Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Unveils Outlook.com, Hotmail's Successor

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the mail-with-rectangles dept.

Microsoft 368

New submitter faraway writes "Microsoft has just unveiled Outlook.com, the planned successor to Hotmail.com. It includes a lot of what you'd expect from email today, including storage (images, data), a calendar, integration with other Microsoft tools, and of course a clean UI. According to ZDNet, 'Outlook.com is integrated with Windows and Office, and can pull in Twitter, Facebook, Gmail and LinkedIn contacts. The new mail client has the Metro look and feel. And it is providing users with more granular control over which ads they see and where they see them.'"

cancel ×

368 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fantastic first impressions (0, Troll)

h105 (2697713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831127)

I quickly looked over the new Outlook.com service and I must say I'm quite impressed. Everything is clear, there's folders (which are completely lacking from Gmail!), it works fast and the UI looks great.

Outlook.com is also an great domain name and easy to remember. The Facebook and Twitter integration works great and the whole thing feels just superb. I can't but recommend you to try it!

Re:Fantastic first impressions (5, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831167)

Obvious shill is obvious. Why dont you and faraway do us a favor and remove yourselves from the site?

Is slashdot's reputation really that low that companies dont think we'll see through such a blatant attempt?

Re:Fantastic first impressions (-1, Troll)

h105 (2697713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831255)

What companies? Just look at the pictures in the article. They look great. This is my honest opinion.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (5, Insightful)

BiggerBadderBen (947100) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831387)

Seriously, cut this shit out. Every time an article with anything to do with Microsoft comes out, first post is from a new user and is full of praise. Nobody's buying it, so kindly cash your cheque from Redmond and fuck off

Re:Fantastic first impressions (3, Insightful)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831533)

You would have more influence if you actually had any history, anywhere. But you don't.

Why would I want to customize my advertisements, I like them unobtrusive. I doubt I could turn them off.
With tagging, who needs folders.
I doubt it will be faster than gmail, what with the extra javascript required for metro.
And who has trouble remembering their email address domain? Seriously?
And why would I want integration for my email.
And of course it's your honest opinion, you were most likely paid for this.

Seriously, just get out.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (3, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832215)

With tagging, who needs folders.

Not everyone is down on the semantic labeling concept. Some people like plain old folders. For example my girlfriend switched back instantly from the new Gmail to the old one for that very reason. Now she's stuck with the new Gmail and hates it. Both are available depending on your preference in Outlook.

And who has trouble remembering their email address domain? Seriously?

Obviously he meant easy to remember for other people, not easy to remember for yourself.

And why would I want integration for my email.

I have all of my facebook contacts and their emails instantly available in my contacts list. If I want to email a friend, instead of hopping on facebook to find their email, it's right there. Very convenient.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831739)

As honest as opinion as can be bought.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (5, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831285)

You mean to tell me that this account with no other posts, who has nothing bad to say about using an as-yet-unreleased product, lies about the competitors features, and also implies that the aforementioned competitors url (email with the first letter changed) is hard to remember is a shill?

I never would have guessed!

Re:Fantastic first impressions (2)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831471)

You mean to tell me that this account with no other posts, who has nothing bad to say about using an as-yet-unreleased product...

It is released, at least in the preview sense. I'm using it now (you can sign in with any Microsoft account, like an MSN or Passport one of old, in addition to the new outlook.com ones). Won't switch, but might make a new account for a junk address if I can get POP/SMTP access to it.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

not already in use (972294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831501)

Except that it is released, and you can go try it now. The UI is clean and responsive, at least that much is true. Not that any of the sexually repressed, RMS clones that troll slashdot have any interest in sharing an objective opinion regarding anything that isn't linux circa 4 years ago.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831697)

Do you really think Microsoft wastes time on Slashdot, trying to persuade an audience who are not worth the time, even if it were possible?

Occam's razor infers that the account is just an account. Given the new service *is* quite nice, I don't find it hard to believe.

But then, I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831859)

There is no conspiracy, this is standard business practice.
But if you have doubts, just read what they posted. They pointed out a competitor and made a false claim. Its like politics, but for business.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40832003)

Do you have any proof that Microsoft sends people here to shill? If not, then you are making baseless assumptions.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831897)

The service may be nice, or it might not be. That's not the point. The point is, the guy *was* obviously a shill. Microsoft does waste time here. This is not the exclusive enclave for hardcore linux geeks that you think it is.

You may not be one for conspiracies, but conspiracies abound where money is to be made. Maybe you're a shill for the shill.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832057)

No, it's not obvious. It's speculation because someone praised a product from 'the enemy'.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831307)

I think it's very much reverse trolling. Microsoft would consider doing this kind of thing on Slashdot a complete waste of time, but on the flip side it wouldn't be hard for a concerted effort by a FOSS-friendly group of trolls to further lower Microsoft's credibility.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831453)

Stop ! You are confusing the conspiracy theorists ( even further ).

Re:Fantastic first impressions (2)

not already in use (972294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831525)

Exactly. The comment was way too obvious. Neckbeards are easily trolled.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832101)

I don't know. During the internet bubble I had some business analyst colleagues who would post obvious crap like this on forums trying to pump up stocks. One of them made a post like this. Then another would reply with more of the same. They had no idea how ridiculous their posts looked.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831555)

My guess it's someone's trolling/karma whoring experiment. Just check out this guy [slashdot.org] . Chimes in the first minute of the story about black-outs in India and proposes MS Research (link to MSR front page) has a solution, and it's likely wind power. Gets modded up and stays modded up for quite a long time.

Can't see any reason for this beyond checking how easy it is to manipulate /. mods.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831443)

It's a little too obvious. More likely it is an Apple or Linux shill.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831761)

You're one of the BIGGEST DORKS this site has: STFU already! Everyone knows you're some "anti-microsoft" idiot around here. Don't you realize that's obvious to the rest of us and anyone else reading here? This isn't the "Linux only" website you know!

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1, Troll)

faraway (174370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831783)

I'm glad you are so worldly and know so much about me.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831865)

Oh no! Someone praising a Microsoft product must be a shill. Slashdot reputation is already crap because of people like you.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0, Flamebait)

zekard (2697741) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831977)

Outlook.com rocks!! Switched from gmail and good riddance. gmail is the new spam mail account.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831223)

One thing always lacking in Outlook was search. It was there, but it was slow, and could never seem to find stuff I was looking for. I don't know if things are better in recent years with Outlook's search capabilities, but basic stuff I read around the web says it hasn't don't miss folders in Gmail because I can just search for it. And if I really want to file something in a specific place, I can use tags. I see a lot of people stumble around for a long time trying to find things in outlook, clicking through 20 different folders. On my desktop I use Thunderbird, which has really good search capabilities. Now I just have to get people to type relevant stuff in the message, so I can actually search for it. The biggest problem with search for stuff (or filtering for sorting into folders if you insist on folders) is that people don't put any useful information in the email. They'll just send a message with a subject that says "look at this" and attach a jpeg with a screenshot. Makes the email impossible to find 2 days later.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831749)

I don't know if things are better in recent years with Outlook's search capabilities,

I've found search to be much improved (finally) in Outlook 2010 and Windows 7. While I still file everything into countless folders, I will more often than not search for something and find it more quickly. And I've started using the Win7 search function on the "Start" menu to find programs, rather than navigating the All Programs labyrinth.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831767)

When people don't put any useful information in their messages, you don't need to find those messages 2 days later. In fact, you may as well skip reading them the first time, and just file under "Miscellaneous".

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831919)

This is the webified version though and the search is done using indexes and therefore fast. Outlook on the desktop also has had the option to use search indexing for a while through the Windows Search service. I think since Outlook 2007.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831963)

I personally hold a grudge to outlook for a different reason : back in 2007 it had refused for almost 10 years (don't know if it ended up accepting it) to follow a RFC that allowed to send an email with a crypto signature and public key attached in the header. I wanted to use a good crypto in my emails but because a signed email looked ugly in outlook and that many professional contacts were still using it, I chose to abandon the idea.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (2)

Whalou (721698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831275)

I like the way Gmail implements their classification scheme, i.e. tagging, better than folders. With folders you're restricted to a tree structure but tagging allows you to classify an email in several categories by adding different tags.

What I ended up doing with my emails at work (in Outlook) was to put every old emails into a single folder to be able to use search.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831397)

Only comments ever posted are about the article? Check.
All positive comments about the subject? Check.
Promotion of aspects of subject no actual user would care about? Check.

Because of your shilling, I will never, ever try it. Take this message back to your boss - the astroturfing attempt backfired, and actually turned users away.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831481)

You assume it was Redmond with the post, it could very well be a competitor reverse astroturfing.

Microsoft doesn't give two shits about slashdot, nor does any other tech company.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831991)

I work for one of the world's largest software vendors (not MS), and I know our PR/PM/Marketing folks do indeed care about Slashdot. They don't lose a great deal of sleep over it, true, but they are interested in what's said here about our products.

(And no, I don't work for any of those divisions--I'm in development/support.)

Re:Fantastic first impressions (1)

N1ckR (1289800) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831715)

If the domain is so good why does it redirect to a live.com domain ?

Re:Fantastic first impressions (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831721)

I quickly looked over the new Outlook.com service and I must say I'm quite impressed.

I just looked in the litter box today, and I must say, I'm quite impressed.

Everything is clear

That would be a first for MS! We have Outlook at work (the dedicated email program) and it's the worst email client I've ever used. You have to log into the webmail component to change your email password, the password criteria are different than the mainframe and network password criteria, there are limits to mailbox and message sizes (we never had that BS with Novell's client), and they just, as Microsoft always does, completely changed the webmail interface; they moved "change password" from "Options" to the uper right hand corner, with white on yellow text. What kind of moron designs that sort of idiocy?

it works fast and the UI looks great.

I simply don't believe you. Sometimes it takes hours for an email to get to me from down the damned hall, we never had that problem with Novell and I never saw that problem with any other email system, either.

By the way, which division of Microsoft do you work for? Marketing? Because since they switched to Outlook, I hear nothing but complaints at work.

Outlook.com is also an great domain name and easy to remember.

What is so easy to remember about "outlook" unless you've been using outlook and outlook express for years? Hotmail at least had the name "mail" in in. This change from hotmail to outlook seems utterly retarded to me.

I can't but recommend you to try it!

No fucking way.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831925)

It sounds like you have some pretty major implementation problems at work. Outlook is a long way from perfect, but it's certainly not the worst client I've ever used. I'll take it over GroupWise any day and it gives Thunderbird a run for its money on many fronts.

Re:Fantastic first impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831995)

So you fucked up the installation of Outlook and it's Microsoft's fault?

Where's the logout link? (1)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831165)

Hopefully they didn't put the logout link 5 pixels below the account selector, as did the idiots who revamped Hotmail's UI.

Re:Where's the logout link? (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831251)

You click your name, and it's in that drop-down (like Google+)

Re:Where's the logout link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831679)

Google's lost the plot when it comes to UI, common stuff like "logout" is hidden in menus.

I find it terrifically amusing that there are so many third party scripts out there to "fix" GMail's overcooked redesign, and Google's response is to just stonewall end users with blanket "like it or lump it" PR statements in their "support" forums.

Re:Where's the logout link? (5, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831801)

They have idiots at Google too, that took a good, functional UI and revamped it with a nonsensical one.

For instance: in the old Gmail, you had clearly labeled HTML buttons that said "Delete" "Compose" "Archive", etc. It was easy to find.

In the new UI, somebody decided that little tiny dark icons with no text description were cool. Now the Delete button is replaced by a tiny black icon that represents a trash can. Archive button is replaced by another tiny black icon which looks similar to the other little black icons. So basically, what used to be a two-step operation (move your mouse cursor to Delete button, click) is now a four or five-step operation. (move cursor over little black icon and hover, wait for the onHover title to see if it's the one you want, go on to the next little icon and hover, read title, then click if it's the right one).

Re:Where's the logout link? (5, Informative)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832251)

In the new UI, somebody decided that little tiny dark icons with no text description were cool.

Gear -> Settings -> Button Labels -> Text

Ads? (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831175)

The new mail client has the Metro look and feel. And it is providing users with more granular control over which ads they see and where they see them.'"

Ads? What do ads have to do with email?

Re:Ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831203)

Google has ads, so you better have ads too.

Re:Ads? (1, Interesting)

konaya (2617279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831559)

Where are these "ads" of which you are speaking? I've never ever seen an ad in my GMail interface. Not that I'm complaining, but what gives? Now I'm curious.

Re:Ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40832105)

You probably don't notice them because they're unobtrusive textual ads in the header of mail list. In "Trash" folder you get recycling related ads, in "Spam" you get ads for cooking with spam, and in main view you get ads related to content of your messages [google.com] (which often shoots off "Google reads my mail!" discussions).

Re:Ads? (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832241)

They show at the top of the email list. Google uses the context of your messages to decide what ads to show you. For example, I get emails confirming when my flight lessons are scheduled and GMail's ad for me right now is "Free Flight Training Mag - www.AOPA.org/FlightTraining - 6 Free Issues of Flight Training Magazine. Sign up today!"

Re:Ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831257)

Well, webmail is what almost everyone uses now, and if there are any webmail services that don't show ads, I'm not aware of them. Of course you can use adblock, but most people don't. The contents of emails are scanned for keywords to chose which ads to show.

The internet is increasingly funded by ads, so they are kind of tied in with email in that way.

Not saying it's good, just saying that's how it is.

Re:Ads? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831805)

Second and third best reasons not to use webmail.

Re:Ads? (2)

trancemission (823050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831279)

Ads? What do ads have to do with 'free' email?

FTFY, hope that helps....

Re:Ads? (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831503)

Hm...I am looking at my email right now, from Google, and I don't see ads...

Oh, wait, I forgot that we were talking about webmail, where the ads are part of the mail client. Carry on then.

Re:Ads? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831315)

I wonder if one of those fine, granular controls is "none at all"?

Re:Ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831677)

And why would I want to spend time and effort on "controlling which ads I see"? Do they honestly think I give a damn?

Outlook.com is MS's latest Ad platform! (5, Interesting)

dehole (1577363) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831189)

I notice that MS is using the success they've had with advertising on XBOX to transform their other projects into similiar Ad platforms. That is why the Metro interface looks like the XBox dashboard, so that it will be easier to slip advertisements in it. Outlook.com will be no different.

no thanks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831197)

And it is providing users with more granular control over which ads they see and where they see them.'"

My local mail app doesn't show me ANY ads, it doesn't expose the contents of my email to data miners, it lets me instantly search email and compose new mail even if the network goes down, it doesn't lock me into proprietary solutions, and as a mail packrat it's let me take my mail collection with me as I move from system to system since 1984.

Re:no thanks (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831529)

My local mail app ... doesn't expose the contents of my email to data miners

You only send and receive encrypted email? I am impressed!

Re:no thanks (1)

pays-vert (1182777) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831681)

If mobile devices had decent terminal emulators, I might still be using local mail on a machine somewhere. As it is, the ability to seamlessly access email across a huge range of devices is more than worth the small tradeoff of having a couple of unobtrusive ads on the page. I can also compose new mail even if the network goes down. I use a text editor for this task.

Re:no thanks (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832111)

Which ones do not have decent terminal emulators?
Android has several pretty good ones.

No clippy (5, Funny)

Celexi (1753652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831229)

No clippy, no thanks.

Good names available (4, Funny)

MrP- (45616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831263)

My coworker registered about 8 really short names since they weren't taken yet (such as his first name, a common name).

My name wasn't available though, so I just got satan@outlook.com.

Re:Good names available (1)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831391)

I so totally see someone applying for a job with some religious organization someday, and giving that as your reply-to e-mail address. Instant interview stopper.

Re:Good names available (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831615)

jesussucksdick@outlook.com is still available.

Re:Good names available (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832231)

Because of course, satan only knows most people have more than one email...

Re:Good names available (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831741)

I got a.grim@outlook.com so everyone will know what an optimist I am

Re:Good names available (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832143)

That's pretty awesome actually.

Re:Good names available (4, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831877)

One thing worth noting about this whole Outlook.com land grab: The accounts you are signing up for are not email accounts, they are "Microsoft accounts." They are keyed to Microsoft's whole package of cloudy services, so when you login to Outlook.com, you're also logging into SkyDrive, Messenger, and whatever else gets provisioned for you. If it worries you how Google seems to follow you all around the web once you're logged in, well, this is the start of Microsoft doing it.

Tried it (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831265)

I actually like it. I know people, especially those on /., hate Metro, but the UI/UX is really clean and discover-able. Of course, that said, I won't be switching from gmail for this, but at least the few times I have to check my old hotmail account will no longer require the hideous hotmail UI.

Another Outlook? (4, Informative)

The Moof (859402) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831289)

Great. I didn't have enough problem trying to explain the difference between Outlook and Outlook Express to people. Now I need to also include Outlook.com in the "Yes, they're from Microsoft and named the same, but no they're not the same" conversation.

To the person who will inevitably point out that OE is discontinued, it's still on enough workstations out there that I still receive "Why won't my OFT work in 'Outlook'" support calls.

Re:Another Outlook? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831787)

Most people seem to understand the difference between Outlook Web Access and Outlook, so I don't think they'll have a problem with Outlook.com vs Outlook.... although Outlook.com and OWA may be confused now.

Better spam filtering? (3, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831301)

Hotmail's spam filtering is without a doubt the worst on the web. Obvious spam ends up in my Inbox, and legitimate mail ends up in the spam.

What's worse though is when it gets fooled into thinking that the email is part of a mailing list I've subscribed to and displays all the images automatically, making the spammer aware that my email address is valid.

Re:Better spam filtering? (3, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831599)

Hotmail's spam filtering is without a doubt the worst on the web. Obvious spam ends up in my Inbox, and legitimate mail ends up in the spam.

I'm not sure this is much better. I've had access to a preview version of Outlook.com for a couple of weeks now, and I've been forwarding it mail from an account that gets lots of press releases. A few of the really obvious spam emails end up in the junk folder automatically, but so do some of the "legitimate" press releases -- and that's assuming you wouldn't normally classify a press release as spam. 90 percent of the mail I sent it seemed to sail right through.

What's more, Outlook.com tries to detect context for each of the mails you receive, to give you different types of information linked to the message. One thing it tries to do is differentiate between mail from individuals that's intended specifically for you and mail from mailing lists. Needless to say, next to nothing I sent it wasn't from a mailing list, but it flagged a few messages as being from individuals anyway.

What it does when it thinks you're seeing a message from one of your friends is it tries to display other information about that person in the box where the ads would go, such as the latest post from their Twitter or Facebook feed. It was pretty amusing to see an email from someone that began, "Dear {{YourName Here}}" and off to the right, Outlook.com was asking me to Friend the sender on Facebook.

Needless to say, my "usage" of the product so far has been pretty atypical, and maybe by running an email account on it where I don't actually talk to any of my friends and 90 percent of the incoming mail is totally unsolicited breaks the expected usage pattern.

But still, their vision of how email works doesn't really jibe with mine. Say one of my business contacts sends me an email about a project we're working on. Is this the time to follow their Twitter feed? Probably not. All of that functionality just seems like feature creep, and I suspect it has something to do with marketing partnerships.

Now's your chance ... (1)

domulys (1431537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831311)

... to snag that perfect e-mail address. Back in the days of hotmail, users would register addresses like surferdude@hotmail.com. Once gmail came around, they over-corrected and secured uber-professional addresses like firstname.m.lastname@gmail.com, which turn out to be pain to type into tiny phone keypads (or read aloud over the phone).

Two of my friends have already picked up first@outlook.com. Get 'em before they're gone!

Re:Now's your chance ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831399)

Get 'em before they're gone!

Problem: an "outlook.com" address will have all the respect of an aol.com address. So who cares?

Re:Now's your chance ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831483)

Two of my friends have already picked up first@outlook.com. Get 'em before they're gone!

That's going to get confusing when you want to email one of them individually.

Re:Now's your chance ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831497)

I wonder if support@outlook.com is still available ?

Re:Now's your chance ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831635)

I got my account just to say I got it.

I'm not appending stupid numbers to any of my accounts. Screw that noise.
First or never.

Re:Now's your chance ... (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832201)

...or you could just get your own domain name and not worry about the availability of specific addresses ever again.

I like it... (1)

ethanms (319039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831331)

Nice clean UI, easy to use and fairly fast. I think this could be a good one. Though I don't like the idea of an @outlook.com domain for email...

Obvious strategy. Can they pull it off? (4, Insightful)

crow (16139) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831337)

This is something Microsoft should have undertaken immediately after acquiring Hotmail. Microsoft has a strong brand with Outlook, and it makes total sense to be using that brand for their webmail offering.

Doing it at this time also makes sense. They're making a big push for a new user interface ("metro"), and this is one more place where they can integrate that interface, making it consistent across their offerings.

Of course, the devil is in the details. If they do it wrong, it will weaken their Outlook brand and push existing customers towards competitors. On the other hand, they're getting a ton of free publicity, so they have a chance to capitalize on the moment and steal market share.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, they don't have a good history of execution on things like this--most likely the new platform will be horrible, but they'll keep at it, and after a few generations, it will be a decent competitor, but that's three to five years out.

Re:Obvious strategy. Can they pull it off? (3)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831853)

Hotmail had 8.5 million users when MS acquired... not bad for 1997. At the time, Hotmail may have been a stronger name than Outlook. At any rate, Outlook has generally been aimed at business users while Hotmail has been aimed at home users. But I agree that they still should have done this at least 10 years ago.

Re:Obvious strategy. Can they pull it off? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831993)

Hotmail is (and was) a stronger brand for free webmail than Outlook is. Most people who know Outlook as something other than "that crappy email client that comes with Windows?" probably aren't in the market for free webmail accounts.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831363)

But how secure is it?

Re:But (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831871)

Don't worry, nobody that doesn't pay Microsoft will be able to read your email.

Where I come from... being called metro... (1, Troll)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831407)

Where I come from when someone calls you metro, they mean metrosexual, which basically means you're a girly lesbian trapped in a mans body.

Re:Where I come from... being called metro... (1)

Thundaaa Struk (1375331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831527)

So when will SheMail.com service come out?

ads? (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831435)

providing users with more granular control over which ads they see and where they see them

How about "none" and "ever"?

This is why I pay for independent email hosting..

Not using it (-1, Troll)

dfiguero (324827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831531)

The new mail client has the Metro look and feel.

Reason enough not to use it.

Re:Not using it (-1, Troll)

zoloto (586738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832071)

It looks like shit. My 5 yr old nephew could do a better job.

Consult the Magic 8 Ball (5, Funny)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831563)

The Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook not so good"

Re:Consult the Magic 8 Ball (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831815)

Why?

Very good/funny: MOD HIM UP "Funny"... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831857)

Even I have to admit that, good one/very funny, so... someone mod him up, please & thanks!

Yes, I'm a known "Windows fanboy/Microsoft fanboy" on this website (not "Anti-Linux"/"Anti-'Open-SORES'" either, I just never like OR agreed with the "Linux = Secure, Windows != Secure b.s. &/or MacOS X = Secure, Windows != Secure b.s. FUD that was spewed around here for a decade++ now).

* Still, when it's funny, & TRULY funny? I have to go with the humor...

(Magic 8 ball says "Outlook not so good", & I've got one of those around here still... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for the laugh, it was good & I needed it today... apk

First thing that happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831587)

Totally broken in my browser. How is it even possible to break HTML in this day and age? Oh... shitty JS that is not even necessary.

IMAP/Exchange support? (3)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831621)

I can't find any mention of it, but does it include either IMAP or Exchange support? One of my complaints about Hotmail is that they still haven't provided any accessibility from software clients except through POP, and POP isn't really appropriate anymore for personal email addresses.

Really, IMO, they should be using the same connectors as Exchange so you can access the calendar and address book from software clients. It's not as though they're unfamiliar with the technology. I suppose they don't want to make a decent free email service, though, since it would cannibalize their more expensive services. I guess I'll just stick with Gmail.

Re:IMAP/Exchange support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831873)

Hotmail already supports Exchange. Just search for instructions on how to use it.

Re:IMAP/Exchange support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831923)

Hotmail (nee MSN, Live, anything that you can use via hotmail.com) has provided Exchange support since 2009 I believe. That's how Android supports Hotmail, use m.hotmail.com as the Exchange server.

--sf

Privacy comparison Google, Yahoo, Outlook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831825)

Found a helpful article about privacy policies between the various free email providers.
www.neowin.net/news/advertising-comparing-outlook-gmail-yahoo-privacy-policies

Summary:
Microsoft and it's newly launched Outlook.com falls closer to Yahoo!'s policy but takes it another step beyond what that service provides. Microsoft does not read your email or the attachments to serve you advertisements. Microsoft takes this a step further and does not display advertisements when reading your email and as stated from the Outlook.com preview guide: "With Outlook.com, the contents of your personal conversations aren’t used to serve ads. We don’t read your messages or attachments to send you advertisements. Period.

I signed up back when it was HoTMaiL.. (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832037)

to have a valid email that was not work related. Two reasons. 1. To sign up for downloads and other stuff on the internet. 2. To look for another job. I have had many work related emails since 1995, but the same my personal Hotmail account. I even have a short and easy username since I signed up so early in the HoTMaiL beta. I upgraded to a Plus account for a year or two, but then didn't seen the need after the free service caught up to my requirements. I have since setup another junk hotmail account for the original purpose of spam honeypot/junkmail collector.

Over the years I have been pleased with the updates Microsoft has implemented to Hotmail to varying degrees. I haven't seen any webmail offerings that compelling enough to leave my hotmail.com account. The current product serves my needs well enough FWIW, I plan to keep on using the account simply because it's so convenient and all my friends know the address. I don't care about the outlook.com domain name. Same way I didn't care about the msn.com domain name.

Who knows maybe someday it will be as cool as my Dad's arpa.net account.

No IMAP/SMTP (5, Informative)

execthis (537150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832137)

Hello no IMAP/SMTP support goodbye

I like the clean Metro look and smaller ads (0)

elabs (2539572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40832173)

I liked the Silverlight version of Hotmail. It was super snappy and jut felt really solid. The html viewers always seem kind of rickety to me. (I hate how I can highlight text on the body of the page. Ughhh.) Anyway, the main problem with the current Hotmail site is the heavy Flash ads. They hog tons of CPU. I'm glad to see these newer, more subdued ads on Outlook.com.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?