I along with many others don't see the logic for not adding newsgroup
reader.

Outlook is a great business tool in many ways but why shall we need to use
two tools for one can simply added to the existing one either by included in
the core or as an add-in.

If you wish to talk about business logic, what is the purpose of providing
add-in for adding Hotmail and MSN account to Outlook? How many so-called
corporate will use Hotmail and MSN mail accounts for doing business
messaging?

The point is, you guys are just repeating what you've been told or
brainwashed without even bothering to think.

I am just curious about the true reason as others for such decision is not
being made which you guys obviously have no ideas.

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"xfile" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Thanks. So that is, Outlook is reserved for corporate environment with
Exchange Server.

No. But by far the VAST majority of Outlook installations ARE in a
corporate, exchange-server environment.



And all other companies without Exchange Server are not within corporate
environment? And why not just bundle OL with Exchange Server and leave
it out from Office?

You have outlook Express free with Windows. I just don't see what your
gripe is.

"Yaacov Klapisch" wrote in message
...
I totally agree with the last post of xfile.
Why MSN amd Hotmail integration and no News reader.
Not everybody uses Exchange and News are also for business (remember
msnews.microsoft.com? is it not technical?)

Then use Outlook Express in Outlook Newsreader mode....sheeeeesh!

I totally agree with the last post of xfile.
Why MSN amd Hotmail integration and no News reader.
Not everybody uses Exchange and News are also for business (remember
msnews.microsoft.com? is it not technical?)


"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"xfile" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Thanks. So that is, Outlook is reserved for corporate environment with
Exchange Server.

No. But by far the VAST majority of Outlook installations ARE in a
corporate, exchange-server environment.



And all other companies without Exchange Server are not within corporate
environment? And why not just bundle OL with Exchange Server and leave
it out from Office?

You have outlook Express free with Windows. I just don't see what your
gripe is.

"xfile" wrote in message
:

Finally, speaking of overhead. BCM is truly an overheard and with almost no
integration with contacts. Do you really think adding newsgroup will
increase additional overhead to Outlook and why is it not for OE?

No, it would not "increase additional overhead". This excuse is often
thrown about, but having written a newsreader add-in for Outlook, I can
tell you it has absolutely no basis in fact. And I'm sure if you ask
the authors of any of the other newsreader add-ins, they will tell you
the same thing.

Outlook is basically a UI around one or more MAPI-compliant databases
(the .pst and .ost files). Things like emails, tasks, contacts, etc.
are simply records in one of these databases.

In order to send and receive messages or other items, Outlook loads
"transport providers". A transport provider is basically a DLL that
contains code that knows how to connect to a specific type of data
source, and how to read/write records in a MAPI database. Each account
you set up in Outlook is associated with a particular transport
provider.

To send and retrieve POP3 email for example, Outlook loads the POP3
transport provider. Outlook ships with transports for POP3, IMAP, HTTP
and Exchange servers. If you want to retrieve email from Lotus Notes,
you would install a Lotus Notes transport provider. Likewise for any
other information source that someone has written a transport provider
for.

In Outlook 2007, MS added the ability to retrieve RSS feeds and that was
done by writing a transport provider that knows how to connect to an RSS
feed.

To access newsgroups in Outlook, all you need is a transport provider
that knows how to connect to a NNTP server. If third-party vendors such
as myself can write one (using the horribly outdated and incomplete MAPI
documentation), there is no reason why MS couldn't write one too. And
the idea that this would add "overhead" to Outlook is simply absurd. It
would add no more "overhead" than the supplied POP3 transport does.

Outlook is slow, IMO, because it is based on MAPI, a circa-1993
technology that's overly complicated and all but obsolete. I'm a little
surprised that MS hasn't switched to SQL server databases by now, but
perhaps there is too much legacy and third-party code that would break
to make that practical.

And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the potential to
be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd. I've sold a
number of site licenses to large corporations and I'm sure the other
newsgroup add-in vendors have as well. Employees can waste company time
on personal email and RSS feeds too, and Outlook has the ability to
connect to any web site so you can surf porn sites all day long without
ever leaving Outlook. Companies that are worried about this can block
access to HTTP sites, and they could block access to NNTP servers just
as easily.

As to why MS doesn't add newsgroup capabilities to Outlook, only those
folks within Microsoft who make those decisions know the answer to that.

--
Don Caton

Dear Don,

Thank you very much for your balanced and detailed explanations.

I've not heard the term - transport provider, for a long time and almost
forgot about it. And yes, I could comprehend what you meant and thanks for
that again.

During the 15+ years of working in tech industry with a business major
background, I had to train myself to learn various technologies to the
degree of every details, including assembling components and systems and
writing codes, and so on, all simply because refusing to accept craps from
engineers.

Speaking of non-business activities, I've seen so many engineers using IM
for chatting, surfing sites for trading personal stocks, and exchanging porn
pictures with emails, instead of coming to newsgroups like this or others
for searching assistance or providing ones.

Now I run my own business, heavily depended on IT, but outsourced all to 3rd
party service providers.

What also counts is the "intension" of doing something rather than judging
solely by the "behavior". That is, any tool can be abused and used for
non-business-related purpose, and on the other hand, can also be used to
improve productivity for the benefits of all.

Over the years, I have learned so much from various newsgroups and forums
(and from people like you), and I even demanded our engineers (while at the
last company) to participate some forums and newsgroups to exchange skills
and tips. I just don't get the idea for why some people have the thoughts
for newsgroups are not business-related?

Once again, thank you for your kind explanations. I will wait and see if
such add-in will be provided in the future.







"Don Caton" wrote in message
...
"xfile" wrote in message
:

Finally, speaking of overhead. BCM is truly an overheard and with almost
no
integration with contacts. Do you really think adding newsgroup will
increase additional overhead to Outlook and why is it not for OE?

No, it would not "increase additional overhead". This excuse is often
thrown about, but having written a newsreader add-in for Outlook, I can
tell you it has absolutely no basis in fact. And I'm sure if you ask the
authors of any of the other newsreader add-ins, they will tell you the
same thing.

Outlook is basically a UI around one or more MAPI-compliant databases (the
.pst and .ost files). Things like emails, tasks, contacts, etc. are
simply records in one of these databases.

In order to send and receive messages or other items, Outlook loads
"transport providers". A transport provider is basically a DLL that
contains code that knows how to connect to a specific type of data source,
and how to read/write records in a MAPI database. Each account you set up
in Outlook is associated with a particular transport provider.

To send and retrieve POP3 email for example, Outlook loads the POP3
transport provider. Outlook ships with transports for POP3, IMAP, HTTP
and Exchange servers. If you want to retrieve email from Lotus Notes, you
would install a Lotus Notes transport provider. Likewise for any other
information source that someone has written a transport provider for.

In Outlook 2007, MS added the ability to retrieve RSS feeds and that was
done by writing a transport provider that knows how to connect to an RSS
feed.

To access newsgroups in Outlook, all you need is a transport provider that
knows how to connect to a NNTP server. If third-party vendors such as
myself can write one (using the horribly outdated and incomplete MAPI
documentation), there is no reason why MS couldn't write one too. And the
idea that this would add "overhead" to Outlook is simply absurd. It would
add no more "overhead" than the supplied POP3 transport does.

Outlook is slow, IMO, because it is based on MAPI, a circa-1993 technology
that's overly complicated and all but obsolete. I'm a little surprised
that MS hasn't switched to SQL server databases by now, but perhaps there
is too much legacy and third-party code that would break to make that
practical.

And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the potential to
be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd. I've sold a
number of site licenses to large corporations and I'm sure the other
newsgroup add-in vendors have as well. Employees can waste company time
on personal email and RSS feeds too, and Outlook has the ability to
connect to any web site so you can surf porn sites all day long without
ever leaving Outlook. Companies that are worried about this can block
access to HTTP sites, and they could block access to NNTP servers just as
easily.

As to why MS doesn't add newsgroup capabilities to Outlook, only those
folks within Microsoft who make those decisions know the answer to that.

--
Don Caton

While I understand and appreciate your views on the usefulness of newsgroups
for the technically skilled or informed users, how many corporations have
secretaries/clerks/janitors/etc. who will NOT be inclinded to post to
technical discussions but engage in the behaviors you have noted that are
all to prevalent?

--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, xfile asked:

| Dear Don,
|
| Thank you very much for your balanced and detailed explanations.
|
| I've not heard the term - transport provider, for a long time and
| almost forgot about it. And yes, I could comprehend what you meant
| and thanks for that again.
|
| During the 15+ years of working in tech industry with a business major
| background, I had to train myself to learn various technologies to the
| degree of every details, including assembling components and systems
| and writing codes, and so on, all simply because refusing to accept
| craps from engineers.
|
| Speaking of non-business activities, I've seen so many engineers
| using IM for chatting, surfing sites for trading personal stocks, and
| exchanging porn pictures with emails, instead of coming to newsgroups
| like this or others for searching assistance or providing ones.
|
| Now I run my own business, heavily depended on IT, but outsourced all
| to 3rd party service providers.
|
| What also counts is the "intension" of doing something rather than
| judging solely by the "behavior". That is, any tool can be abused
| and used for non-business-related purpose, and on the other hand, can
| also be used to improve productivity for the benefits of all.
|
| Over the years, I have learned so much from various newsgroups and
| forums (and from people like you), and I even demanded our engineers
| (while at the last company) to participate some forums and newsgroups
| to exchange skills and tips. I just don't get the idea for why some
| people have the thoughts for newsgroups are not business-related?
|
| Once again, thank you for your kind explanations. I will wait and
| see if such add-in will be provided in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Don Caton" wrote in message
| ...
|| "xfile" wrote in message
|| :
||
||| Finally, speaking of overhead. BCM is truly an overheard and with
||| almost no
||| integration with contacts. Do you really think adding newsgroup
||| will increase additional overhead to Outlook and why is it not for
||| OE?
||
|| No, it would not "increase additional overhead". This excuse is
|| often thrown about, but having written a newsreader add-in for
|| Outlook, I can tell you it has absolutely no basis in fact. And I'm
|| sure if you ask the authors of any of the other newsreader add-ins,
|| they will tell you the same thing.
||
|| Outlook is basically a UI around one or more MAPI-compliant
|| databases (the .pst and .ost files). Things like emails, tasks,
|| contacts, etc. are simply records in one of these databases.
||
|| In order to send and receive messages or other items, Outlook loads
|| "transport providers". A transport provider is basically a DLL that
|| contains code that knows how to connect to a specific type of data
|| source, and how to read/write records in a MAPI database. Each
|| account you set up in Outlook is associated with a particular
|| transport provider.
||
|| To send and retrieve POP3 email for example, Outlook loads the POP3
|| transport provider. Outlook ships with transports for POP3, IMAP,
|| HTTP and Exchange servers. If you want to retrieve email from Lotus
|| Notes, you would install a Lotus Notes transport provider. Likewise
|| for any other information source that someone has written a
|| transport provider for.
||
|| In Outlook 2007, MS added the ability to retrieve RSS feeds and that
|| was done by writing a transport provider that knows how to connect
|| to an RSS feed.
||
|| To access newsgroups in Outlook, all you need is a transport
|| provider that knows how to connect to a NNTP server. If third-party
|| vendors such as myself can write one (using the horribly outdated
|| and incomplete MAPI documentation), there is no reason why MS
|| couldn't write one too. And the idea that this would add "overhead"
|| to Outlook is simply absurd. It would add no more "overhead" than
|| the supplied POP3 transport does.
||
|| Outlook is slow, IMO, because it is based on MAPI, a circa-1993
|| technology that's overly complicated and all but obsolete. I'm a
|| little surprised that MS hasn't switched to SQL server databases by
|| now, but perhaps there is too much legacy and third-party code that
|| would break to make that practical.
||
|| And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the
|| potential to be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd.
|| I've sold a number of site licenses to large corporations and I'm
|| sure the other newsgroup add-in vendors have as well. Employees can
|| waste company time on personal email and RSS feeds too, and Outlook
|| has the ability to connect to any web site so you can surf porn
|| sites all day long without ever leaving Outlook. Companies that are
|| worried about this can block access to HTTP sites, and they could
|| block access to NNTP servers just as easily.
||
|| As to why MS doesn't add newsgroup capabilities to Outlook, only
|| those folks within Microsoft who make those decisions know the
|| answer to that.
||
|| --
|| Don Caton

Yes, that is precisely what I meant - it is not about the "newsgroup" in
question, it is which newsgroup and for what purpose one goes there for that
are in question.

So considering "newsgroup" by itself is not a part of "business-related"
activity or behavior - is ridiculous.


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
wrote in message
...
While I understand and appreciate your views on the usefulness of
newsgroups
for the technically skilled or informed users, how many corporations have
secretaries/clerks/janitors/etc. who will NOT be inclinded to post to
technical discussions but engage in the behaviors you have noted that are
all to prevalent?

--?
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, xfile asked:

| Dear Don,
|
| Thank you very much for your balanced and detailed explanations.
|
| I've not heard the term - transport provider, for a long time and
| almost forgot about it. And yes, I could comprehend what you meant
| and thanks for that again.
|
| During the 15+ years of working in tech industry with a business major
| background, I had to train myself to learn various technologies to the
| degree of every details, including assembling components and systems
| and writing codes, and so on, all simply because refusing to accept
| craps from engineers.
|
| Speaking of non-business activities, I've seen so many engineers
| using IM for chatting, surfing sites for trading personal stocks, and
| exchanging porn pictures with emails, instead of coming to newsgroups
| like this or others for searching assistance or providing ones.
|
| Now I run my own business, heavily depended on IT, but outsourced all
| to 3rd party service providers.
|
| What also counts is the "intension" of doing something rather than
| judging solely by the "behavior". That is, any tool can be abused
| and used for non-business-related purpose, and on the other hand, can
| also be used to improve productivity for the benefits of all.
|
| Over the years, I have learned so much from various newsgroups and
| forums (and from people like you), and I even demanded our engineers
| (while at the last company) to participate some forums and newsgroups
| to exchange skills and tips. I just don't get the idea for why some
| people have the thoughts for newsgroups are not business-related?
|
| Once again, thank you for your kind explanations. I will wait and
| see if such add-in will be provided in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Don Caton" wrote in message
| ...
|| "xfile" wrote in message
|| :
||
||| Finally, speaking of overhead. BCM is truly an overheard and with
||| almost no
||| integration with contacts. Do you really think adding newsgroup
||| will increase additional overhead to Outlook and why is it not for
||| OE?
||
|| No, it would not "increase additional overhead". This excuse is
|| often thrown about, but having written a newsreader add-in for
|| Outlook, I can tell you it has absolutely no basis in fact. And I'm
|| sure if you ask the authors of any of the other newsreader add-ins,
|| they will tell you the same thing.
||
|| Outlook is basically a UI around one or more MAPI-compliant
|| databases (the .pst and .ost files). Things like emails, tasks,
|| contacts, etc. are simply records in one of these databases.
||
|| In order to send and receive messages or other items, Outlook loads
|| "transport providers". A transport provider is basically a DLL that
|| contains code that knows how to connect to a specific type of data
|| source, and how to read/write records in a MAPI database. Each
|| account you set up in Outlook is associated with a particular
|| transport provider.
||
|| To send and retrieve POP3 email for example, Outlook loads the POP3
|| transport provider. Outlook ships with transports for POP3, IMAP,
|| HTTP and Exchange servers. If you want to retrieve email from Lotus
|| Notes, you would install a Lotus Notes transport provider. Likewise
|| for any other information source that someone has written a
|| transport provider for.
||
|| In Outlook 2007, MS added the ability to retrieve RSS feeds and that
|| was done by writing a transport provider that knows how to connect
|| to an RSS feed.
||
|| To access newsgroups in Outlook, all you need is a transport
|| provider that knows how to connect to a NNTP server. If third-party
|| vendors such as myself can write one (using the horribly outdated
|| and incomplete MAPI documentation), there is no reason why MS
|| couldn't write one too. And the idea that this would add "overhead"
|| to Outlook is simply absurd. It would add no more "overhead" than
|| the supplied POP3 transport does.
||
|| Outlook is slow, IMO, because it is based on MAPI, a circa-1993
|| technology that's overly complicated and all but obsolete. I'm a
|| little surprised that MS hasn't switched to SQL server databases by
|| now, but perhaps there is too much legacy and third-party code that
|| would break to make that practical.
||
|| And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the
|| potential to be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd.
|| I've sold a number of site licenses to large corporations and I'm
|| sure the other newsgroup add-in vendors have as well. Employees can
|| waste company time on personal email and RSS feeds too, and Outlook
|| has the ability to connect to any web site so you can surf porn
|| sites all day long without ever leaving Outlook. Companies that are
|| worried about this can block access to HTTP sites, and they could
|| block access to NNTP servers just as easily.
||
|| As to why MS doesn't add newsgroup capabilities to Outlook, only
|| those folks within Microsoft who make those decisions know the
|| answer to that.
||
|| --
|| Don Caton

"Don Caton" wrote in message
...
"xfile" wrote in message
:


And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the potential to
be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd.

And what planet do YOU live on?

Don Caton wrote:

And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the potential
to be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd.

While intelligent people may disagree on this, the fact remains that the
guys on the front row do not consider it absurd. Where I work, we have our
own internal NNTP server and it serves strictly local newsgroups. I had to
submit special exemption paperwork making a business case to allow our
firewall to be configured in such a manner as to permit access to the
msnews.microsoft.com NNTP server and it's the only external NNTP server
we're allowed to access. I had to _prove_ that the company would save money
by allowing access to these newsgroups.
--
Brian Tillman

Also, the business vs. non-business argument may not even be the core issue. I look at it like this: The resources available for any new product version are finite. Rather than duplicate functionality that is already available in both a free application (Outlook Express) and various add-ins for Outlook, Microsoft has chosen to use those resources to add new functionality and resolve existing problems that relate to substantial real-world scenarios, for both business and non-business Outlook users.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx

"Brian Tillman" wrote in message ...
Don Caton wrote:

And the premise that newsgroups are not useful and have the potential
to be abused in a corporate environment is equally absurd.

While intelligent people may disagree on this, the fact remains that the
guys on the front row do not consider it absurd. Where I work, we have our
own internal NNTP server and it serves strictly local newsgroups. I had to
submit special exemption paperwork making a business case to allow our
firewall to be configured in such a manner as to permit access to the
msnews.microsoft.com NNTP server and it's the only external NNTP server
we're allowed to access. I had to _prove_ that the company would save money
by allowing access to these newsgroups.
--
Brian Tillman