On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:15:10 -0400 Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> articulated:
> On 9/5/2010 7:27 AM, Jerry wrote: > > On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:55:27 -0400 > > Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> articulated: > >> The biggest problem now with Outlook, imo, is its reliance on > >> WORD's totally broken HTML rendering engine (in both 2007 and > >> 2010) instead of IE. The only possible reason I can think of why > >> MS made this decision is to try to force people to use Office, but > >> imo it was just stupid. > > > You have it backwards. People use MS Word and want it to integrate > > seamlessly into an e-mail client, database, etc. People are not > > 'forced' to use MS Office. They use it because it is the best word > > processor in existence and it can be easily integrated into other > > applications easily. > > None of which has anything to do with my comment, which stands: > > The HTML rendering engine in Word (2007 and 2010) blows goats. MS's > decision to switch from IE to Word for the Outlook (2007 and 2010) > HTML rendering engine was brain-dead. You stated: "force people to use Office". I simply pointed out that, that is not true. They were all ready using Office. Switching between IE & Office by Microsoft is a subjective evaluation. > Here's just one page discussing why it is so bad: > > http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/2393/microsoft-takes-email-design-b/ > > >> Thunderbird has its problems as well (broken HTML composer, still > >> bugs with the local store/cache code, etc), but it seems to be the > >> best (IMAP client) so far. > > > For the record, I hear more complaints regarding Thunderbird than I > > do concerning MS Outlook (the latest version). The 2007 version of > > Outlook is no longer relevant. Comparing deprecated versions of any > > software is a Sisyphean task. > > Don't be silly. Market share is what counts, and 2010 still has vastly > less market share than any of the others. 2000 and 2003 probably each > have the largest market share. It was only recently released. Give it time. > As for being 'deprecated' (this is a misuse of the term) - Office XP > (release in 2002) is still not officially end of (extended) life, much > less 2003 or 2007. Whether or not it is officially "end of life" is immaterial. The older versions have been deprecated by the release of "Office 2010". > This is getting way OT though... I agree! I will discuss if OL if you want. -- Jerry ✌ dovecot.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department.
