Hotmail has lost email of mine in the past. So I cannot trust them with important emails for my business.
Competition is very healthy, features can be an incentive when choosing, I have used Hotmail, GMX and Gmail simultaneously for months, a bit like test-driving similar cars, and Gmail was my choice without any second thoughts. I have 730 MB of mail, I can't imagine in the near future having more than 1GB. We are all expressing opinions, and the poll so far is clearly endorsing Gmail.
Gmail was being consistently better than Live Hotmail after its launch and for some years. But around late 2009, things already were changing drastically in Live Hotmail. By late 2010, Live Hotmail was already as good as Gmail, with all the old drawbacks fixed. Now, it is arguably better, thanks to improved/new features. The game changed and people is slowly figuring it out.
Fallacy. Live Hotmail works with all modern browsers, all features supported. I'm using Firefox 5, for example. No issues.
I'm not saying it's constantly broken. But if you search around you'll see people talk about how it often doesn't work with Chrome, Firefox, or Opera but always with IE.
"Often"? Probably when the developers of those browsers (deliberately?) forget to check compatibility issues while launching updates to the engines. Anyways, what matters is that it works flawlessly today. Look for some valid argument against Live Hotmail as it is today.
Could you present a valid case? A valid argument that matters, instead of old random "claims" of supposedly incompatibility in the past - that aren't present (can't be reproduced) today anyways?
lmao What do you want? Microsoft outright saying "Yes, we do this." You can search around if you like, not my job. They broke MSN for Opera a while back. Netscape and IE back during the so-called browser wars did it all the time to each other and would throw standards to the wind in order to gain users. Just today I saw on the Chrome forums that someone was having issues with Hotmail and another user had said that it breaks once in a while for him as well.
I want evidences. Proves for the claims. Not outright fallacies/hoaxes made by fanboys of x,y,z products and anti-microsoft clowns. Can you confirm what they are having? If yes, how can you be sure that it is bugged at Hotmail side and not (deliberately?) broken at Chrome side? See, the "break accusation" works both ways.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/06/msn_deliberately_breaks_operas_browser/ That was Opera's claim that MS broke MSN on purpose for Opera users. I am also not an anti-Microsoft clown, don't be silly. I love Windows. And it's not an outright fallacy, like I said, do a google search. I could care less about the subject, I just brought it up and you seem to be really hurt about it lmao "Can you confirm what they are having?" Obviously not. That makes no sense whatsoever lmao I have no need to discuss this with you though. It's just fairly ironic that you're calling ME a fanboy when you flip over the slightest accusation.
If you see no need to discuss the matter and can't provide evidences/proves for the random claims, then just cease posting/discussing the subject. Throwing away things that have nothing to do with the e-mail discussion... doesn't really help your case (opera/msn old suppressed debacle, taking things personally and, OMG, "do a google search"). However, you have been demonstrating since you joined this forum that you have a "need" to make the last reply in near every thread you argue with someone. The reason for that is beyond me, as it is pretty obvious for any sane member that making the last reply, by itself, doesn't indicate a "win" - only a ridiculous compulsion.
lol you have a very strange idea of me if you think I'm trying to "win" anything EDIT: I've been proven wrong on this forum at least once before and I'm always fine with saying so.
That's why the "win" had quotation marks, in my post. Quotation marks can be used when you want the word to have a broader meaning. "Win" there meant pretty much any valid final reason people have to argue here (to learn, to teach, etc). EDIT: I know, that's why I said "near every", and not "every", in my last post.
No clue what you're trying to say now. Anyways, it's a bit OT. My point was that I've heard lots of complaints about it not working on other browsers. Your outright dismissal that Microsoft might possibly be doing this on purpose is just as bad as if I were saying that they absolutely were, which I obviously would not say since I have 0 proof and only anecdotal evidence scattered around the web. I brought it up as a conversation piece.
To bring up anecdotal evidences is futile. Objective, valid logical arguments, proves, are required to make a point. I stand in the side of Microsoft here, simply because I agree and abide with the universal principle of justice; that is "innocent until proven otherwise". The web is full of anti-microsoft clowns and fanboys of x,y,z products, making hoaxes/fallacies to dismiss microsoft products.
Obviously. That's the point. I only have anecdotal evidence, I didn't get into this trying to make an argument. I said it because I had just seen multiple posts on the Chrome help forum saying that MS does this and I thought it was relevant to the conversation. I'm not inclined to believe Microsoft. This isn't a court of law, I'm not about to persecute them, but that doesn't mean I can't believe that they're possibly guilty. Especially considering their past with MSN and with Netscape and Microsoft's monopolistic hold on browsers and OS. It would not surprise me if they did do this. Then again it wouldn't surprise me if there were other explanations. But you don't hear about this issue from Yahoo or GMail, at least I don't.
Are you "inclined" to always believe "more" that the anecdotal evidence is "against" microsoft, based in what you perceive as the bad "company history"? In Microsoft case, that requires thinking that a multinational company with several thousands of employers, investors, etc, works exactly the same as a "single human brain;individual". It's a primitive generalization full of invalid preconceptions. Doing a google search as you indicated me to do in another instance, can generate anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
I'm not sure what hotmail has done recently but they certainly don't seem to enjoy Google Chrome's browser for some reason. I have Trillian as my chat program and it gives me an alert when I have new email. When I get notified of email in yahoo or gmail I can just double click my ID in Trillian and Chrome signs in automatically and I get straight to my inbox. I always had to sign into hotmail, although at least Chrome would take me to the sign in page. But now that doesn't even work. I white listed live.com in Chrome to see if that would help, but nope. Chrome doesn't show js being blocked on this site. So it must be some sort of bug.
I see the same bug with aMSN portable using Internet Explorer as default browser. Look at what I get here when I try to go to my inbox clicking in aMSN portable icon of new mails: Should be a bug with the IM redirection.
In the past I was never able to sign directly in to hotmail from Trillian when Chrome is my default browser. With IE as my default browser I can sign right in. Maybe that's changed now that they seem to messed things up with all the instant message apps.
It might have something to do with the (absence of) the Windows Live Sign-in Assistant and its limitations.
