• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

How to move outlook saved email to win7 live mail

N

Nil

Flightless Bird
On 03 Jul 2010, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid> wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

> Now how does one get Outlook for Win 7 and is it free?


You buy it at a store, and no.

Sounds like you don't even know what it is, so how is it that you claim
it won't work?
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:18:01 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:


> >> The blanket statement that Outlook doesn't work in Vista is just plain
> >> wrong.

> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, it is. But the blanket statement that Outlook runs just fine on
> > Windows 7 is also just plain wrong.
> >

> Live and learn.
>
> Now how does one get Outlook for Win 7



You buy it, either alone, or as part of Microsoft Office. The current
version is 2010, and *that* version runs just fine under Windows 7.


> and is it free?



No.
 
G

Gordon

Flightless Bird
"Trev" <trev_uk@hotmail.com invalid> wrote in message
news:sP2dnQVpy_gHkLLRnZ2dnUVZ7oadnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Dr. Tinto" <rtinto@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%8aXn.2459$Zp1.1991@newsfe15.iad...
>> Does anyone here know how I can do this?
>>

>
> Copy the PST files from the old and replace the new ones with them


Fine. Except Windows Live Mail does NOT use pst files.
 
N

Nil

Flightless Bird
On 01 Jul 2010, "Dr. Tinto" <rtinto@comcast.net> wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

> Does anyone here know how I can do this?


If you have access to an IMAP server, you could copy all your Outlook
emails to it, then connect with WLM and copy them back to its local
folders.
 
L

LouB

Flightless Bird
Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:18:01 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake wrote:

>
>>>> The blanket statement that Outlook doesn't work in Vista is just plain
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. But the blanket statement that Outlook runs just fine on
>>> Windows 7 is also just plain wrong.
>>>

>> Live and learn.
>>
>> Now how does one get Outlook for Win 7

>
>
> You buy it, either alone, or as part of Microsoft Office. The current
> version is 2010, and *that* version runs just fine under Windows 7.
>
>
>> and is it free?

>
>
> No.
>
>

Thank You.
 
G

Gordon

Flightless Bird
"Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9DAA79CE3BEE5nilch1@130.133.4.11...
> On 01 Jul 2010, "Dr. Tinto" <rtinto@comcast.net> wrote in
> alt.windows7.general:
>
>> Does anyone here know how I can do this?

>
> If you have access to an IMAP server, you could copy all your Outlook
> emails to it, then connect with WLM and copy them back to its local
> folders.


But if the OP has Outlook, why doesn't he just install it on the new
machine?
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:26:52 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:18:01 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid> wrote:


> >> Now how does one get Outlook for Win 7

> >
> >
> > You buy it, either alone, or as part of Microsoft Office. The current
> > version is 2010, and *that* version runs just fine under Windows 7.
> >
> >
> >> and is it free?

> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >

> Thank You.



You're welcome. Glad to help.
 
N

Nil

Flightless Bird
On 04 Jul 2010, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

> But if the OP has Outlook, why doesn't he just install it on the
> new machine?


I don't know. Why don't you ask him?
 
G

Gordon

Flightless Bird
"Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9DAB644991BDCnilch1@85.214.73.210...
> On 04 Jul 2010, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in
> alt.windows7.general:
>
>> But if the OP has Outlook, why doesn't he just install it on the
>> new machine?

>
> I don't know. Why don't you ask him?


I did. No reply.
 
X

XS11E

Flightless Bird
Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:18:01 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:


>> Now how does one get Outlook for Win 7

>
> You buy it, either alone, or as part of Microsoft Office. The
> current version is 2010, and *that* version runs just fine under
> Windows 7.


You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under Windows
7 and should cost less....


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

> Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:18:01 -0400, LouB <Lou@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:

>
> >> Now how does one get Outlook for Win 7

> >
> > You buy it, either alone, or as part of Microsoft Office. The
> > current version is 2010, and *that* version runs just fine under
> > Windows 7.

>
> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under Windows
> 7



I did, earlier in the thread.


> and should cost less....



Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
always cost less.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:43:19 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under Windows
>> 7

>
>
>I did, earlier in the thread.
>
>
>> and should cost less....

>
>
>Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
>always cost less.


Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:42:50 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:43:19 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under Windows
> >> 7

> >
> >
> >I did, earlier in the thread.
> >
> >
> >> and should cost less....

> >
> >
> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
> >always cost less.

>
> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.



They mean very close to the same things here.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:52:06 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:42:50 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:43:19 -0700, Ken Blake
>> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under Windows
>> >> 7
>> >
>> >
>> >I did, earlier in the thread.
>> >
>> >
>> >> and should cost less....
>> >
>> >
>> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
>> >always cost less.

>>
>> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.

>
>
>They mean very close to the same things here.


Ok, but over here they couldn't be more different.

I use Office 2003 at home and 2007 at work. The primary differences
are cosmetic. I also recently took a product tour of Office 2010, and
again, the primary differences were cosmetic. The apps I use most are
Outlook, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, with a bit of Access now and
then. I switch back and forth between Office versions and so far I
have not noticed a needed feature that was missing on the older
version. Obsolescent? Not at all.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:dnr13693v9pe4e5mgti5nv9jjanh9b1nte@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:52:06 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:42:50 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:43:19 -0700, Ken Blake
>>> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under
>>> >> Windows
>>> >> 7
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I did, earlier in the thread.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> and should cost less....
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
>>> >always cost less.
>>>
>>> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.

>>
>>
>>They mean very close to the same things here.

>
> Ok, but over here they couldn't be more different.
>
> I use Office 2003 at home and 2007 at work. The primary differences
> are cosmetic. I also recently took a product tour of Office 2010, and
> again, the primary differences were cosmetic. The apps I use most are
> Outlook, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, with a bit of Access now and
> then. I switch back and forth between Office versions and so far I
> have not noticed a needed feature that was missing on the older
> version. Obsolescent? Not at all.
>


I started using Office 2010 when it came out in Beta and found the most
substantial change was better able to handle graphics, use graphics in PPT
and etc. (Probably a good analogy would be more bells and whistles graphics
wise.) But, like you said most differences are cosmetic and a different
layout of commands, most of which are good and a few that make no sense. (As
I remember when switching from 03 to 07 I saw pretty much the same thing.)
Dave
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:35:16 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:52:06 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
>>> >always cost less.

>
> >> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.

> >
> >
> >They mean very close to the same things here.

>
> Ok, but over here they couldn't be more different.



Don't mix up the words "obsolete" and "obsolescent." "Obsolete" means
"no longer in use." "Obsolescent" means "on its way out of use."

The latter is all I meant.
 
X

XS11E

Flightless Bird
Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under
>> Windows 7

>
> I did, earlier in the thread.


Sorry, should have read earlier!

>> and should cost less....


> Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
> always cost less.


If "obsolescent" means less bloated, easier to use and generally
superior then certainly they are that!

As always, YMMV but since Outlook 2007 and later don't have Quote Fix
available they're not usable email clients IMHO.



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:27:20 -0700, Ken Blake
<kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:35:16 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:52:06 -0700, Ken Blake
>> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
>>>> >always cost less.

>>
>> >> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.
>> >
>> >
>> >They mean very close to the same things here.

>>
>> Ok, but over here they couldn't be more different.

>
>
>Don't mix up the words "obsolete" and "obsolescent." "Obsolete" means
>"no longer in use." "Obsolescent" means "on its way out of use."
>
>The latter is all I meant.


Oh, ok, I'm sorry then. I was using the definition from
Dictionary.com, especially the first two words. You were focused on
the second part. :)

–adjective
1. becoming obsolete; passing out of use, as a word: an obsolescent
term.

I disagree that Office 2k3/2k7 are obsolete or becoming obsolete, but
I agree that they are (or soon will be) passing out of use, especially
2k3.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:45:33 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>As always, YMMV but since Outlook 2007 and later don't have Quote Fix
>available they're not usable email clients IMHO.


I didn't know until just now that QuoteFix was available for Outlook,
so thanks for mentioning that. Till now, I thought it was OE only.
 
K

Ken Blake

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:45:14 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:27:20 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:35:16 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:52:06 -0700, Ken Blake
> >> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
> >>>> >always cost less.
> >>
> >> >> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >They mean very close to the same things here.
> >>
> >> Ok, but over here they couldn't be more different.

> >
> >
> >Don't mix up the words "obsolete" and "obsolescent." "Obsolete" means
> >"no longer in use." "Obsolescent" means "on its way out of use."
> >
> >The latter is all I meant.

>
> Oh, ok, I'm sorry then. I was using the definition from
> Dictionary.com, especially the first two words. You were focused on
> the second part. :)
>
> –adjective
> 1. becoming obsolete; passing out of use, as a word: an obsolescent
> term.
>
> I disagree that Office 2k3/2k7 are obsolete



They certainly aren't.


> or becoming obsolete,



But to me, they are clearly on their way there.


> but
> I agree that they are (or soon will be) passing out of use, especially
> 2k3.



In that case, I'm glad to see that we basically agree, even if we use
the words somewhat differently.
 
Top