PC or Mac or something else?

[booster]

I just called a friend of mine who is much more into this stuff than I am, and he said that you can get pretty much all the same e-mail properties that you like in Outlook Express from Outlook 2007, which is compatible with Windows 7/64 bit. I can't confirm this, but it is definitely something we will look into for our use.

 

[Mike-ClassB]

I just called a friend of mine who is much more into this stuff than I am, and he said that you can get pretty much all the same e-mail properties that you like in Outlook Express from Outlook 2007, which is compatible with Windows 7/64 bit. I can't confirm this, but it is definitely something we will look into for our use.

Ah, mea culpa.
That WAS one of the other suggested work arounds, that I failed to mention. It is another "added $$$" fix
however, as most of the laptops I've looked at only have 30 day trial versions. But it's another possibility.
I think to make things the most similar to OE6 mail on an XP machine, using 2 different mail clients might
be the least expensive, most like what I want it to do, solution. I actually set it up on the HP Win7 laptop I
bought last year, but returned in order to pursue an easier answer to my dilemma. I got my mail set up on Windows
Live Mail, and set up my wife's using Mozilla Thunderbird. M/T was free and easy to set up so that it does look a lot
like Windows Live Mail, but at the time, it wasn't an acceptable answer, considering the $$$ I'd just shelled out for
a nice new high powered laptop, with Win7 Home Premium, but no OE6 or equivalent.
For now though, I'm fine with the 2 older XP machines we have, and both have OE6 email.
As I've said in previous posts, I'm not impressed at Microsoft's removing that email functionality that I found
easy to use and functional, and then having to pay big bucks for newer technology, only to discover that I then needed
to find a way to mimic what I actually wanted and expected it to do in the first place.
If that makes any sense?

 

[booster]

At least the cost of the Outlook is a lot less than the cost increase of buying a Mac! Still more than free, though.

 

[Mike-ClassB]

At least the cost of the Outlook is a lot less than the cost increase of buying a Mac! Still more than free, though.

True. I think they're more expensive per feature, and I'm sure the transition to their OS would
be as easy as some have suggested, but for now, I'm still a PC guy, in spite of all their widely
publicized faults and shortcomings. Actually, as far as I can tell from reading the history of
Apple, when Steve Jobs really started to dominate the way Apple moved forward, he actually
moved some of the hardware and software towards, and included some of the better features,
of PCs into the iMacs. At least according to Wiki. Adding capability to run Win XP as a guest
image on a Mac was one, and he also dropped some of the old Apple cpu/processor hardware
and switched to the more common PC based Intel processors for their better performance and
reliability.
If/when the old Thinkpad gives up the ghost, I may buy one of the high horsepower Win7 machines,
and I'll try to get one loaded with Win7 Pro, and failing any other free and easy work around suddenly
becoming available from MS, I'll probably go with the different mail programs, one for me, and
one for her.

 

[Davydd]

This discussion is way too convoluted for me. I guess you guys have a strong belief in digital penance. :mrgreen: :wink:

 

[Mike-ClassB]

This discussion is way too convoluted for me. I guess you guys have a strong belief in digital penance. :mrgreen: :wink:

That sounds like self-flagellation using only the fingertips.
Would that be essentially correct?
I believe there is a brotherhood of monks in Silicon Valley that prescribes it for
intense cranial pain brought on by intra-technology absorption overload. :shock: :wtf:

 

[Photog-ClassB]

We have had PC's since the days of the floppy discs (the big ones).

We recently purchased a pair of iPhones. These things are powerful little boxes, but it won't replace our regular computers.

 

[Davydd]

I have an iPhone and agree it does not replace the computer by any stretch. However, we have been getting along with our iPads for travel quite nicely and have started leaving the laptops at home, especially for shorter trips.

 

[shezonit]

I have an iPhone and agree it does not replace the computer by any stretch. However, we have been getting along with our iPads for travel quite nicely and have started leaving the laptops at home, especially for shorter trips.

Ok-- you have them all.... which is most "portable fun for the buck"???
I now carry my MacBook and a prepaid ( very cheap) cell phone because I don't want to be stuck with a contract. I am thinking between iPad and iPod Touch.

 

[Davydd]

You'll read pundits will say an iPad is nothing but a large iPod Touch. However, they are very wrong. They essentially run off the same iOS (operating system) but the larger 10" screen does make a major difference in use. Also, there are now over 350,000 apps and I think the apps are what is differentiating tablet use from computer laptop use for all the devices. 65,000 of the apps are designed for use only on the iPad and not the iPhone or iPod Touch. Those apps are what makes the iPad so much different and better than the little siblings. For the time being it is also what differentiates the iPad from upcoming Android tablets. There are probably less than 100 apps available designed for large screen Android tablets at this time instead of just small smartphone apps or blowups of same not taking advantage of the greater screen size.

Keep in mind a tablet is primarily an information consuming device not a producing device like a laptop computer though you can do both with both. A tablet consumes information and you interact with a tablet much better than with a laptop. To me it is night and day. On the road I consume more than produce.