What works for you: Hotmail versus Gmail

[Tracey Capen]

BEST PRACTICES What works for you: Hotmail versus Gmail By Megan Morrone The newest version of Hotmail might not have Gmail's cool factor, but it does have some new features worth a second look. Find out how Windows Live Hotmail stands up to Gmail in terms of spam filtering, security features, and social-networking integration. The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/best-practices/what-works-for-you:-hotmail-versus-gmail/ (paid content, opens in a new window/tab). Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.

[Roderunner]

If using Hotmail HTTPS, it is not compatible in Windows Live Mail.

[ruirib]

If using Hotmail HTTPS, it is not compatible in Windows Live Mail.

I think that was fixed with latest changes to hotmail. I can't be totally sure, but I think that was highlighted in a recent Windows Weekly podcast.

[Medico]

I use Hotmail everyday, although I believe it's HTTP, with my WLM. I tried GMail and was not happy with it. My main mail is through my ISP (Road Runner).

[ruirib]

Here is Paul Thurrot's article about the changes that allow HTTPS when accessing through the web, while not affecting WLM access: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...ecurity-139850

[Roderunner]

I think that was fixed with latest changes to hotmail. I can't be totally sure, but I think that was highlighted in a recent Windows Weekly podcast.

As I don't use Hotmail as my main client, it won't affect me. I also use WLM 2010 for the simple reason, the latest is IMO rubbish (trash)

[cavehomme]

Speaking as an active user of both gmail and hotmail / live for many years and have ended up having most accounts in gmail due to several advantages, however I would prefer to use hotmail / live more extensively due to better integration with Office and Outlook. The Hotmail service has significantly improved in recent times and especially with the integration with Office docs and skydrive storage but it still presents some issues for me, some are really silly and could easily be sorted out by the Live team quickly. Not in any particular order of priority -

- response times / rendering of pages in hotmail is still too slow. Gmail is nearly instantneous. Wading through a lot of email makes a big difference in time.

- lists of emails are limited to about 25 emails; I would like to be able to display 100 to quickly scan through them. There is also a lot of wasted / white space

- generally there is too much wasted space and use of large fonts. Text labels are used for functions instead of icons. Why not use icons and then have the text display when hovering over the icon if a user needs to know what the icon represents?

- does not properly synchronise folders and some emails with Outlook 2010 and also takes a lot of time. This is a major issue upon which I wasted a lot of time. Sync with Windows Live client is lightning quick, so it seems that MS are deliberately wanting Outlook users to opt for Exchange instead of the free Live, but in my case I go to Google Apps instead, so they are losing customers that way.

There are many other smaller issues but these are the deal breakers for me because they hit my productivity too much compared to Gmail. Gmails has its own issues and I would prefer to use Live, but I can't accept the hit on productivity.

[JoeP517]

As I don't use Hotmail as my main client, it won't affect me. I also use WLM 2010 for the simple reason, the latest is IMO rubbish (trash)

In the commentary I read around the web the authors are always talking about the most current versions of products unless specifically stated otherwise. It is a good practice to state what version of a product to which you refer when commenting if the comment does not apply to all versions (i.e. HTTPS & WLM).

Joe

[Roderunner]

In the commentary I read around the web the authors are always talking about the most current versions of products unless specifically stated otherwise. It is a good practice to state what version of a product to which you refer when commenting if the comment does not apply to all versions (i.e. HTTPS & WLM).

Joe

The blog I read failed to mention any version.

[Roderunner]

Here is Paul Thurrot's article about the changes that allow HTTPS when accessing through the web, while not affecting WLM access: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...ecurity-139850

Hi Rui, I followed your link, it mentioned adding a trusted pc to the account recovery options. When I tried, it stated I must have Windows Live Ess. installed, I DO!

[ruirib]

As I don't use Hotmail as my main client, it won't affect me. I also use WLM 2010 for the simple reason, the latest is IMO rubbish (trash)

I'd say that hasn't necessary to be like that. For a desktop or a non mobile internet access, these security measures may not be a big deal, but they are important from all those that access their email through a non protected wireless access point or even mobile internet. I don't use WLM (Outlook is my email client and I wouldn't trade it for anything else), but if i did, I would still access hotmail / live accounts from WLM using SSL and likely even WLM 2010 can use it.

P.S.: By non protected wireless access point I don't mean one in a home or company network, but one from a free access wireless network from places that provide that free access.

[JoeP517]

The blog I read failed to mention any version.

For a recent article/blog published after any new version of program or suite is released that is why I said that unless the author specifically mentions an older version of a program it is best to assume that he/she is talking about the most current version. Authors seldom go back to a prior version to review what is being hailed as a new feature.

Joe

[JoeP517]

I'd say that hasn't necessary to be like that. For a desktop or a non mobile internet access, these security measures may not be a big deal, but they are important from all those that access their email through a non protected wireless access point or even mobile internet. I don't use WLM (Outlook is my email client and I wouldn't trade it for anything else), but if i did, I would still access hotmail / live accounts from WLM using SSL and likely even WLM 2010 can use it.

Unfortunately, WLM 2010 can't use SSL. To use SSL required an update to WLM 2011. AFAIK, Microsoft has no intention of adding that capability to WLM 2010. They want to provide incentives to be on the newest version.

Joe

[ruirib]

Hi Rui, I followed your link, it mentioned adding a trusted pc to the account recovery options. When I tried, it stated I must have Windows Live Ess. installed, I DO!

This link explains how to do it: http://explore.live.com/windows-live...d-your-account

I just tried it for my Live ID and it worked fine.

[ruirib]

Unfortunately, WLM 2010 can't use SSL. To use SSL required an update to WLM 2011. AFAIK, Microsoft has no intention of adding that capability to WLM 2010. They want to provide incentives to be on the newest version.
Joe

Thanks for clarifying that, Joe. I was guessing because I don't use either version, but still thought a recent email client would provide support for that.
I use SSL with some of my accounts at least since Outlook 2007.