[WiseOldGunny]

I agree that gmail pages are unattractive and difficult to accommodate, but I still use it. My biggest objection is gmail will not allow me to alphabetize the senders name, therefor I use IncrediMail as my email application.

IncrediMail picks up the gmail and I can alphabetize the senders on IncrediMail., I don't understand why gmail does not permit this. I like this convenience because knowing the sender helps me to read the most important email first and when overloaded with email I can delete email from senders who I know just send jokes.

Come on gmail, upgrade your program to clean up the looks and allow alphabetizing senders by name

[EricFerguson]

One of my friends uses gmail. She complains that it is not possible to send more than one file (which are stored on her own computer) as attachment to a g-mail message. Does anyone know a workaround?

[A41202813]

@EricFerguson

Instead Of Using GMAIL Directly, Use It With A Mail Client On Your PC.

I Use GMAIL With Old OUTLOOK 2003.

You Can Add Many Files As Attachments.

Or, You Can Join Many Files Inside A Single ZIP File And Send That Single ZIP File.

Cheers.

---

This post has been edited by A41202813: 17 January 2013 - 03:46 PM

[BillHewins]

Quote

One of my friends uses gmail. She complains that it is not possible to send more than one file (which are stored on her own computer) as attachment to a g-mail message. Does anyone know a workaround?

Your friend is doing something wrong. I just did a quick test and was able to easily attach eight files.

You can even include files from your Google Drive storage without downloading to your PC first.

[brainout]

mrdr, on 27 September 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

The only thing that I like about Outlook . com is the ability to create folders to organize emails, I've never liked or gotten used to the Gmail label system.
Outlook.com still has to prove itself as more than hotmail in new clothes.
For now I'll test it out with some non-essential email subscriptions. Personally my favourite email account is gmx.com

Get Thunderbird. It does the same organization. MS really had a great product in Outlook Express, which it canned from Vista forward. It's a major reason why I stay on XP. I organize my incoming and outgoing mail with 'rules', so that the mail goes into folders, organizes quickly. I don't keep addresses or email in the cloud, as that subjects my clients to hacking. Major hacking problems have occurred in AOL, Yahoo, hotmail. Somehow gmail has managed to stay largely exempt. I don't get spam in gmail either, or don't notice it. For I always download mail to my computer; almost never compose or look at mail online. Email is thus easily backed-up on a flash drive.

So when a client calls, I can almost immediately find whatever I told him, even years ago. Helps me keep track of my work each day without having to write it into Outlook as a diary. I can just search Outlook Express for a given day's emails to see what I did. Almost all communication now to my clients goes through email. Some of them didn't like that, at first, but when I explained that this way we have a paper trial, they bought in.

And I tell them to get gmail, but I never use it online. Always just download to Outlook Express. Thunderbird is kitted out to act like Outlook Express, so for what YOU want it to do -- offline -- it can do, in Vista, Win7, or Win8. To be fair, the MS Office Outlook (not the online package) will do the same things as Outlook Express, but MS Office's Outlook program is a lot more annoying to use. It also is more functional for things I don't need, but you might. Apparently you can install the older versions of MS Office in Win8, per some of the people here in the forum. (MS says you can't do it, but must use MS Outlook 2007 and later.) So you might want to try installing a local copy of MS Office instead of using the online version, see if that makes your life better.

This post has been edited by brainout: 07 February 2013 - 03:25 PM

[BoricuaX]

The only thing I do like about Outlook.com is the clean look. For everything else I love Gmail; by the way I was a hard core Outlook User until 5 years ago when I fully moved to Gmail.

One of my biggest problem with Outlook.com (same as Hotmail) is when it come to Spam. For some reason Spam finds its way extremely easy on Outlook.com & Hotmail. I have even open new accounts that never used the address anywhere at all and got 2 - 4 spam mails daily. I have a Outlook.com account now as my backup (I believe that you should always have a backup email with a second provider) and even when I flag a mail/address as a Spam it keeps finding its way to my mailbox.

If Microsoft really wants to get people to use their product over Google they have some serious catching up to do...

[krisoccer]

I prefer the Outlook desktop client because I can easily copy pictures into the body of an email. I believe that this is still not possible with HTML-based email clients (perhaps HTML5 will address this)?

[OVigilante]

Hello,

What is the diferent of:
http://windows.micro...single-use-code

and:
https://support.goog...ic=2759193&rd=1

I don't see any difference as such, I think that Outlook.com have a Two-step authentication, like the Gmail, even the Outlook.com indicate Single-use code...

Thats all.

[BruceRMiller]

Quote

I prefer the Outlook desktop client because I can easily copy pictures into the body of an email. I believe that this is still not possible with HTML-based email clients (perhaps HTML5 will address this)?

Gmail allows you to drag and drop images from the desktop into the body of an email. It becomes an in-line image, encoded in MIME, and not just an attachment. You can also drag and drop images from web pages into gmail messages, inline. I tried it with Chrome and it worked fine. I don't have IE or an Outlook account, so I can't speak to that.

It has nothing to do with HTML5. It's just a matter of someone bothering to implement it.

[BruceRMiller]

Quote

Hello, What is the diferent of: http://windows.micro...single-use-code and: https://support.goog...&topic=2759193&rd=1 I don't see any difference as such, I think that Outlook.com have a Two-step authentication, like the Gmail, even the Outlook.com indicate Single-use code... Thats all.

The Microsoft thing seems to be a single-use password that you can get from Microsoft and use once. It looks like you have to go through a lot of work to get that single-use password. Meanwhile, anyone who found out your password can still access you account.

Google two-factor authentication is completely different. Every time you want to log in to you account, you must enter your password as well as an OTP, a code that is generated by a secure device on your person. This might be a dongle that you plug into a USB port, or it might be a secure application that you run on you cell phone.

So, with the Google approach, if someone somehow figures out your password (maybe they were looking over your shoulder, or they used a key logger), then they still cannot login to you account. They would also have to steal the secure device that you have on your person.

The OTP generated by the secure device (cell phone or dongle) can only be used once. So, even if someone watches exactly which keys you typed for both the password and the OTP code, it would do them no good because the OTP can not be used a second time, and only your personal device can generate the next OTP code.