Searching \ for '[OT]::[WOT] Why I try to avoid relying on Microsof' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+try+avoid+relying
Search entire site for: ':[WOT] Why I try to avoid relying on Microsof'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]::[WOT] Why I try to avoid relying on Microsof'
2007\04\04@052635 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Hardly worth the paper it's not written on, but.

Work on PC as a favour for a deserving friend of my brother's. PC
support is not something I do if at all possible.

HDD probably head crashed - numerous scattered corruptions. Won't
start O/S in any mode at all. Transfer HDD to another PC. Cleans up
automatically well enough in scand[i]sk.

Replace in original PC. Amazed to see it actually boot to Windows.
Copy information from data areas to CDW and copy to another PC.
Let's export the Outlook mailbox (even though it's probably in the
gross copy above). Using Outlook as they have Office.

... export.
That format is not supported for export, do you want to load the
required files etc etc.
Try ALL formats incl Excel, CSV DOS and CSV Windows and ... .
None are supported.
All want a CD "Microsoft Office Professional 2003 with Frontpage".
Appears to be 2003 version judging from 'Help About'.
OK! - get my Office Professional 2003 copy from store and loads CD.
Is the required file anywhere on CD? - are you mad. This is Microsoft.

A little Gargoyling reveals that the version "with Frontpage" has a
special version of its own.

Does the user have an Office ... CD. Maybe. But it's not with the PC.
It does have a Windows COA so it's indicative of legal leanings.
Should it matter?
Maybe yes if one was trying to alter key Office suite options.
But when trying to export email address-book files, the necessity for
ANY CD to be used, let alone the exact version for the Office software
mix  involved is bizarre. Not being able to use the eg Office
Professional disk from the same year as in this instance is pathetic.

When a system fails you despite the best and honest efforts of its
makers then you may be able to accept its shortcomings. But when the
failure is due to marketing decisions aimed at making users walk an oh
so narrow path and unnecessary path when using widely distributed and
sold software product, then one would be unwise to trust the company
concerned with your valuable data. (Or even your non valuable data).

Alas, it's all too typical from Microsoft.



       Russell McMahon


2007\04\04@060710 by Rikard Bosnjakovic

picon face
On 4/4/07, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:

[...]
> Alas, it's all too typical from Microsoft.

If all these problems were due in - for example - cars, then the
manufacturer would have been keel-hauled decades ago, but when it
comes to computing the manufacturers can blame on about everything -
the dog had a bone in his throat this morning, thats why! - and the
consumers have no choice but to accept and frustrate some more.

Pathetic.


--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/

2007\04\04@064334 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Exporting in Outlook creates a PST file as far as I remember. This is also
MS propriety - personally I hate when a file format is non public as no one
can write an application for that - or not legally at least. I think there
are mailer softwares that can import contacts and mails from Outlook - then
those may could export it to a well known format ;-).

Tamas


On 4/4/07, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\04\04@064645 by Jake Vickers

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> HDD probably head crashed - numerous scattered corruptions. Won't
> start O/S in any mode at all. Transfer HDD to another PC. Cleans up
> automatically well enough in scand[i]sk.
>
> Replace in original PC. Amazed to see it actually boot to Windows.
> Copy information from data areas to CDW and copy to another PC.
> Let's export the Outlook mailbox (even though it's probably in the
> gross copy above). Using Outlook as they have Office.
>
>  ... export.
> That format is not supported for export, do you want to load the
> required files etc etc.
>  
My wife's laptop did the same thing last week. After 6 hours of mapping
around bad sectors I was able to boot into Win but it was unusable - no
start button, programs missing, windows key caused menu to appear in
middle of desktop, etc. I pulled the drive back out and just copied her
Outlook data to my drive. When I put a new drive in hers and reinstalled
Office, I was able to impost directly from the original Outlook data files.
Might help some, instead of exporting them.

2007\04\04@085041 by John Ferrell
face picon face
It is the same deal with Outlook Express. Backing up or extracting data from
the saved data is more like hacking than using.

I have a couple of G's of emails I would like to keep for the future but the
accessibility in the future seems to be in the whimsical hands of Microsoft.

If I were not so lazy I would write the code to convert it to CSV.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
      around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2007\04\04@100806 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Let's export the Outlook mailbox (even though it's probably in the
> gross copy above). Using Outlook as they have Office.
>
>  ... export.

Maybe I'm asking the obvious here (and missing something equally obvious)
-- but why didn't you simply copy the .pst file? You don't have to start
Outlook for this, you don't even have to boot into Windows for this. As
long as you intend to install the same or a newer version of Outlook, this
file will be usable.

> That format is not supported for export, do you want to load the
> required files etc etc.
> Try ALL formats incl Excel, CSV DOS and CSV Windows and ... .
> None are supported.

AFAIK, Outlook native format is always supported. (E.g. try dragging an
item into a directory of your choice.)

As you found out, export into other formats may require an export filter to
be installed -- which may require the installation files. (BTW, that's the
reason I keep them on disk. More recent versions of Office do this
automatically by default, AFAIK -- but the user can opt out, I think, and
tell it to delete these files.)

Gerhard

2007\04\04@102704 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 4/4/07, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaispamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Exporting in Outlook creates a PST file as far as I remember. This is also
> MS propriety - personally I hate when a file format is non public as no one
> can write an application for that - or not legally at least. I think there
> are mailer softwares that can import contacts and mails from Outlook - then
> those may could export it to a well known format ;-).
>

Any easy method to export the Outlook files (PST files)? I also got tons of
old email in PST format. At that time PST seems to be the best method to
archive emails from Outlook and Outlook Express.

The worst email client is Lotus Notes --- I am using it at work now. ;-(

Now I am using Yahoo email and Gmail for personal emails so no more
PST files. And they are cross-platform. Archiving is an issue though.

2007\04\04@105128 by Rolf

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Hardly worth the paper it's not written on, but.
>
> Work on PC as a favour for a deserving friend of my brother's. PC
> support is not something I do if at all possible.
>  
[snipped]

Did I ever mention that, in 1993, I got 'into' Linux, and it was all
because of e-mail....

The idea of putting my e-mail on to a desktop machine seems so stupid to
me now that I have been doing it differently for years.... let me explain...

If you have your e-mail stored on a desktop machine you can't access it
(easily) from any other machine (or different software on the same
machine). You are tied to a particular mail reader,  and everything is
risky.

On the other hand, I have an IMAP server at home. I can access my mail
from any one of the computers I use (2 at home, at work, and I can also
access it via web-mail). The concept of having to go to one particular
machine to read my e-mail, as I say, seems stupid.

Now that I have been using this system for over a decade, I can recall
all my e-mail ever, I have never lost a single mail (including spam*).  
Searching mail is very valuable for me, and going back years is routine.
I can do that from anywhere in the world.

It amazes me that, after decades of mail software, normal mail users are
unable to easily access their mail from the world-over. There has to be
money available in creating that sort of service.

In addition, by using Linux (or any unix variant), I use a mail-folder
format that is very easy to manage. Each e-mail is it's own file on
disk. So simple.

Rolf

*spam is very important to me... it is used to train my spamassassin
process... I get hundreds of spam messages a day, but, only about 0.01%
of them get through to my inbox... I then have a 'verify' box which I
put suspect mail in (things which are are almost certainly spam, but
need a manual check just in case), and I manually filter that every
couple of weeks (I get maybe 0.5% of 'real' e-mail in that). The spam
box is ignored. This takes me about 5 minutes a week to manage.

2007\04\04@110314 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Install thunderbird?
if OE/O is running thunderbird will rip the emails from it.
note don't make thunderbird the default mail application till after that
is done
and it will take a long time if they have lots of email.

Otherwise a VMware imap mail server might do the trick.

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\04\04@113808 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Hi Xiaofan,

Importing PST into GMAIL:
http://marklyon.org/gmail/gmailapps.htm

But... could not find any that would export my GMAIL (keeping all labels
etc) so I could make my very own backup.

Tamas


On 4/4/07, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\04\04@125707 by James Holland

flavicon
face

>
> It is the same deal with Outlook Express. Backing up or extracting data
> from
> the saved data is more like hacking than using.
>
> I have a couple of G's of emails I would like to keep for the future but
> the
> accessibility in the future seems to be in the whimsical hands of
> Microsoft.
>
> If I were not so lazy I would write the code to convert it to CSV.
>
> John Ferrell    W8CCW
>

Someone sent me this link a week or two ago, not sure if it is of any use. I
haven't tried it myself.

http://www.vbaexpress.com/kb/getarticle.php?kb_id=875#instr

Cheers
James

2007\04\04@133447 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
John Ferrell wrote:

> It is the same deal with Outlook Express. Backing up or extracting data from
> the saved data is more like hacking than using.
>
> I have a couple of G's of emails I would like to keep for the future but the
> accessibility in the future seems to be in the whimsical hands of Microsoft.

You can drag emails from OE into any directory of your liking. The emails
will be stored in individual .eml files, which seem to be nothing more than
the raw email contents.

Gerhard

2007\04\04@134010 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jake Vickers wrote:

> I pulled the drive back out and just copied her Outlook data to my drive.
> When I put a new drive in hers and reinstalled Office, I was able to
> impost directly from the original Outlook data files. Might help some,
> instead of exporting them.

Instead of importing, you can also /use/ the original .pst file.

Gerhard

2007\04\04@152522 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Rolf wrote:

> Did I ever mention that, in 1993, I got 'into' Linux, and it was all
> because of e-mail....

FWIW, I've been using Netscape for 10+ years now, and it's Mail module
does save it all in ASCII format. I did same reasoning as you.

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\04\04@183126 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> You can drag emails from OE into any directory of your liking. The emails
> will be stored in individual .eml files, which seem to be nothing more
than
> the raw email contents.

Outlook and Outlook Express are two different applications. With Outlook you
can do the same (drag mails to folder) but then it creates .MSG format which
is a compound document (aka OLE2) instead of pure text/mime. You can select
all mails in a folder (Ctrl+A) and then File menu / Save as... then with
text format it creates an *almost* mbx format. It *may* can be parsed and
imported by applications that are able to handle mbx files, but the bad news
is that you loose all your attachments like this.

Tamas

2007\04\05@081323 by Rikard Bosnjakovic

picon face
On 4/5/07, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaispamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

> It *may* can be parsed and
> imported by applications that are able to handle mbx files, but the bad news
> is that you loose all your attachments like this.

All hail Micro$loth!


--
- Rikard.

2007\04\05@083542 by Jake Vickers

flavicon
face
Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Tamas Rudnai <@spam@tamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>> It *may* can be parsed and
>> imported by applications that are able to handle mbx files, but the bad news
>> is that you loose all your attachments like this.
>>    
>
> All hail Micro$loth!
>
>
>  
It is an easier answer than when people ask me what OS I run....
"Ubuntu." "What?" "Ubuntu." "Huh?" "Ubuntu. It's Linux." "No, seriously,
Redhat?"
If only some of the Linux distros had a better name.....
But yeah, the only problems I've ever had with Linux have been getting
wireless to work, and some obscure hardware I used for a time-lapse
recording project one weekend. I do backup my data, but my data is
easily readable on any other machine. And 62,000 emails dating back to
2003 all here for referencing!
And I **LOVE** my rescue CD (http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page) for
fixing borked machines.

2007\04\05@083817 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Rolf wrote:

> Did I ever mention that, in 1993, I got 'into' Linux, and it was all
> because of e-mail....
>
> The idea of putting my e-mail on to a desktop machine seems so stupid to
> me now that I have been doing it differently for years.... let me
> explain...
>
> If you have your e-mail stored on a desktop machine you can't access it
> (easily) from any other machine (or different software on the same
> machine). You are tied to a particular mail reader,  and everything is
> risky.
>
> On the other hand, I have an IMAP server at home. I can access my mail
> from any one of the computers I use (2 at home, at work, and I can also
> access it via web-mail). The concept of having to go to one particular
> machine to read my e-mail, as I say, seems stupid.

Whoever thinks this makes sense but doesn't want to change the OS and all
applications that rely on it, may want to check out e.g.

 Mercury <www.pmail.com/overviews/ovw_mercury.htm>
 Macallan <http://macallan.club.fr/MMS/index.html>
 Hamster <http://www.arcorhome.de/newshamster/tgl/misc/hamster_en.html>

All three are free mail servers supporting IMAP, POP3 and SMTP, running on
Win2k+ systems.

Gerhard

2007\04\05@085541 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 4/4/07, Tamas Rudnai <KILLspamtamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> Importing PST into GMAIL:
> http://marklyon.org/gmail/gmailapps.htm

Thanks. I am reluctant to import PST into Gmail though. I do have licensed
copy of Windows and Outlook. But I will try the applications to
convert PST file
to other off-line Email format

> But... could not find any that would export my GMAIL (keeping all labels
> etc) so I could make my very own backup.
>

It is said that you can enable Gmail POP3 access and then use
OE/Outlook/Thunderbird/ to download them and archive them
as MBox or PST  ;-) It is also said one can do the same with
Yahoo mail provided they do not mind some advertisement from
Yahoo. I do mind though...

Personally I use Gmai/Yahoo email because the ISP does not
provide email account. Archiving seems to be a big issue to me.
I also do not quite like the Google ads on the right corner of the
Gmail screen...

2007\04\05@094221 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> Personally I use Gmai/Yahoo email because the ISP does not
> provide email account. Archiving seems to be a big issue to me.
> I also do not quite like the Google ads on the right corner of the
> Gmail screen...

Well, for FireFox there are couple of 'anti-ad' addons so they remove all
unwanted stuff from your screen. I have even one that creats new buttons on
Gmail page that makes easier to manage my mails. Or you can access to your
gmail account via POP3 as you mentioned, so you will not see any web based
adverts at all :-)

Tamas



On 4/5/07, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\04\06@114001 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Outlook Express is a different file format than Outlook.
Outlook Express uses a dbx format that is not documented.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
      around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2007\04\06@131121 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
John Ferrell wrote:

> Outlook Express is a different file format than Outlook.
> Outlook Express uses a dbx format that is not documented.

But it still let's you drag emails into .eml files, which are raw text
format.

Gerhard

2007\04\07@005032 by Douglas Wood

picon face
It's documented here:

http://oedbx.aroh.de/

Douglas Wood
EPICIS Engineering

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell" <TakeThisOuTjohnferrellEraseMEspamspam_OUTearthlink.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]::[WOT] Why I try to avoid relying on Microsoft


{Quote hidden}

>> --

2007\04\08@025041 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
An excellent start.
However, dated April 2003, and starts by saying:

This are my latest results on the OE dbx file format.
I have not completely decoded the file format, but I estimate 90%.
I am still working to fill same gaps.
If I have new results I will update http://oedbx.Aroh.de/


       Russell

> It's documented here:

> http://oedbx.aroh.de/

2007\04\08@095123 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> An excellent start.
> However, dated April 2003, and starts by saying:
>
> This are my latest results on the OE dbx file format.
> I have not completely decoded the file format, but I estimate 90%.
> I am still working to fill same gaps.

Maybe some of the gaps are described in here
<http://d.hatena.ne.jp/j0hn/20070102/1167725911>. (Page in Japanese, so I
don't really know; it references the oedbx.aroh.de link. But there's some
source code that looks like it can read OE .dbx files and extract
messages.)

OE is the "default" Windows email client, for people who just want to read
their email without installing anything else or having any specific
requirements that are not fulfilled by OE. For the others, there are
alternatives -- lots of them. Whoever wants a documented email storage
format can (and probably should) use a different email client that fits
this requirement.

For the conversion, it is possible to drag the OE emails into the file
system, and many email clients should be able to import these raw email
files (or have a tool that can do this). It doesn't create mail folders for
you (it is only possible to drag the contents of one folder at a time), but
since this is not something that has to be done every other day, in many
cases it doesn't seem prohibitive. (If so inclined, and the number of
folders warrants the effort, it is possible to use something like AutoIt3
to help automate the process. Possibly OE has also a COM/OLE interface, but
I don't know.)

Gerhard

2007\04\09@161058 by Barry Gershenfeld

face picon face
Usually when I hear of someone using Outlook/Exp I am tempted to reply,
"Don't do that".  But I usually hold my tongue.

(Tamas)
>  but the bad news is that you loose all your attachments like this.

People think Outlook is a file manager.  We can all do better than
this.  Happily, my mail client strips attachments and converts them to
files, which I then put where they belong.  And the mail files are smaller
because of it.   And I don't suddenly lose a bunch of files if the mail
program blows up.


((Jake)
>  if OE/O is running thunderbird will rip the emails from it.

Dario)
>  FWIW, I've been using Netscape for 10+ years now, and it's Mail module
>does save it all in ASCII format. I did same reasoning as you.

I have switched back and forth from Netscape to Eudora and all the while,
they can read each other's files.  The "plain" format was established in
RFC-822 which means every Linux mailer will understand them, as well as
just about anything in Windows whose name doesn't start with "O".

I persuaded a colleague here to install Eudora (3 years ago).  It imported
all his Outlook mail, and as a bonus he found all this "missing mail" that
had been lost inside Outlook all this time.

(Jake)
>  "Ubuntu." "What?" "Ubuntu." "Huh?" "Ubuntu. It's Linux." "No,
> seriously,  Redhat?"
>If only some of the Linux distros had a better name.....

True.  It kept me away for quite awhile.  But I was given a CD to try.  Not
only is it the first distro I found to be able to boot up completely using
a USB drive, but I was able to install it onto the SCSI drive (another
challenge) and now that oddball computer has a useful OS of its very
own.   I suspect Knoppix is up to the task these days but it's on a DVD
which officially means it now has Too Many Features.


(Russell)
>All want a CD "Microsoft Office Professional 2003 with Frontpage".

And the best part is this:  The day I decided "That's it!  I'm not going to
take this anymore!  Open Office works, and I shall be free of MS
Office!"   I opened the Control Panel, went to Add/Remove, smugly selected
Office and pushed the fateful "Remove" button.   The machine grinds a bit,
displays "Preparing to start thinking about removing this program"...and then:

  "Please insert the Office CD"

To remove a program!

Barry (I'll be quiet now)

2007\04\09@180123 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Many people have commented on this thread that I started.
Most comments have been useful and/or interesting. They have suggested
alternatives to OE or O, ways to extract messages from OE (usually
with some losses along the way)(but in some cases also some gains),
ways to read OE format files, alternatives of sorts to exporting from
OE or O etc. All good stuff.

But most, while useful, seemed to miss the original point (which
admittedly hardly needs emphasising :-) )(I'm largely preaching to
those who have already left the choir here) that Microsoft, as a
marketing decision, have with Outlook (*NOT* Outlook Express) not only
made a closed format program but have made it really really hard for
people who buy a premium version to use it in a normal situation for
normal disaster recovery action when disaster strikes. In the area
that I was concerned with the free Outlook Express performs infinitely
better than the for money version of Outlook which was supplied with
the premium version of Office that I was forced to be working with
because that was what was on the client's machine.

Interestingly, in this case I have not noticed anyone trying to defend
Microsoft's indefensible practices in this area - not even the
apologist who for some reason seems to delight in rubbishing other
people but defending every aspect of Microsoft's endeavours. Maybe on
this matter we have finally reached agreement.

FWIW, for various reasons I still use OE (but never O) myself and am
in most areas happy enough with the capabilities and results, but as
it has problems with active mail stores over about 4 GB (or maybe it's
the 130,000 odd messages)  [ :-) ] that too may change.



       Russell


2007\04\09@220956 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face

> FWIW, for various reasons I still use OE (but never O) myself and am
> in most areas happy enough with the capabilities and results, but as
> it has problems with active mail stores over about 4 GB (or maybe it's
> the 130,000 odd messages)  [ :-) ] that too may change.
>  
I know i had to archive my piclist in it as it couldn't handle more than
65535 emails in one folder.
I run my own imap mail server now (dbmail) using thunderbird (and
slypheed claws on the P1 266 laptop with 64mb of ram running damn small
linux. Which is *damn* fast btw, on par with my dual core P4 desktop)
and I haven't looked back. I made the transition to linux desktop about
8 months ago and the only thing I use windows for is games, CAD and
programming PIC's. If solidworks or rhino decide that they would rather
not need to double their system requirements to run on vista I'm set ;->.

I installed vista on my fathers PC recently mainly to get some
experience with it and he hasn't noticed anything "notable" about the
change (going from windows 2000) it does boot faster and the programs
start quicker but thats about it. The only thing i noticed is browsing
file shares on WAN links is now about as fast and stable as my ubuntu
machine. It used to take about 20 seconds to get the content of a folder
over the link now its about 2. Ubuntu does it in about 3.

2007\04\09@221910 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Interestingly, in this case I have not noticed anyone trying to defend
> Microsoft's indefensible practices in this area - not even the apologist
> who for some reason seems to delight in rubbishing other people but
> defending every aspect of Microsoft's endeavours. Maybe on this matter
> we have finally reached agreement.

Not sure, but in any case I don't think this has been discussed.

> FWIW, for various reasons I still use OE (but never O) myself and am
> in most areas happy enough with the capabilities and results, but as
> it has problems with active mail stores over about 4 GB (or maybe it's
> the 130,000 odd messages)  [ :-) ] that too may change.

FWIW, Outlook is not primarily an email program. It is foremost an Exchange
client, secondly a PIM, and it can do normal email, too. Looking at it as a
dedicated email client is usually missing the point.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...