list. They
really don't do a sync. They do a switch. When online, you see your
online calendar and online contacts list. When offline, you see your
local calendar and local contacts list. The two don't get merged. That
means if you need to read your e-mails while offline, like when you
cannot get an Internet connection or their server is unreachable (it's
down, it's busy, a host in the route is unresponsive) that you can't see
your online calendar.

While I don't bother with Deltasync because I don't care about online
calendars and online contacts, I know many users like having that info
(but it can be confusing if you're looking at the online or local
lists). I just do POP to access my accounts in both Outlook Express,
Outlook, and WLM if I used that. Outlook 2003 does not natively support
Deltasync. Microsoft said they were going to add IMAP access but that
was years ago when promised or alluded to. Deltasync what Microsoft's
replacement for IMAP. They made claims about it being better than IMAP
but the argument was really lopsided in that it helped them, not their
users. They also claimed IMAP was harder to maintain yet other e-mail
providers have been supporting IMAP for decades. They just wanted
something proprietary that locked you into using their e-mail clients if
you used their Hotmail service and wanted more than POP access. Since
OL2003 doesn't support Deltasync, you have to add it by installing
Microsoft's Outlook Connector add-on. It might be better now but I saw
many users complaining about problems with that add-on plus I don't know
if it did more than give Deltasync access to the e-mail folders (I don't
know if it included your online calendar and online contacts). The best
place to ask about usability of the Outlook Connector add-on is over in
the microsoft.public.outlook.general group. To me, having to add more
layers for protocol support via add-ons meant less stability. WLM has
Deltasync built in but that's only important for users that want IMAP-
like access to their e-mail accounts but also don't care about losing
the online calendar and online contacts when they don't happen to have
an Internet connection. When Zimbra first came out, the lack of access
to online data when there was no Internet access was why I didn't want
that e-mail client. They didn't sync the calendar and contacts to the
local store just like WLM doesn't do a sync (it just switches from local
to online stores); however, I recall they came out with an offline
e-mail client called Zimbra Desktop that now does that sync so you can
see all your e-mails, calendars, and contacts when offline.

Whether robust rules is important to you depends on how much you use
them to organize or filter your e-mails. I rely a lot on rules to
organize my e-mails. I don't rely on them much anymore to eliminate
spam since the best anti-spam solution is employed up at the server
rather than at the client, plus many e-mail providers provide reasonably
robust filters that you can define in your account (i.e., server-side
rules are better than client-side rules). Outlook's rules are much more
robust than you find in either OE or WLM but if you don't have rules or
they are pretty simple then Outlook loses that advantage.

If you go with WLM, make damn sure you don't install their entire Live
package as you'll end up with lots of bloat. Even after you think you
installed only WLM, Microsoft still shoves bloat on your host, like
their Live signon assistant. After installing WLM, go into the
Add/Remove Programs applet and get rid of the foistware they shoved on
your host. Unless you want to get confused as to whether you are
looking at your local or online calender and contacts, decide at the
beginning if you're going to have WLM log into your account or never
have it login (that's a separate login rather than the mail poll update
login that you configure in the accounts you define inside WLM). Of
course, if you're not connecting WLM to a Live account then this 2nd
login is not usable to you, anyway, since you also cannot use WLM to
show you your server-side calendar and contacts in a Live account.

You didn't mention which version of Windows that you have. As I recall,
you can only get up to version 9 of Live (of which WLM is an optional
component) if you're still back on Windows XP. If you have Vista or 7,
you can get the latest version of Live (version 11). In the latter
case, the later version of WLM will also let you access your Skydrive
files from your Live account (i.e., you get a bit more integration with
Live services with the latest version of Live). I don't know what
version of WLM comes with Live v11. Of course, that means you must have
a Live account (most likely because you have a Hotmail account). Again,
ask the folks over in the microsoft.public.windows.live.desktop group.

I've used OE. I've trialed WLM and several other e-mail clients. I'm
still using Outlook and am now at version 2003. There's no bang for the
buck for me to upgrade to 2007 unless I find a legit cheap sale but
it'll be awhile before it's under my max price threshold; however,
upgrading to OL2007 would mean that I'd be getting the Office 2007 suite
- and I don't care for the glitz of the context-changing ribbon menu, so
I definitely don't want the 2010 stuff.

"Fredd Wright" <> wrote in message
news:dIKdnVH1qqDYxPXSnZ2dnUVZ_q-...
>
> "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
> news:jk8vqf$k0q$...
>> Fredd Wright wrote:
>>
>>> I finally ugraded my 7-year old PC and, to date, have been using Outlook
>>> Express since the dawn of time. Unfortunately, Windows 7
>>
>> You don't mention WHICH edition of Windows 7. There are several and
>> some include XP Mode (which is a license of Windows XP running in a
>> virtual machine). If you have an edition of Windows 7 that supports XP
>> Mode, be sure to get BOTH of the 2 downloads to install XP Mode (the
>> Windows XP license for use only under Windows 7) and Windows VirtualPC
>> (the virtual machine manager).
>>
>> If you have a spare UNUSED license for Windows XP (i.e., it wasn't used
>> as the basis for an upgrade that is still currently inuse), you could
>> use other VMMs, like VMware Player, VirtualPC 2007, or VirtualBox.
>>
>>>does not have OE
>>
>> But Windows XP does come with Outlook Express. OE and IE were bundled
>> together but Microsoft stopped bundling OE with IE as of version 7.
>> That means IE6 was the last version with OE bundled with it. Luckily
>> IE6 is the base version included in Windows XP.
>>
>> No point in telling you how to add XP Mode to Windows 7 unless you want
>> to go that route and you have the Pro, Ultimate, or Enterprise editions
>> of Windows 7.
>>
>> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...indows-xp-mode
>>
>>> but uses Windows Live Mail which i've heard mixed reviews about.
>>
>> Most arguments here is that the v15 screwed up indentation of quoted
>> content - in that it doesn't do that. Unless a respondent using WLM v15
>> manually indents with a prefix characters the quoted content, they might
>> as well not quote any posts to which they reply. As for e-mail usage, I
>> haven't bothered using it so you probably should ask the folks over in
>> microsoft.public.windows.live.mail.desktop on how it might compare with
>> other e-mail clients.
>>
>>> I do have
>>> Microsoft Office 2003 which includes Outlook. Would it be better to
>>> migrate
>>> my email into Outlook 2003 or to use Windows Live Mail? I"m thinking the
>>> Outlook migration may be easier but i don't know if Windows Live Mail is
>>> a
>>> better program (newer doesn't always mean better).
>>
>> I gave up on OE a long time ago ever since I got Outlook (at version
>> 2000, I believe). However, I still configure it for use as a backup
>> e-mail client (but also configure it to leave messages up on the server
>> so they go into Outlook when I return to using that).
>>
>> You can go ask the WLM group if that product incorporate Deltasync
>> control. This is Microsoft's proprietary communications protocol that
>> emulates IMAP access to your mailbox plus, I believe, adding other
>> features, like calendar and contact sync. However, when I last trialed
>> WLM, I didn't like that when I had WLM go online to do the calendar and
>> contact sync that I lost my local calendars and contacts list. They
>> really don't do a sync. They do a switch. When online, you see your
>> online calendar and online contacts list. When offline, you see your
>> local calendar and local contacts list. The two don't get merged. That
>> means if you need to read your e-mails while offline, like when you
>> cannot get an Internet connection or their server is unreachable (it's
>> down, it's busy, a host in the route is unresponsive) that you can't see
>> your online calendar.
>>
>> While I don't bother with Deltasync because I don't care about online
>> calendars and online contacts, I know many users like having that info
>> (but it can be confusing if you're looking at the online or local
>> lists). I just do POP to access my accounts in both Outlook Express,
>> Outlook, and WLM if I used that. Outlook 2003 does not natively support
>> Deltasync. Microsoft said they were going to add IMAP access but that
>> was years ago when promised or alluded to. Deltasync what Microsoft's
>> replacement for IMAP. They made claims about it being better than IMAP
>> but the argument was really lopsided in that it helped them, not their
>> users. They also claimed IMAP was harder to maintain yet other e-mail
>> providers have been supporting IMAP for decades. They just wanted
>> something proprietary that locked you into using their e-mail clients if
>> you used their Hotmail service and wanted more than POP access. Since
>> OL2003 doesn't support Deltasync, you have to add it by installing
>> Microsoft's Outlook Connector add-on. It might be better now but I saw
>> many users complaining about problems with that add-on plus I don't know
>> if it did more than give Deltasync access to the e-mail folders (I don't
>> know if it included your online calendar and online contacts). The best
>> place to ask about usability of the Outlook Connector add-on is over in
>> the microsoft.public.outlook.general group. To me, having to add more
>> layers for protocol support via add-ons meant less stability. WLM has
>> Deltasync built in but that's only important for users that want IMAP-
>> like access to their e-mail accounts but also don't care about losing
>> the online calendar and online contacts when they don't happen to have
>> an Internet connection. When Zimbra first came out, the lack of access
>> to online data when there was no Internet access was why I didn't want
>> that e-mail client. They didn't sync the calendar and contacts to the
>> local store just like WLM doesn't do a sync (it just switches from local
>> to online stores); however, I recall they came out with an offline
>> e-mail client called Zimbra Desktop that now does that sync so you can
>> see all your e-mails, calendars, and contacts when offline.
>>
>> Whether robust rules is important to you depends on how much you use
>> them to organize or filter your e-mails. I rely a lot on rules to
>> organize my e-mails. I don't rely on them much anymore to eliminate
>> spam since the best anti-spam solution is employed up at the server
>> rather than at the client, plus many e-mail providers provide reasonably
>> robust filters that you can define in your account (i.e., server-side
>> rules are better than client-side rules). Outlook's rules are much more
>> robust than you find in either OE or WLM but if you don't have rules or
>> they are pretty simple then Outlook loses that advantage.
>>
>> If you go with WLM, make damn sure you don't install their entire Live
>> package as you'll end up with lots of bloat. Even after you think you
>> installed only WLM, Microsoft still shoves bloat on your host, like
>> their Live signon assistant. After installing WLM, go into the
>> Add/Remove Programs applet and get rid of the foistware they shoved on
>> your host. Unless you want to get confused as to whether you are
>> looking at your local or online calender and contacts, decide at the
>> beginning if you're going to have WLM log into your account or never
>> have it login (that's a separate login rather than the mail poll update
>> login that you configure in the accounts you define inside WLM). Of
>> course, if you're not connecting WLM to a Live account then this 2nd
>> login is not usable to you, anyway, since you also cannot use WLM to
>> show you your server-side calendar and contacts in a Live account.
>>
>> You didn't mention which version of Windows that you have. As I recall,
>> you can only get up to version 9 of Live (of which WLM is an optional
>> component) if you're still back on Windows XP. If you have Vista or 7,
>> you can get the latest version of Live (version 11). In the latter
>> case, the later version of WLM will also let you access your Skydrive
>> files from your Live account (i.e., you get a bit more integration with
>> Live services with the latest version of Live). I don't know what
>> version of WLM comes with Live v11. Of course, that means you must have
>> a Live account (most likely because you have a Hotmail account). Again,
>> ask the folks over in the microsoft.public.windows.live.desktop group.
>>
>> I've used OE. I've trialed WLM and several other e-mail clients. I'm
>> still using Outlook and am now at version 2003. There's no bang for the
>> buck for me to upgrade to 2007 unless I find a legit cheap sale but
>> it'll be awhile before it's under my max price threshold; however,
>> upgrading to OL2007 would mean that I'd be getting the Office 2007 suite
>> - and I don't care for the glitz of the context-changing ribbon menu, so
>> I definitely don't want the 2010 stuff.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for all the info. I've been very nervous about the email
> switch. I'm using Windows 7 Home Premium so i don't have XP mode. I
> don't check email online, i get it on my iphone so that isn't an issue. I
> DO use the rules a lot to sort emails so that could be an issue. It seems
> that Outlook is the safest bet.
>
Open Outlook - File - Import
Point it to OE folder