I was just kidding, playing Devil's advocate just for the sake of argument. I was in the Argument room, wasn't I.

I kind of think it's common sense that if a product includes any term in the name, in addition to the product name, along the lines of Express, Basic Version, Viewer, Standard, Trial, 10 use, 30 day expiration, Free Version, Limited....Well you get the idea, the product is going to be missing some functionality, possibly very important. If your on a tight deadline, the version your purchasing department bought will always be missing the functionality you require.

PF

>>So then how come its not OutlookView or MS Word Express. Don't you want the names to be similar so as to not be confusing?
>>
>
>Outlook Express does more than read Outlook-created documents; Word View allows you to read Word docs, not compose new ones.
>
>They're both an attempt to accomodate users who are not willing to buy the full product. I commend MS for producing them. You don't see similar tools from Lotus, Corel, etc. People who think they're entitled to the full functionality of a paid product for free are at best delusional here; if you could do everything that the commerical product could do without buying the commercial product, they wouldn't be able to sell the commerical product.
>
>So, yes, I have no sympathy for people who aren't happy that the Outlook automation model isn't available in Outlook Express, and that you can't do mail merge out of Word Viewer...TANSTAAFL.
>
>>PF
>>
>>>It is not a full version of MS Word, and doesn't provide the same services. Same reasoning behind why Outlook Express is not the same as Outlook.