Originally Posted by mrjminer
Shrug, I've never found a reason to need anything other than Live, either. Do you have a specific reason why Live is "daim bramage" compared to Thunderbird? Just wondering because I don't have any problems retrieving e-mail from a server, which is my sole purpose for using a program designed to retrieve e-mail from a server.
Both "retrieve", but Live requires Cloud connectivity, while Thunderbird (or whatever mail reader) can be used offline when required. Thunderbird is also non-proprietary and can be set up with a number of services. This is something that I need, since I draw mail from a number of servers, like GMail, my ISP's mail service, and my work email. I also have the need to view certain emails when I am away from access points and at other sites where I do not have administrative access on their servers.
For people that use Hotmail only, and have a constant Internet connection, Live might be an acceptable tool - but I find that a real, stand alone mail reader to be a better experience, especially in a mixed environment where mail is pulled from different sources, and where one needs a fair amount of flexibility. I find that Live tends to be bloated and sluggish - but then, I have the same complaint about Thunderbird. I think MS really needs to reconsider Live, perhaps have their developers use real Cloud applications like Citrix, and see how the real world operates. Of course, MS has taken steps, because Live used to be real dreck.
I just don't like being completely dependent upon Cloud applications - especially after working in a place that is overly dependent upon the Cloud; so I have all of the tools that I need loaded directly on my machines so that if the Cloud goes down, or if they bork the firewall that chops services (like yesterday, when they chopped the port for email - so I couldn't even send them a service request to restore my email...) I can keep on working through alternate means.