IE - RIP

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:08:28 GMT, Grunff wrote

Whilst I agree entirely with this as a general point, the question that set off this discussion -- about 6 posts back -- was "What other decent newsgroup editor/browser is available that is free?".

So the follow-up question was entirely consistent in a thread which is discussing that sub-group of news clients which are free, as opposed to the other sub-group of paid-for products.

(I like free stuff; I'm very happy to pay for programs that do something I want; but I've got no problem separating the discussion of the two sub-groups.)

[BillR]

Well, I'm far from a fan of Micro$oft but I've tried all those recommended here and others and OE knocks spots of them for ease of use.

[IMM]

I don't know of any free pipe fittings, but there is lots of free software about. So why pay?

Will you please put me on your killfile.

[IMM]

Outlook does not support a newsreader only Outlook Express. Outlook is a half cocked attempt to emulate Lotus Notes.

[Grunff]

Yes, many virus writers would echo your thoughts...

[Capitol]

That's the current version. Wait and see!! Regards Capitol

[Capitol]

[Andy Hall]

What did you want?

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Another spotter!

[Dave Plowman]

Absolutely. Your DeWalts are much more fetching.

[David W.E. Roberts]

Now, now - he may be a braindead Troll but he is OUR braindead Troll. Just keep throwing him the odd bone to gnaw and he will be here for years frightening unwary visitors.

Dave R

[Richard Caley]

a> So you are one of those too. I always wondered what sort of people watched a> Sky 1.

Star Trek has not been on Sky 1, other than one episode broadcast so audience could look up Michelle Nichols's skirt, for as long as I have had cable. Pity.

[IMM]

Wow! another spotter! He goes to bed with steam train manuals under his pillow.

[Grunff]

_N_ichelle Nichols

[Richard Caley]

dwer> As with most things 'Microsoft', Outlook Express was bought in from an dwer> outside company because it was so far superior to anything M$ dwer> had in house.

Indeed, the many people who praise or attack M$ as a technology company completely miss the point. M$ started out as a technology company, producing Basic for personal 70s computers for instance, then got handed an amazing marketing base for their piss poor CPM clone when it was adopted by IBM. Since then they have been an amazingly sucessful marketing company, buying in technology and turning it into sucessful products.

This is why they have such a bad record on security and stability. The fundementals of most of their products are not theirs and in any case their business model doesn't allow them to do more than beat about with the surface bits and get it out the door.

dwer> I presume that the mail/news agent of choice in future will be Outlook?

From a statement I read it looks more like they would like to persuade people to move to web based services like hotmail. The depressing thing is that there might be enough suckers for this to work. Their primary goal is to ensure that people become more and more totally dependent on them. They were really pissed off when the internet took off and sank the planned MSN, and have been working towards getting back on route to the goal of all windows users being trapped into a M$ propriatary online system ever since.

dwer> I know it is fashionable to knock all things M$ but OE does seem to work!

Are you a virus writer? :-)

[David W.E. Roberts]

I deplore easy targets :-)

[Andy Hall]

He reminds me very much of Gollum, in Lord of the Rings.

The similarity of thought processes and conflict of emotions are remarkably similar.

For a visualisation and a good laugh, take a look at his award acceptance video from the MTV Movie Awards.

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[David W.E. Roberts]

Why should software written by a committee of maintenance programmers be more functional and secure than software written by a small group of dedicated enthusiasts?

I find it (almost) inconceivable that a large(ish) Government with (relatively) bottomless pits of money can produce so much crap software over budget and late. However, they are pretty consistent. Large projects and large companies do not generally produce excellence because the drag factor of all the workplace politicians and niche cloggers destroys most true innovation.

As suggested elswhere M$ recognise this, and buy in innovative ideas.

However once they get their hands on them the committee strikes!

The main problem with OE (as with many other M$ products) is the shoehorning in of interfaces to other M$ products. Giving loads of APIs to a product then opens it up to (gasp) access by external programs. Not surprising that not all external programs are friendly.

The best way to fix the M$ mess is to break the software up into chunks which have to compete with outside innovators for market share. Not difficult to predict the result, which is why M$ are so against the idea.

But then I'm just a cynic :-) Dave R

[IMM]

So we a spotter who watches Star Trek, read about Goblins and a Harry Potter fan. My God!!

Andy, when you go to bed do you put your CAT boots on the dresser, so you can see them from bed?

[IMM]

This spotter can't read. I never said Outlook was better written than OE. I said "When and if Outlook has a news server function, then this will become the target.". that is clear, but maybe not from your galaxy.

Most viruses come via emails, not news posts. I only use OE for news.