When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
..doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?


Those will all work.

Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..


Jim Hawkins





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it. You need
to download Live Mail or Thunderbird.
Most files will copy, but its the software that might need to be fiddled
with. certainly more oproblems with 64 bit. If you really need that access
to address space then fine, but most do not.
Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run what is in
effect XP under 7.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

In article ,
Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

What sort of stuff? I've been using Win7 for nearly 2 years and initially
had the odd problem with drivers for scanner and printers. I think one
games programme refused to work, but everything else seems fine. All the
work files are fine.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to use
64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But some
old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.

Some old hardware does not work with 64-bit.

I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Only the Outlook Express data files should present any problems as OE is
not supplied with W7. There is a replacement program and I believe that
it can import data from OE files.


--
Bernard Peek

Wasn't that due to the various anti-monolpoly regulations? I'm running
Office Outlook - but that came with MS Office.



In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it. You
need to download Live Mail or Thunderbird. Most files will copy, but its
the software that might need to be fiddled with. certainly more
oproblems with 64 bit. If you really need that access to address space
then fine, but most do not.

Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run what is
in effect XP under 7.
Brian

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 10/04/2012 18:34, Bernard Peek wrote:

Only the Outlook Express data files should present any problems as OE is
not supplied with W7. There is a replacement program and I believe that
it can import data from OE files.

Install Thunderbird on the XP machine. It will offer to import all OE
stuff. Copy the profile to the thunderbird installation on the win 7
machine. You will have to amend profile.ini on the win7 machine to call
up the copied profile (just change the reference). Just done it for my
Daughter and found that was the easiest way to do it.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:34, Bernard Peek wrote:

Only the Outlook Express data files should present any problems as OE is
not supplied with W7. There is a replacement program and I believe that
it can import data from OE files.

Install Thunderbird on the XP machine. It will offer to import all OE
stuff. Copy the profile to the thunderbird installation on the win 7
machine. You will have to amend profile.ini on the win7 machine to call
up the copied profile (just change the reference). Just done it for my
Daughter and found that was the easiest way to do it.


+1

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Jim Hawkins wrote

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?

64bit does allow you to use more than about 3.xGB of physical ram.

It can be a problem finding drivers for some obscure hardware.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines. Is that true ?

Nope, works fine here.

I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders

OE doesnt work on either version of Win7 except in the virtual XP on Win7.

The virtual XP does work fine, but you need more than the most basic versions of Win7.

and MS Word .doc files. Are those a problem,

Just with OE.

and if so, are there any workarounds or conversion utilities available ?

The OE story is complicated. MS wants you to use Windows Live Mail
which is the lastest incarnation of OE. But the latest version doesnt
bother to quote usenet posts when replying to them. One of the previous
versions does quote fine and there is a 3rd party overlay that quotes too.
But WLM has the other downside that there is now a separate inbox for
each of the POP3 email accounts you use, which makes searching in
old emails a bit cumbersome unless you have separate email addreses
for particular types of email like say ebay etc.

Other than that, it all works fine.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it.
You need to download Live Mail or Thunderbird.
Most files will copy, but its the software that might need to be
fiddled with. certainly more oproblems with 64 bit. If you really
need that access to address space then fine, but most do not.

Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run what
is in effect XP under 7.

It isnt just Ultimate that allows that, Pro and Enterprise do too.

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7
machines. Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS
Word .doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any
workarounds or conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

charles wrote:

Wasn't that due to the various anti-monolpoly regulations?

Nope.

I'm running Office Outlook - but that came with MS Office.

And it wont do usenet.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it.
You need to download Live Mail or Thunderbird. Most files will
copy, but its the software that might need to be fiddled with.
certainly more oproblems with 64 bit. If you really need that access
to address space then fine, but most do not.

Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run
what is in effect XP under 7.
Brian

On 10/04/2012 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

64bit gives the ability to address more physical RAM - 32 bit is limited
to 4GB of which windows and things like your graphics RAM will take a
slice, giving a practical maximum of around 3.5GB usable memory.

64bit code is faster for some applications, although slightly more
memory hungry.

64bit was at one time slightly harder to find drivers for older
peripherals - but the situation is much improved.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No, not really.

There are some compatibility problems which are mainly Win7 Vs XP rather
than 32/64 bit. These mostly stem from the more stringently policed
security model of Win7.

Note that the 64 bit OS can run 32 bit code in the same way as WinXP
32bit can run 16bit code. The 64 bit OS may be be slightly slower
running 32 bit code than the same hardware running the 32 bit OS
(depends a bit on your hardware).

Nothing stopping you installing a virtual machine hypervisor and running
a 32 bit OS as well should you need to.

The more expensive versions of Win7 also allow XP compatibility mode
(which is basically just a thinly disguised WinXP virtual machine)

I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Data files in general are no problem. There is no Win7 version of
outlook express however. However there are plenty of alternatives.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

....snip...

Nokia software seemed very flaky.

That's Nokia not Windows - even on my XP machine, the Nokia upgrade often
leaves the Nokia software unusable and in need of repair :-(.

Paul DS.

Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7
machines. Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS
Word .doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any
workarounds or conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

My thanks to all respondents for the many helpful contributions.
This newsgroup shows just how good usenet can be.

Jim Hawkins

On 11/04/2012 09:44, Jim Hawkins wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
....
My thanks to all respondents for the many helpful contributions.
This newsgroup shows just how good usenet can be.


And no one mentioned Linux, specifically the Angle Grinder distribution....

--
Adrian C

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly. You've always have had to use different
software of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote

I'm running Office Outlook - but that came with MS Office.

And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly.

Bull****.

You've always have had to use different software

Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly.

Bull****.

Just shows you lack observation skills.

You've always have had to use different software

Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

Which is part of Windose.

of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Which is crap, unless you apply non Windose fixes to it. It is non
compliant.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:51:48 +0100, Paul D Smith
wrote:

...snip...

Nokia software seemed very flaky.

That's Nokia not Windows - even on my XP machine, the Nokia upgrade
often leaves the Nokia software unusable and in need of repair :-(.

Paul DS.


An upgrade bricked one of my old nokias. They didn't argue. Just replaced
it.

Now much happier with an android

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly.

Bull****.

Just shows you lack observation skills.

Nope, just shows that we dont agree on what constitutes 'done properly'

You've always have had to use different software

Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

Which is part of Windose.

Nope, It doesnt come with Win.

of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Which is crap,

In your opinion.

unless you apply non Windose fixes to it.

In your opinion.

It is non compliant.

Whoopy ****ing do.

Adrian C wrote:
On 11/04/2012 09:44, Jim Hawkins wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
...
My thanks to all respondents for the many helpful contributions.
This newsgroup shows just how good usenet can be.


And no one mentioned Linux, specifically the Angle Grinder distribution....

yes I did.

I said rthat if I could transfer my xp data freely to a linux 64 bit
machine even microsoft couldn't break the transfer to a windows 7 machine.

Mind you, that may well be a non sequitur and false logic.

racist joke: look away now

Van de Merwe is visiting America, and sees a statue of a black man
rising up abd breaking the chains of slavery.

"What do you make of that, Mr Van De Merve?"
"Ach man, Kaffirs can break anything. So what?"

Microsoft can also break anything.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:20:11 +0100, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two different bit sizes ?

Pros of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can run genuine 64-bit applications (but there are very few of those).

2. Can support a larger amount of physical memory (maximum 4 GB on Win32,
up to 192 GB on Win64 depending on version).

Cons of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can't run any 16-bit (DOS) programs - other than using a emulator like
DOSBOX.

2. Poorer support for legacy device drivers: if you have an older
scanner, printer, camera etc. 64-bit drivers may not be available.

3. 32-bit applications run under the WoW64 emulation layer: compatibility
is good but not 100% and a few programs may not run properly.

On balance I generally recommend the 32-bit version, but YMMV.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

Richard Russell wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:20:11 +0100, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two different bit sizes ?

Pros of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can run genuine 64-bit applications (but there are very few of those).

2. Can support a larger amount of physical memory (maximum 4 GB on
Win32, up to 192 GB on Win64 depending on version).

Cons of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can't run any 16-bit (DOS) programs - other than using a emulator
like DOSBOX.

2. Poorer support for legacy device drivers: if you have an older
scanner, printer, camera etc. 64-bit drivers may not be available.

3. 32-bit applications run under the WoW64 emulation layer:
compatibility is good but not 100% and a few programs may not run properly.

On balance I generally recommend the 32-bit version, but YMMV.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

compare and contrast with Linux/Mac OSX where "on balance I generally
recommend the 32-bit version" became the reverse about three years ago.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Richard Russell wrote:
[snip]

3. 32-bit applications run under the WoW64 emulation layer:
compatibility is good but not 100% and a few programs may not run properly.
On balance I generally recommend the 32-bit version, but YMMV.
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

compare and contrast with Linux/Mac OSX where "on balance I generally
recommend the 32-bit version" became the reverse about three years ago.

And compare WoW64 emulation *may* work with WINE does work, BootCamp does
work, Parallels does work and when Apple changed to 64 bit the customers
didn't notice. Not only that but when the changed processor family (twice)
old apps written for a different processor continued to work.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly.

Bull****.

Just shows you lack observation skills.

You've always have had to use different software

Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

Which is part of Windose.

Its an optional part of Office.
Its the one OSS keeps trying to copy (not very well).

If you really want to be pedantic there is *no* user software in linux.
You have to use some other OSS to do anything.
You can use all the *good* OSS software on windows if you want to.
You give linux far too much credit, it is a tiny bit of OSS.


of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Which is crap, unless you apply non Windose fixes to it. It is non
compliant.

None compliant with what?
It posts plain text posts perfectly well.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:30:17 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly.

Bull****.

Just shows you lack observation skills.

You've always have had to use different software

Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

Which is part of Windose.

Its an optional part of Office.
Its the one OSS keeps trying to copy (not very well).

If you really want to be pedantic there is *no* user software in linux.
You have to use some other OSS to do anything. You can use all the
*good* OSS software on windows if you want to. You give linux far too
much credit, it is a tiny bit of OSS.


of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Which is crap, unless you apply non Windose fixes to it. It is non
compliant.

None compliant with what?

http://js.home.xs4all.nl/gnksa/

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article op.wclltdnon5ksl5@richard, Richard Russell
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:20:11 +0100, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons
of the two different bit sizes ?

Pros of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can run genuine 64-bit applications (but there are very few of those).

2. Can support a larger amount of physical memory (maximum 4 GB on
Win32, up to 192 GB on Win64 depending on version).

Cons of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can't run any 16-bit (DOS) programs - other than using a emulator
like DOSBOX.

2. Poorer support for legacy device drivers: if you have an older
scanner, printer, camera etc. 64-bit drivers may not be available.


may not, being the operative phrase. I am still using my nearly 10 year
old scanner (Epson 1660) although when I first went to W7 two years ago the
driver hadn't yet appeared.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

Which is part of Windose.

Its an optional part of Office.

Eh?
Its the one OSS keeps trying to copy (not very well).

Eh eh?

If you really want to be pedantic there is *no* user software in linux.
You have to use some other OSS to do anything.
You can use all the *good* OSS software on windows if you want to.
You give linux far too much credit, it is a tiny bit of OSS.


of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Which is crap, unless you apply non Windose fixes to it. It is non
compliant.

None compliant with what?

The clearly set out standards for a medium which wasn't owned by MS, but
designed to work with any basic computer, independant of operating system.

It posts plain text posts perfectly well.

It will attempt to post in HTML unless you stop it. It uses a non standard
ASCII set. It can't even manage the correct length lines. And lots lots
more.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

Which is part of Windose.

Its an optional part of Office.

Eh?

Outlook is an optional part of Office.

Its the one OSS keeps trying to copy (not very well).

Eh eh?

There are numerous OSS projects trying to do what Outlook does.


If you really want to be pedantic there is *no* user software in linux.
You have to use some other OSS to do anything.
You can use all the *good* OSS software on windows if you want to.
You give linux far too much credit, it is a tiny bit of OSS.


of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Which is crap, unless you apply non Windose fixes to it. It is non
compliant.

None compliant with what?

The clearly set out standards for a medium which wasn't owned by MS, but
designed to work with any basic computer, independant of operating system.

It posts plain text posts perfectly well.

It will attempt to post in HTML unless you stop it.

So will others.
The version I use comes with plain text for news and html for mail.

It uses a non standard ASCII set.

ASCII is the same, the character set may or may not be standard, who defines
the standard?

It can't even manage the correct length lines.

It manages fine here.

And lots lots

there aren't many more things a news reader has to do so there can't be lots
and lots.

I'm quite sure I can find many more duff applications that are distributed
on "linux" disks.

On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins



Microsoft support expirys:
xp 8april2014
win7 home 13 april 2015
win7pro 14 april 2020

so get win professional
(if i've researched it right)

[g]

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Its an optional part of Office.

Eh?

Outlook is an optional part of Office.

I've never bought 'office' but have OE as part of all the Windose
operating systems I've ever bought - with the exception of 7, since
they've obviously realised at last it's not worth bothering with anymore.

Its the one OSS keeps trying to copy (not very well).

Eh eh?

There are numerous OSS projects trying to do what Outlook does.

Why would they want to 'copy' a broken application?

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/04/2012 14:23, george [dicegeorge] wrote:

Microsoft support expirys:
xp 8april2014
win7 home 13 april 2015
win7pro 14 april 2020

so get win professional
(if i've researched it right)

However much before then, Apple will have expanded, bought Microsoft,
and all update support for Windows products will suddenly be ditched?

--
Adrian C

On 11/04/12 14:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
Its an optional part of Office.

Eh?

Outlook is an optional part of Office.

I've never bought 'office' but have OE as part of all the Windose
operating systems I've ever bought - with the exception of 7, since
they've obviously realised at last it's not worth bothering with anymore.

Outlook and Outlook Express are completely different programs.


Its the one OSS keeps trying to copy (not very well).

Eh eh?

There are numerous OSS projects trying to do what Outlook does.

Why would they want to 'copy' a broken application?

Outlook is a MAPI client which interfaces directly with Exchange Server.
The MAPI standards are part proprietary and wholly opaque. But Exchange
is still the default mail handling system even for many companies that
could implement a UNIX based mail system if they wanted to. The
stumbling block is that Exchange/Outlook is a very effective calendar
system, for instance enabling users to compare many people's diaries to
find a time when all of them are free.

As far as I am aware there are no UNIX based equivalents. This is partly
because by merging multiple functions seamlessly Microsoft can
effectively shut out the simpler single-function applications that is
favoured in the UNIX world. They have done the same thing with Access
which bundles a database engine, forms designer and report-generator in
one program.


--
Bernard Peek

dennis@home wrote:


I'm quite sure I can find many more duff applications that are
distributed on "linux" disks.

Oh dear. Its been ages since I have seen anyhing Linux distributed on a
'disk'....


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Adrian C wrote:
On 11/04/2012 14:23, george [dicegeorge] wrote:

Microsoft support expirys:
xp 8april2014
win7 home 13 april 2015
win7pro 14 april 2020

so get win professional
(if i've researched it right)

However much before then, Apple will have expanded, bought Microsoft,
and all update support for Windows products will suddenly be ditched?

Nah. both will have evaporated by then. As will te desktop home PC.

Workstations - things with big monitors and proper keyboards will run
linux and noddy users will have some sort of linux based fondleslab and
all the apps will be on cloud 9.

Which they will avidly download on the three days a month the sun is
shining or the wind blowing hard enough for the internet to work.

in between hunting and eating the harry's of the world who have got them
into this mess in the first place.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Bernard Peek wrote:
[snip]

Outlook is a MAPI client which interfaces directly with Exchange Server.
The MAPI standards are part proprietary and wholly opaque. But Exchange
is still the default mail handling system even for many companies that
could implement a UNIX based mail system if they wanted to. The stumbling
block is that Exchange/Outlook is a very effective calendar system, for
instance enabling users to compare many people's diaries to find a time
when all of them are free.

As far as I am aware there are no UNIX based equivalents.

Apple's Calendar and Mail applications work with Exchange and are
interoperable with Outlook - at least until M$ change the game again. OSX
is built on BSD.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Outlook is an optional part of Office.

I've never bought 'office' but have OE as part of all the Windose
operating systems I've ever bought - with the exception of 7, since
they've obviously realised at last it's not worth bothering with
anymore.

Sadly, the doddery old **** is right (*). I have an MS Office
Professional Plus CD on the desk in front of me right now, and it has
Outlook on it.

Right. I've no need for MS Office.

But if it's only available with a pro set - when news groups are
essentially a hobby or leisure thing - what does that tell you about MS?

(* I suppose it had to happen eventually.)

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Outlook is an optional part of Office.
I've never bought 'office' but have OE as part of all the Windose
operating systems I've ever bought - with the exception of 7, since
they've obviously realised at last it's not worth bothering with
anymore.

Sadly, the doddery old **** is right (*). I have an MS Office
Professional Plus CD on the desk in front of me right now, and it has
Outlook on it.

Right. I've no need for MS Office.

But if it's only available with a pro set - when news groups are
essentially a hobby or leisure thing - what does that tell you about MS?

(* I suppose it had to happen eventually.)

nothing you didn't know already.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 11/04/2012 18:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Right. I've no need for MS Office.

But if it's only available with a pro set - when news groups are
essentially a hobby or leisure thing - what does that tell you about MS?

You've got it backwards. Outlook as distributed with Office is not a
newsgroup client. Outlook Express (for it's faults) is. It's possible to
use both on the same machine.

I've often thought that inside a company, that a local newsgroup server
would be of some use as a collaborative tool, rather than group emails.
I'd readily implement one without a moments thought.

But Microsoft (and others) have other software solutions to bolt onto
Office Outlook.

--
Adrian C

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...

I've often thought that inside a company, that a local newsgroup server
would be of some use as a collaborative tool, rather than group emails.
I'd readily implement one without a moments thought.

We did have one.
However the idiots that put it in decided that as it was "usenet" it should
be plaintext based.
this is a bit stupid when HTML postings actually work far better with a
modern reader rather than the antiquated stuff real usenet insists on
because of its traditions.
It didn't stay plain text for long as it was somewhat difficult to include
diagrams and the such in plain text.
Then we had complaints that their favourite "linux" reader didn't like
anything other than plain text.

The reality is as a collaboration tool plain text doesn't work. You can even
use it in some languages. Plain text normally means the ASCII subset and not
plaintext.