[JohnWill]

Originally Posted by jonmcc33

I thought you had to enable this in Gmail. I remember that POP3 e-mail support had to be switched on or something?

Those instructions indicate a lot of configuring and I remember them well when I configured Gmail for Outlook 2003 and even Thunderbird. Like I said, I opened Outlook 2007 and it asked for only my name, e-mail address and password. Everything was completely automatic. No need to set ports or anything.

GMAIL sets up just like any other POP email account for me. I didn't do anything special to get it working, and I sure didn't have to open any ports.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

GMAIL sets up just like any other POP email account for me. I didn't do anything special to get it working, and I sure didn't have to open any ports.

He meant POP3 support had to be enabled in your Gmail account before you can configure a POP3 mail client to connect to Gmail.

In one sense, he sort of "cheated" since he already had POP3 support enabled in his Gmail account. This means Outlook didn't have to do anything special to create the POP3 connection to his Gmail account and so he didn't include the Gmail POP3 setup as part of his Outlook 2007 configuration. This made Outlook 2007's setup look "easy". Once POP3 or IMAP (or both) is enabled in your Gmail account, Thunderbird and Outlook 2007 appear to be about the same in terms of configuration of Gmail POP3 access.

Peace...

[jonmcc33]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

He meant POP3 support had to be enabled in your Gmail account before you can configure a POP3 mail client to connect to Gmail.

In one sense, he sort of "cheated" since he already had POP3 support enabled in his Gmail account. This means Outlook didn't have to do anything special to create the POP3 connection to his Gmail account and so he didn't include the Gmail POP3 setup as part of his Outlook 2007 configuration. This made Outlook 2007's setup look "easy". Once POP3 or IMAP (or both) is enabled in your Gmail account, Thunderbird and Outlook 2007 appear to be about the same in terms of configuration of Gmail POP3 access.

Peace...

I didn't "cheat" at all. I've always had POP3 enabled in my Gmail account whether I used Thunderbird or Outlook. If I didn't have it enabled in Gmail then Thunderbird wouldn't have been able to connect to it either.

In regards to the similarity, you actually have to select Gmail as an account option in Thunderbird. You do not have to do that in Outlook 2007 so it is that much easier.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by jonmcc33

I didn't "cheat" at all. I've always had POP3 enabled in my Gmail account whether I used Thunderbird or Outlook. If I didn't have it enabled in Gmail then Thunderbird wouldn't have been able to connect to it either.

Having POP3 configured in Gmail is part of the configuration process, regardless of using Outlook or Thunderbird so you must include that in your steps.

In regards to the similarity, you actually have to select Gmail as an account option in Thunderbird. You do not have to do that in Outlook 2007 so it is that much easier.

So, you're saving two mouse clicks... one to select Gmail and one for the "Next" button. Gotcha. I guess I'll pay the price of those two mouse clicks so I can hide my preview pane when I don't want to see it and drag it up when I want to see it.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think MS Office will continue to be popular due to misconceptions about the "need" for it and due to piracy.

Peace...

[IC8]

Opinions on MS Office vs. The Competition? In all fairness, there is simply no competition, MS Office is simply much better than any other Windows product out there, no matter what the Open Source fanboys have to say about this. I also find it weak if people call Office bloated, when it's not. If that's the case then every modern application that has seen 10 versions is bloated, from Photoshop to 3DS Max to Fruity Loops, heck even the word processor of Open Office would be seen as extremely bloated compared to WordPad.

No, I think we should talk about bloat when the features get in our way of doing things, with that in mind I can only say that the new interface in Office 2007 is simply a good improvement, even if we all have to get used to it.

Performance wise Star Office is also running behind 2007: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=480

That brings us to the next issue; price.

Let me start by saying that free doesn't always mean that you save money.
Take for example a business that has been using Windows on its 500 desktop computers for the last 10 years. A change to Linux doesn’t mean that it’s always a win-win situation when you save on 500 desktop licenses, there is a lot more to it like maintenance, education, conversion, world standards, etc.

Then we have the popularity factor. Let’s for example compare Gimp with Photoshop.
Free doesn’t always mean better. Anyone who runs a Photoshop site is statistically more likely to make more money than the person running a Gimp site. This is not only because of the fact that Photoshop is more popular, but also because of the large popularity among professionals and experienced amateurs, people who are willing to spend money on Photoshop related products like courses, books, plugins, calibration equipment, magazines, tablets, etc.
So from an advertisement and commissions based affiliation point of view the purchase value becomes less and less irrelevant compared to Gimp.

The point I’m trying to make is this; it all depends on what you want to do with the software and whether it’s worth paying for. I do agree that a lot of people are using Ms Office when Open Office would do just fine.