This forum is a peer support forum (i.e., free/volunteers), not staffed by
Microsoft. To be honest, we get a lot of people who say if they can't get
'whatever feature' they will take their ball and go back to t-bird, Mac,
Eudora, Linux, whatever. 99.9% of the time its an empty threat thrown out
in frustration and will hurt them more than it'll ever hurt MS, sorta like
telling the only store in town that you won't shop there ever again.
There is not much we, as peer support, can do to stop someone who prefers to
use another product - frankly, everyone should use the product that meets
*their needs* the best. If its outlook, fine, if not, that is fine too.
I don't recall the ability to always use HTML as an option in Outlook 97.
Actually now that I think for a minute, Outlook 97 didn't support HTML so it
always read and replied with plain text.
I'm pretty sure neither outlook
98 or 2000 supported it. Outlook Express did however, so maybe the Internet
Only modes of Outlook 98/2000 did. (I have a VM of 2000-IMO around here
somewhere - if I find it, I will double check. ) I believe its still a
feature in the replacements for Outlook Express.
Most versions of Outlook support always using plain text. In the early days,
converting to HTML was bad because not all clients supported HTML and it
took longer to download and the recipient often had to pay by the minute or
by the KB - it also filled small mailboxes faster than plain text because it
was so much larger. In the 10 yrs that have passed, the first reasons are
still valid - thanks to the number of people using smartphones and cellular
modems. Mailboxes are larger and most smartphones can hold several GB of
mail, so storage space is not so much of an issue.
--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips by email:
mailto:
[email protected]
EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:
mailto:
[email protected]