MVP question

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see lots
of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.

TIA
24 answers Last reply
More about question
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    You'll find 'em hanging out in the more-specific Office newsgroups (e.g.,
    microsoft.public.office.misc).

    See http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?sel=33607412&expand=1
    --
    ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security

    sf wrote:
    > Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see lots
    > of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    >
    > TIA
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    On Sun, 1 May 2005 17:07:31 -0400, PA Bear wrote:

    > You'll find 'em hanging out in the more-specific Office newsgroups (e.g.,
    > microsoft.public.office.misc).

    Thanks, Bear.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    My experience with some of the MVPs in microsoft.public.outlook is that they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as "active" as the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width vs. proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles that (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a reply...
    So kudos to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist users.
    Ivan


    "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    >
    > Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see lots
    > of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    >
    > TIA
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Have you posted to an Outlook-specific (vs Office) newsgroup, Ivan?

    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Calendaring
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Contacts
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Fax
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.General
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_AddIns
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_VBA
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.ThirdPartyUtil
    --
    ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security

    Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > My experience with some of the MVPs in microsoft.public.outlook is that
    > they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as "active" as
    > the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    > For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width vs.
    > proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles that
    > (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a reply... So kudos
    > to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist users.
    > Ivan
    >
    >
    > "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see lots
    >> of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    >>
    >> TIA
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    yes, microsoft.public.outlook, and microsoft.putlic.outlook.general. I surely don't want to have to call ms support and pay $35 to find out about a pretty basic issue...

    "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OMP1rfsTFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Have you posted to an Outlook-specific (vs Office) newsgroup, Ivan?
    >
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Calendaring
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Contacts
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Fax
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.General
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_AddIns
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_VBA
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.ThirdPartyUtil
    > --
    > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
    >
    > Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > My experience with some of the MVPs in microsoft.public.outlook is that
    > > they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as "active" as
    > > the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    > > For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width vs.
    > > proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles that
    > > (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a reply... So kudos
    > > to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist users.
    > > Ivan
    > >
    > >
    > > "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    > >>
    > >> Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see lots
    > >> of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    > >>
    > >> TIA
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    So, what's the issue? I tried searching Google Groups for that NG and
    your handle, and came up with zilch. Were you using a different name?

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    news:uFV2OHtTFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > yes, microsoft.public.outlook, and microsoft.putlic.outlook.general. I
    surely don't want to have to call ms support and pay $35 to find out
    about a pretty basic issue...
    >
    > "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OMP1rfsTFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > Have you posted to an Outlook-specific (vs Office) newsgroup, Ivan?
    > >
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Calendaring
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Contacts
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Fax
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.General
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_AddIns
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_VBA
    > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.ThirdPartyUtil
    > > --
    > > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    > > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
    > >
    > > Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > > My experience with some of the MVPs in microsoft.public.outlook is
    that
    > > > they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as
    "active" as
    > > > the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    > > > For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width vs.
    > > > proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles
    that
    > > > (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a reply...
    So kudos
    > > > to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist
    users.
    > > > Ivan
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    > > >>
    > > >> Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see
    lots
    > > >> of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    > > >>
    > > >> TIA
    > >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    microsoft.public.office isn't a MS newsgroup. You might be seeing it on
    your news server because it used to exist and they (or someone else) has
    kept it going. Use the MS news server (msnews.microsoft.com) and you will
    get only the current office newsgroups.
    --
    Jeff Richards
    MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    >
    > Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see lots
    > of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    >
    > TIA
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Hi Gary,

    the most recent post was here:
    news:OvxoDe#PFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl

    The question was this:

    OL 2000
    What is the significance of the proportional / fixed-width font options under International Font settings in Outlook? Outlook always chooses the proportional option anyway.

    Furthermore, how does Outlook reconcile the setting under "when composing and reading plain text" vs. the settings under International Fonts? Say I have a plain text message in ISO 8859-1. How does Outlook decide what font to use to display the text?
    (This seems to be implemented in a bugy way... based on my experience, the general plain text setting only applies to Central European encodings on my system, but it is ignored for all other encodings. This is probably because my system codepage is Central European, but that's just a hypothesis.)

    Now that I think about it, the proportional / fixed-width settings also affect Outlook Express, so I might ask in an OE newsgroup about that...


    Thanks,

    Ivan


    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message news:e5xJLdtTFHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > So, what's the issue? I tried searching Google Groups for that NG and
    > your handle, and came up with zilch. Were you using a different name?
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    > news:uFV2OHtTFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > yes, microsoft.public.outlook, and microsoft.putlic.outlook.general. I
    > surely don't want to have to call ms support and pay $35 to find out
    > about a pretty basic issue...
    > >
    > > "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:OMP1rfsTFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > > Have you posted to an Outlook-specific (vs Office) newsgroup, Ivan?
    > > >
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Calendaring
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Contacts
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Fax
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.General
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_AddIns
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_VBA
    > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.ThirdPartyUtil
    > > > --
    > > > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    > > > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
    > > >
    > > > Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > > > My experience with some of the MVPs in microsoft.public.outlook is
    > that
    > > > > they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as
    > "active" as
    > > > > the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    > > > > For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width vs.
    > > > > proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles
    > that
    > > > > (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a reply...
    > So kudos
    > > > > to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist
    > users.
    > > > > Ivan
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I see
    > lots
    > > > >> of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> TIA
    > > >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    So, did you eventually ask in an OE group, <g>?

    Listen, I've downloaded both of those groups, in their entirety as they
    currently exist on the MS servers, and I can sort of see why you might
    not have received an answer. Unfortunately, the message stores don't go
    back very far, so I can't say that I've seen the whole history. However,
    based upon what I few recent examples I *can* see...

    You consistently X-post to both of those two groups, and even when you
    get answers (which you did, to most of your posts) you pretty
    consistently complain about this or that bug in OL2000, an app that is
    simply not going to be patched in any significant manner ever again
    except regarding security issues. Furthermore, you appear to be not
    willing to accept when the answer to most of your queries is that the
    issue was fixed in later versions, or that you need to use a 3rd-party
    workaround. I can't see how the OL MVPs can make it much more clear than
    that. IOW, in most cases, you *are* getting an answer, the only answer
    that exists even though you may not like it, and yet instead of being
    gracious and at least saying, "Thank you," for these volunteer efforts,
    your usual response is to say, in so many words, "Well that sux!".

    You may *think* that in this particular case you're simply asking for
    information on "how does this work?", but when taken in context, the
    general tenor of your posts there seem to be rather querulous, and if
    nobody happens to know the answer, or they do know the answer but also
    know that it's been resolved in more recent editions of OL--or can't be
    resolved, period--then I can understand why they would tend to ignore
    your posts, based upon experience.

    I'm not trying to speak for others, not at all. Just offering as
    unbiased an opinion as I can of the record that I can access.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    news:u4gNF12TFHA.2532@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > Hi Gary,
    >
    > the most recent post was here:
    > news:OvxoDe#PFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
    >
    > The question was this:
    >
    > OL 2000
    > What is the significance of the proportional / fixed-width font
    options under International Font settings in Outlook? Outlook always
    chooses the proportional option anyway.
    >
    > Furthermore, how does Outlook reconcile the setting under "when
    composing and reading plain text" vs. the settings under International
    Fonts? Say I have a plain text message in ISO 8859-1. How does Outlook
    decide what font to use to display the text?
    > (This seems to be implemented in a bugy way... based on my experience,
    the general plain text setting only applies to Central European
    encodings on my system, but it is ignored for all other encodings. This
    is probably because my system codepage is Central European, but that's
    just a hypothesis.)
    >
    > Now that I think about it, the proportional / fixed-width settings
    also affect Outlook Express, so I might ask in an OE newsgroup about
    that...
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Ivan
    >
    >
    >
    > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:e5xJLdtTFHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > > So, what's the issue? I tried searching Google Groups for that NG
    and
    > > your handle, and came up with zilch. Were you using a different
    name?
    > >
    > > --
    > > Gary S. Terhune
    > > MS MVP Shell/User
    > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    > >
    > > "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    > > news:uFV2OHtTFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > > yes, microsoft.public.outlook, and
    microsoft.putlic.outlook.general. I
    > > surely don't want to have to call ms support and pay $35 to find out
    > > about a pretty basic issue...
    > > >
    > > > "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:OMP1rfsTFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > > > Have you posted to an Outlook-specific (vs Office) newsgroup,
    Ivan?
    > > > >
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Calendaring
    > > > >
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Contacts
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Fax
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.General
    > > > >
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing
    > > > >
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_AddIns
    > > > >
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms
    > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_VBA
    > > > >
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.ThirdPartyUtil
    > > > > --
    > > > > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    > > > > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
    > > > >
    > > > > Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > > > > My experience with some of the MVPs in
    microsoft.public.outlook is
    > > that
    > > > > > they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as
    > > "active" as
    > > > > > the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    > > > > > For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width
    vs.
    > > > > > proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles
    > > that
    > > > > > (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a
    reply...
    > > So kudos
    > > > > > to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist
    > > users.
    > > > > > Ivan
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I
    see
    > > lots
    > > > > >> of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    > > > > >>
    > > > > >> TIA
    > > > >
    > >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > the most recent post was here:
    > news:OvxoDe#PFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
    >
    > The question was this:
    >
    > OL 2000
    > What is the significance of the proportional / fixed-width font options
    > under International Font settings in Outlook? Outlook always chooses the
    > proportional option anyway.
    >
    > Furthermore, how does Outlook reconcile the setting under "when composing
    > and reading plain text" vs. the settings under International Fonts? Say I
    > have a plain text message in ISO 8859-1. How does Outlook decide what
    > font to use to display the text? (This seems to be implemented in a bugy
    > way... based on my experience, the general plain text setting only
    > applies to Central European encodings on my system, but it is ignored for
    > all other encodings. This is probably because my system codepage is
    > Central European, but that's just a hypothesis.)
    >
    > Now that I think about it, the proportional / fixed-width settings also
    > affect Outlook Express, so I might ask in an OE newsgroup about that...

    As for OE, see any of these archived threads from OE6 newsgroup:

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress/search?hl=en&group=microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress&q=proportional+%2B+%22fixed-width%22+%2B+%22plain+text%22&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group

    Look especially for posts by Jim Pickering and Michael Santovec.

    In OE (and, I'd assume, in OL), reading all messages in Plain Text = chosen
    proportional font.
    --
    ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    > Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office?
    > I see lots of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    >

    > the most recent post was here:
    > news:OvxoDe#PFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
    >

    How are you accessing the microsoft.public.office group? Using your ISP's
    news server perhaps?

    It is not listed at msnews.microsoft.com .... you should be using that news
    server to access the current MS newsgroups, and you'll more likely find MVP
    help.

    There are plenty of Office-specific newsgroups under
    microsoft.public.office.... listed at msnews.microsoft.com.

    ---
    Daniel Hicks

    danjr@voyager.net
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    > As for OE, see any of these archived threads from OE6 newsgroup:
    >
    > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress/search?hl=en&group=microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress&q=proportional+%2B+%22fixed-width%22+%2B+%22plain+text%22&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group
    >
    > Look especially for posts by Jim Pickering and Michael Santovec.
    >
    > In OE (and, I'd assume, in OL), reading all messages in Plain Text = chosen
    > proportional font.

    Right, so basically the "fixed-width" setting is irrelevant. Wonder why it's still there, then... Outlook behavior seems to be the same.
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Thanks for your feedback. I will admit that perhaps I could have been "nicer" in some of those messages. I will also admit that there are some issues the MVPs or others probably can't do anything about, such as bad quoting implementation in Outlook, etc. However, rarely have I gotten an answer from an MVP there; the only answers have come from Brian Tillman, who wasn't very friendly himself....

    In my defense, it should be said that some of those issues that I have been posting about are *not* resolved in newer versions of Outlook. For example, the printing options in Outlook 2003 still lack the ability to select which pages to print (except odd/even). So if I get an answer that I should upgrade and that Outlook 2000 won't be fixed, that answer is not very relevant, and nor does it show much interest in getting things fixed or improved. I don't see why I should thank anyone for that type of an answer. In this newsgroup, there is a lot of effort to follow up with certain issues, to discuss things, to see if something can be done. I don't see that much in the Outlook newsgroups. That issue about the font settings (general plain text vs. international encodings, and which one is actually in effect) - I suspect nobody really knows, and nobody cares to look into it. I also suspect the implementation of these settings is similarly strange in recent Outlook versions (although I have not checked), so an "upgrade" suggestion would not be appropriate in that case either. And lastly, if there are known bugs in the program, they should be fixed with Office 2000 SP-4, which (I think) will be coming at some point (??).

    Also, I crosspost to both of those newsgroups because I don't understand how they are different from each other. How is "outlook" (without any specification, i.e. general) different from "outlook.general"? :)


    IB


    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%23yZ$qp3TFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > So, did you eventually ask in an OE group, <g>?
    >
    > Listen, I've downloaded both of those groups, in their entirety as they
    > currently exist on the MS servers, and I can sort of see why you might
    > not have received an answer. Unfortunately, the message stores don't go
    > back very far, so I can't say that I've seen the whole history. However,
    > based upon what I few recent examples I *can* see...
    >
    > You consistently X-post to both of those two groups, and even when you
    > get answers (which you did, to most of your posts) you pretty
    > consistently complain about this or that bug in OL2000, an app that is
    > simply not going to be patched in any significant manner ever again
    > except regarding security issues. Furthermore, you appear to be not
    > willing to accept when the answer to most of your queries is that the
    > issue was fixed in later versions, or that you need to use a 3rd-party
    > workaround. I can't see how the OL MVPs can make it much more clear than
    > that. IOW, in most cases, you *are* getting an answer, the only answer
    > that exists even though you may not like it, and yet instead of being
    > gracious and at least saying, "Thank you," for these volunteer efforts,
    > your usual response is to say, in so many words, "Well that sux!".
    >
    > You may *think* that in this particular case you're simply asking for
    > information on "how does this work?", but when taken in context, the
    > general tenor of your posts there seem to be rather querulous, and if
    > nobody happens to know the answer, or they do know the answer but also
    > know that it's been resolved in more recent editions of OL--or can't be
    > resolved, period--then I can understand why they would tend to ignore
    > your posts, based upon experience.
    >
    > I'm not trying to speak for others, not at all. Just offering as
    > unbiased an opinion as I can of the record that I can access.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    > news:u4gNF12TFHA.2532@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > > Hi Gary,
    > >
    > > the most recent post was here:
    > > news:OvxoDe#PFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
    > >
    > > The question was this:
    > >
    > > OL 2000
    > > What is the significance of the proportional / fixed-width font
    > options under International Font settings in Outlook? Outlook always
    > chooses the proportional option anyway.
    > >
    > > Furthermore, how does Outlook reconcile the setting under "when
    > composing and reading plain text" vs. the settings under International
    > Fonts? Say I have a plain text message in ISO 8859-1. How does Outlook
    > decide what font to use to display the text?
    > > (This seems to be implemented in a bugy way... based on my experience,
    > the general plain text setting only applies to Central European
    > encodings on my system, but it is ignored for all other encodings. This
    > is probably because my system codepage is Central European, but that's
    > just a hypothesis.)
    > >
    > > Now that I think about it, the proportional / fixed-width settings
    > also affect Outlook Express, so I might ask in an OE newsgroup about
    > that...
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Ivan
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:e5xJLdtTFHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > > > So, what's the issue? I tried searching Google Groups for that NG
    > and
    > > > your handle, and came up with zilch. Were you using a different
    > name?
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Gary S. Terhune
    > > > MS MVP Shell/User
    > > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    > > >
    > > > "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    > > > news:uFV2OHtTFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > > > yes, microsoft.public.outlook, and
    > microsoft.putlic.outlook.general. I
    > > > surely don't want to have to call ms support and pay $35 to find out
    > > > about a pretty basic issue...
    > > > >
    > > > > "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:OMP1rfsTFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > > > > Have you posted to an Outlook-specific (vs Office) newsgroup,
    > Ivan?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Calendaring
    > > > > >
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.configuration
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Contacts
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Fax
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.General
    > > > > >
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.installation
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.interop
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.printing
    > > > > >
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_AddIns
    > > > > >
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.program_forms
    > > > > > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.Program_VBA
    > > > > >
    > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlook.ThirdPartyUtil
    > > > > > --
    > > > > > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    > > > > > MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > > > > > My experience with some of the MVPs in
    > microsoft.public.outlook is
    > > > that
    > > > > > > they don't respond at all to certain questions, and are not as
    > > > "active" as
    > > > > > > the MVPs in this newsgroup, to put it mildly...
    > > > > > > For example, I've posted there several times about fixed-width
    > vs.
    > > > > > > proportional fonts settings in Outlook and how Outlook handles
    > > > that
    > > > > > > (because it seems buggy to me), but have never gotten a
    > reply...
    > > > So kudos
    > > > > > > to all the MVPs in this newsgroup, who do their best to assist
    > > > users.
    > > > > > > Ivan
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > > news:4pfa71l2rhjkf867kakmm1mml368fia9tc@4ax.com...
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >> Why aren't there any MVPs over in microsoft.public.office? I
    > see
    > > > lots
    > > > > > >> of questions, but few answers and none by an MVP.
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >> TIA
    > > > > >
    > > >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Well, I have to admit that Millie was rather short with you on one
    occasion, but I chalked that up to possibly being due to history I can't
    see, plus I notice that there are at least a couple of rather virulent
    trolls in that NG, and perhaps she'd just had a bad day. Even then, her
    response, while rather curt, was right on target. But in Brian's case, I
    don't see that he was anything less than courteous, even though perhaps
    more succinct than you might like. We all have our own styles. It's also
    important to remember that in *this* NG, Win98.Gen_Discussion, we're all
    dealing with a legacy product and take that into consideration. Outlook,
    unlike OE, isn't generally considered a "consumer" application,
    regardless of how it's promoted by MS. It's not just an email program
    and IMHO, shouldn't be used if simple email functions are all that's
    required. OL is a full-featured Contacts Management application. It's
    best considered a business app and legacy support for business apps is
    less reasonable to expect than for OS or even development platforms.
    Otherwise, it's comparable to a family machine used for surfing and game
    playing being built around a Windows Server as the platform.

    To get some perspective, think how it would be if there were only five
    or six newsgroups for Windows--*all* Windows. Imagine going to the
    windowsxp.general NG and asking how to deal Win98->Win98SE upgrade
    issues, or IE 5.01 quirks. What kind of reaction would you expect in
    such a case? Hell, look at the reaction such a question gets in *this*
    NG, <s>. There's a grand total of 13 Outlook MVPs, world wide, whereas
    there are more than that many Shell/User MVPs who focus primarily on
    Legacy Windows OS products, and who are by nature more interested in the
    minutiae of our specialties than someone who is used to dealing with
    complicated "How-to" scenarios and come from an almost exclusively
    large-organization IT perspective.

    I don't know much about OL other than some support I give to a couple of
    clients who use it for their volunteer organization corresponding
    secretary duties. I've taught myself just enough to help them through
    their "How-to" issues. I *may* someday soon try an OL/Exchange solution
    in our publishing business, as part of a larger SBS solution, but the
    wife seems enamored of GoldMine, and trying to get her into an
    alternative solution when she doesn't even have the time to learn to
    make proper use of Goldmine seems to me a losing proposition.

    Besides all the other factors I've addressed, your questions have a
    sense of irrelevancy about them when seen from the point of view of an
    OL power user. As for thanking someone--hey, you got an answer, a polite
    if unsatisfactory one, and that alone deserves at least a brief thanks
    before launching into more complaints or in-the-guts discussion about
    whatever. But your responses don't seem to me to have been designed to
    elicit further discussion. When you focus on a design flaw and engage in
    rebuttal of someone else's attempt to inject some perspective, instead
    of doing some experimentation and trouble-shooting of your own and
    couching your correspondence in a way that suggests, "Hey, I'm just
    trying to understand this problem," instead of "This pisses me off!",
    you're much more likely to get a cooperative result.

    In the case of the print options, I have to admit that I fail to see how
    that's particularly relevant to OL, anyway, since emails aren't
    naturally paginated. Seems to me that the simple workaround would be to
    copy and paste into a Word document, where such abilities to
    micro-manage production is more natural to the app. As for the font
    issue, perhaps you're right--but you are in no position to *demand* that
    someone else, particularly someone who is doing what they do on a purely
    volunteer basis, pay attention to your rather in consequential issue.

    And, no, it is *not* to be assumed that an SP4 for a product that's over
    five years old is going to fix "bugs", particularly not ones that are
    more accurately described as "failure to decently implement". There's a
    distinct difference between a bug that results in hangs, errors, etc. in
    primary functions, and simple failures to decently implement a certain
    feature. Office 2000, in its entirety, should be seen for what it is--a
    product that took a basic workhorse called Office 97 and tried to
    implement a whole lot of new "features", successfully in some cases and
    horribly unsuccessfully in others. There's more than one feature that's
    installed by default in Office 2000 that turned out to be nothing less
    than a majorly embarrassing abortion.

    If you want to be involved in the feedback loop that leads to better
    implementation of features you consider important in an application, the
    proper place for that is in the Beta stage, or the shake out between RTM
    and SP1 or SP2. Not a list of rather obscure "failures" regarding an app
    that's had two major revisions, going on three, since your version was
    released. I noticed that there was one thread where you were the one
    that discontinued it by not responding to a "have you tried this?"
    query. That isn't the way to impress someone who's trying to help. To
    sum up, I think you would be better served if you were to be more
    courteous from the start--even if the application in question is a piece
    of junk, that's hardly the fault of the person giving advice. You might
    also try to be more engaging about the details of the issue, to at least
    appear to be a fellow-user intent on exploring issues instead of
    treating the exchange as one you might more properly treat and exchange
    between yourself and official, *paid* Product Support or Product
    Development teams.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm


    "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    news:uocl0A4TFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Thanks for your feedback. I will admit that perhaps I could have been
    "nicer" in some of those messages. I will also admit that there are some
    issues the MVPs or others probably can't do anything about, such as bad
    quoting implementation in Outlook, etc. However, rarely have I gotten an
    answer from an MVP there; the only answers have come from Brian Tillman,
    who wasn't very friendly himself....

    > In my defense, it should be said that some of those issues that I have
    been posting about are *not* resolved in newer versions of Outlook. For
    example, the printing options in Outlook 2003 still lack the ability to
    select which pages to print (except odd/even). So if I get an answer
    that I should upgrade and that Outlook 2000 won't be fixed, that answer
    is not very relevant, and nor does it show much interest in getting
    things fixed or improved. I don't see why I should thank anyone for that
    type of an answer. In this newsgroup, there is a lot of effort to follow
    up with certain issues, to discuss things, to see if something can be
    done. I don't see that much in the Outlook newsgroups. That issue about
    the font settings (general plain text vs. international encodings, and
    which one is actually in effect) - I suspect nobody really knows, and
    nobody cares to look into it. I also suspect the implementation of these
    settings is similarly strange in recent Outlook versions (although I
    have not checked), so an "upgrade" suggestion would not be appropriate
    in that case either. And lastly, if there are known bugs in the program,
    they should be fixed with Office 2000 SP-4, which (I think) will be
    coming at some point (??).
    >
    > Also, I crosspost to both of those newsgroups because I don't
    understand how they are different from each other. How is "outlook"
    (without any specification, i.e. general) different from
    "outlook.general"? :)
    >
    >
    > IB
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > As for OE, see any of these archived threads from OE6 newsgroup:
    > >
    > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress/search?hl=en&group=microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress&q=proportional+%2B+%22fixed-width%22+%2B+%22plain+text%22&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group
    > >
    > > Look especially for posts by Jim Pickering and Michael Santovec.
    > >
    > > In OE (and, I'd assume, in OL), reading all messages in Plain Text =
    > > chosen proportional font.
    >
    > Right, so basically the "fixed-width" setting is irrelevant. Wonder why
    > it's still there, then... Outlook behavior seems to be the same.

    If you want fixed-width, don't read in Plain Text. WYSIWYG.
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Millie? Short with someone? Say it isn't so, GAry!!! <g,d&r....vvvVf)

    Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    > Well, I have to admit that Millie was rather short with you on one
    > occasion...
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Heh, heh... ;-)

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:ejVD$65TFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > Millie? Short with someone? Say it isn't so, GAry!!!
    <g,d&r....vvvVf)
    >
    > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    > > Well, I have to admit that Millie was rather short with you on one
    > > occasion...
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    > If you want fixed-width, don't read in Plain Text. WYSIWYG.

    The point I was trying to make is that the fixed-width category in OE, as well as Outlook, is entirely irrelevant, since it's never used. The standard implementation would be that if reading in plain text, the program would check for the fixed-width setting, if reading HTML without fonts specified within the message, the program would check the proportional setting. However, the program insted always checks the proportional setting... So I don't really understand where that whole distinction is even coming from - perhaps it used to work differently in OE, but the bottom line is that the way it is now doesn't make much sense.
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    OK, Gary. I appreciate that you have taken the time to write such an elaborate reply. I use Outlook for several reasons, including a good advanced search function, contacts, the ability to easily insert attachments simply by pasting into the e-mail message, etc. I also like the .pst format despite its limitations, since it stores the mailbox in one single file, and thus makes it easy to back up, take with you, and open elsewhere. And while Outlook might be primarily a business application, it does have an internet e-mail only mode, and was a part of Office 2000, so certainly it can also be used in a consumer context. So I don't think that makes the issues I've posted about less relevant.

    As for the printing, I am not arguing that this is a bug, but I am just a bit surprised about this.... in all other mail programs I have seen, and in fact in most programs that print any text at all, there exists the possibility of selecting which pages to print. Say you have a very long e-mail which keeps track of an ongoing conversation - you might just want to print the first page (if it's top-posted). So I just don't understand why the ability print odd vs. even pages would be included, but not the ability to select which pages to print? And it's still the same in OL 2003? This is one of the things I don't like about Microsoft - when they come up with new versions, they seem not to review certain very basic functions in the older version of the product and implement them better. Often, these are "common sense" issues, and one would expect that the user wouldn't have to bother contacting Microsoft, because the programmers would consider it their responsibility to take care of such things.

    The issue with the fonts remains, and I might in fact one day call MS support about it, but then I will bug them forever until I get a satisfactory reply. I'll also check OL 2003 again to see if anything has changed. But if a robust mailing program has two different settings that seem to partially or fully overlap in the functions they cover, and if this is not documented properly, but sort of just implemented without much logic, then that's bad IMO, no matter if it's a consumer product, or a business product, a brand new product or a five-year old product.

    As for the other issues about my posting style, I'll try to take what you say into consideration. Although I do see some of these things differently than you, I don't think it would be very productive to further engage in an argument about this, since I'm sure both of us have better things to do, and you were sort of dragged into this conversation in the first place. :)

    And just a final reflection... I find it odd that a more elaborate discussion about Outlook would take place in win98.gen_discussion than in actual outlook newsgroups. I posted there about the fonts issue two years ago, then a year ago, and then again now, so the tone in my recent postings might have reflected my past experiences of non-responsiveness.

    Ivan


    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message news:OxZQyy4TFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Well, I have to admit that Millie was rather short with you on one
    > occasion, but I chalked that up to possibly being due to history I can't
    > see, plus I notice that there are at least a couple of rather virulent
    > trolls in that NG, and perhaps she'd just had a bad day. Even then, her
    > response, while rather curt, was right on target. But in Brian's case, I
    > don't see that he was anything less than courteous, even though perhaps
    > more succinct than you might like. We all have our own styles. It's also
    > important to remember that in *this* NG, Win98.Gen_Discussion, we're all
    > dealing with a legacy product and take that into consideration. Outlook,
    > unlike OE, isn't generally considered a "consumer" application,
    > regardless of how it's promoted by MS. It's not just an email program
    > and IMHO, shouldn't be used if simple email functions are all that's
    > required. OL is a full-featured Contacts Management application. It's
    > best considered a business app and legacy support for business apps is
    > less reasonable to expect than for OS or even development platforms.
    > Otherwise, it's comparable to a family machine used for surfing and game
    > playing being built around a Windows Server as the platform.
    >
    > To get some perspective, think how it would be if there were only five
    > or six newsgroups for Windows--*all* Windows. Imagine going to the
    > windowsxp.general NG and asking how to deal Win98->Win98SE upgrade
    > issues, or IE 5.01 quirks. What kind of reaction would you expect in
    > such a case? Hell, look at the reaction such a question gets in *this*
    > NG, <s>. There's a grand total of 13 Outlook MVPs, world wide, whereas
    > there are more than that many Shell/User MVPs who focus primarily on
    > Legacy Windows OS products, and who are by nature more interested in the
    > minutiae of our specialties than someone who is used to dealing with
    > complicated "How-to" scenarios and come from an almost exclusively
    > large-organization IT perspective.
    >
    > I don't know much about OL other than some support I give to a couple of
    > clients who use it for their volunteer organization corresponding
    > secretary duties. I've taught myself just enough to help them through
    > their "How-to" issues. I *may* someday soon try an OL/Exchange solution
    > in our publishing business, as part of a larger SBS solution, but the
    > wife seems enamored of GoldMine, and trying to get her into an
    > alternative solution when she doesn't even have the time to learn to
    > make proper use of Goldmine seems to me a losing proposition.
    >
    > Besides all the other factors I've addressed, your questions have a
    > sense of irrelevancy about them when seen from the point of view of an
    > OL power user. As for thanking someone--hey, you got an answer, a polite
    > if unsatisfactory one, and that alone deserves at least a brief thanks
    > before launching into more complaints or in-the-guts discussion about
    > whatever. But your responses don't seem to me to have been designed to
    > elicit further discussion. When you focus on a design flaw and engage in
    > rebuttal of someone else's attempt to inject some perspective, instead
    > of doing some experimentation and trouble-shooting of your own and
    > couching your correspondence in a way that suggests, "Hey, I'm just
    > trying to understand this problem," instead of "This pisses me off!",
    > you're much more likely to get a cooperative result.
    >
    > In the case of the print options, I have to admit that I fail to see how
    > that's particularly relevant to OL, anyway, since emails aren't
    > naturally paginated. Seems to me that the simple workaround would be to
    > copy and paste into a Word document, where such abilities to
    > micro-manage production is more natural to the app. As for the font
    > issue, perhaps you're right--but you are in no position to *demand* that
    > someone else, particularly someone who is doing what they do on a purely
    > volunteer basis, pay attention to your rather in consequential issue.
    >
    > And, no, it is *not* to be assumed that an SP4 for a product that's over
    > five years old is going to fix "bugs", particularly not ones that are
    > more accurately described as "failure to decently implement". There's a
    > distinct difference between a bug that results in hangs, errors, etc. in
    > primary functions, and simple failures to decently implement a certain
    > feature. Office 2000, in its entirety, should be seen for what it is--a
    > product that took a basic workhorse called Office 97 and tried to
    > implement a whole lot of new "features", successfully in some cases and
    > horribly unsuccessfully in others. There's more than one feature that's
    > installed by default in Office 2000 that turned out to be nothing less
    > than a majorly embarrassing abortion.
    >
    > If you want to be involved in the feedback loop that leads to better
    > implementation of features you consider important in an application, the
    > proper place for that is in the Beta stage, or the shake out between RTM
    > and SP1 or SP2. Not a list of rather obscure "failures" regarding an app
    > that's had two major revisions, going on three, since your version was
    > released. I noticed that there was one thread where you were the one
    > that discontinued it by not responding to a "have you tried this?"
    > query. That isn't the way to impress someone who's trying to help. To
    > sum up, I think you would be better served if you were to be more
    > courteous from the start--even if the application in question is a piece
    > of junk, that's hardly the fault of the person giving advice. You might
    > also try to be more engaging about the details of the issue, to at least
    > appear to be a fellow-user intent on exploring issues instead of
    > treating the exchange as one you might more properly treat and exchange
    > between yourself and official, *paid* Product Support or Product
    > Development teams.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    >
    > "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    > news:uocl0A4TFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > > Thanks for your feedback. I will admit that perhaps I could have been
    > "nicer" in some of those messages. I will also admit that there are some
    > issues the MVPs or others probably can't do anything about, such as bad
    > quoting implementation in Outlook, etc. However, rarely have I gotten an
    > answer from an MVP there; the only answers have come from Brian Tillman,
    > who wasn't very friendly himself....
    >
    > > In my defense, it should be said that some of those issues that I have
    > been posting about are *not* resolved in newer versions of Outlook. For
    > example, the printing options in Outlook 2003 still lack the ability to
    > select which pages to print (except odd/even). So if I get an answer
    > that I should upgrade and that Outlook 2000 won't be fixed, that answer
    > is not very relevant, and nor does it show much interest in getting
    > things fixed or improved. I don't see why I should thank anyone for that
    > type of an answer. In this newsgroup, there is a lot of effort to follow
    > up with certain issues, to discuss things, to see if something can be
    > done. I don't see that much in the Outlook newsgroups. That issue about
    > the font settings (general plain text vs. international encodings, and
    > which one is actually in effect) - I suspect nobody really knows, and
    > nobody cares to look into it. I also suspect the implementation of these
    > settings is similarly strange in recent Outlook versions (although I
    > have not checked), so an "upgrade" suggestion would not be appropriate
    > in that case either. And lastly, if there are known bugs in the program,
    > they should be fixed with Office 2000 SP-4, which (I think) will be
    > coming at some point (??).
    > >
    > > Also, I crosspost to both of those newsgroups because I don't
    > understand how they are different from each other. How is "outlook"
    > (without any specification, i.e. general) different from
    > "outlook.general"? :)
    > >
    > >
    > > IB
    >
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Ivan Bútora wrote:
    > > If you want fixed-width, don't read in Plain Text. WYSIWYG.
    >
    > The point I was trying to make is that the fixed-width category in OE, as
    > well as Outlook, is entirely irrelevant, since it's never used. The
    > standard implementation would be that if reading in plain text, the
    > program would check for the fixed-width setting, if reading HTML without
    > fonts specified within the message, the program would check the
    > proportional setting. However, the program insted always checks the
    > proportional setting... So I don't really understand where that whole
    > distinction is even coming from - perhaps it used to work differently in
    > OE, but the bottom line is that the way it is now doesn't make much
    > sense.

    My mentor Jim Pickering has clarified this for me/us. He says no, it
    doesn't make much sense but it's been this way since Day One:

    Assuming the message is not HTML, the only way you will see a fixed-width
    font when reading a message is if you've chosen a/any fixed-width font
    (e.g., Courier-New) in OE: Tools > Options > Read > Fonts > *Proportional*
    (not Fixed-Width).

    The chosen fixed-width font does not have to be the fixed-width font the
    sender used.
    --
    ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    OK, thanks, at least we know how it works. (I'm wondering if MS will keep it the same for OE 7 without reviewing it.)


    > The chosen fixed-width font does not have to be the fixed-width font the
    > sender used.

    I don't think that the sender actually "uses" any font, i.e. with plain text messages, it's only about how it's displayed; the message doesn't contain information about any fonts.
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    True, but with HTML or RTF email, there are font specs included.
    Unfortunately, lots of people, too many people, and most businesses, use
    HTML or RTF email. Only if the sender uses PT, or if the receiver forces
    conversion to PT, are font specs lost. Of course, for HTML email, at
    least in OE and OL, you can force the reader to ignore the font spec by
    changing IE settings.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
    news:OkUDcVEUFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > OK, thanks, at least we know how it works. (I'm wondering if MS will
    keep it the same for OE 7 without reviewing it.)
    >
    >
    > > The chosen fixed-width font does not have to be the fixed-width font
    the
    > > sender used.
    >
    > I don't think that the sender actually "uses" any font, i.e. with
    plain text messages, it's only about how it's displayed; the message
    doesn't contain information about any fonts.
    >
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    On Tue, 3 May 2005 01:12:04 -0400, PA Bear wrote:

    > WYSIWYG.

    WDTM?
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    WYSIWYG = What you see is what you get

    WDTM is assumed to mean "What does that mean"

    --
    Jon Hildrum
    DTS MVP
    Jon_Hildrum@msn.com
    www.hildrum.com
    "sf" <sf@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:15or71hkmnohh38j3ce74ls5lhrb72t8e6@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 3 May 2005 01:12:04 -0400, PA Bear wrote:
    >
    >> WYSIWYG.
    >
    > WDTM?
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Office Windows