Hi, Ken (and John and others).
The REAL reason I use WLM probably is "inertia". ;^}
In the '80's and early '90's, before the first Outlook Express, I
experimented with many online services, starting with CompuServe in 1978.
Had a Charter Account with AOL. Was a regular on many BBSes and mailservs.
Used Aladdin (on GEnie), Lexis/Nexis, Gopher, Bitnet, Delphi, Pegasus,
Eudora, Netcom, Netscape - and so many others that I can't even remember
now. And then Win95 and OE came along. By then, I was tired of
experimenting and OE fit my style of reading and posting very well. Its
best feature - which other clients didn't support at that time - was that I
could collect mail from multiple mail servers with a single phone call, in
those pre-broadband days of dial-up only (even with my shiny new 2400-baud
modem). And everything was long-distance then. When the Internet finally
came to San Marcos in 1995, I could FINALLY use email (and Usenet) without
paying for long-distance telephone. The common wisdom was that "It's
cheaper to call Boston than Austin" because interstate phone rates were much
cheaper than intrastate. For years, my monthly bill for online services
might be $20, but my LD bill for 100 MINUTES might be over $200 - some
months I paid $700 for LD! So, when I finally could make one call do it
all, I was so grateful to my local ISP and to OE that I formed an attachment
that still exists.
So, although my original ISP was bought out by another ISP and that one by a
bigger ISP, I still have the successor to my subscription. And I still have
the successor to OE.
And OE/WM/WLM still fits ME. You've recommended Outlook to me several
times, Ken, and I've tried it. In fact, I have OL 2010 running in the
background right now. But it doesn't do Newsgroups. And its "philosophy"
(I suppose that's the right word) for handling email confuses me no end! It
just doesn't fit ME.
Yes, I know I could use separate apps for news and mail, just as I did 20+
years ago. But I LIKE the way WLM handles both. So I haven't bothered to
experiment with Forte Agent or Sea Monkey or all those other apps that I see
others are so happy with. I'm happy with WLM - for now. Yes, I suspect
that WLM's days are numbered and I will have to choose something else in the
not-too-distant future. When that time comes, I'll be ready for advice and
recommendations from you and others. But I'm in no hurry. ;^}
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3505.0912) in Win8 Pro
"Ken Blake" wrote in message
That no-quoting problem is probably the most-complained-about failing of
Windows Live Mail - and with good reason. Because of that, many Usenet
email users (including my good friend, Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP) refuse to
use it - and say so loudly and often.
Right <g> But I not only refuse to use it, I strongly *recommend*
against it. I'll say it loudly again: I think it's the worst of all
the available choices.
But a few of us diehards (like me)
continue to use it, while working around its quirks and deficiencies. If
you want to switch to something else, it's OK by me. But, if you want to
continue with WLM, my workaround may help.
Yes, I know that you, and Winston, continue to use it. But to tell the
truth, I really don't understand why. Yes, you insert the > signs
into the quotations manually, and it's greatly appreciated, since as a
result your message are no harder to read that of other people.
But what I don't understand is why you go to the trouble of manually
inserting the > signs when you have several other choices of better
newsreaders and e-mail clients (several of which are free) that do it
for you automatically. Is there something you like better about
Windows Live Mail than its competitors? I haven't used it in a while,
but I tried it when it first came out, and I couldn't find anything I
particularly liked about it, and very quickly stopped using it. Both
for Usenet and for e-mail, its lack of automatically inserting the >
sign makes it a non-contender for me.