Windows Live Taskforce

.Chris wrote on March 10, 2009, 9:59pm

Windows Live Groups are nothing compared to the old MSN groups.

gregsedwards wrote on March 11, 2009, 2:50pm

It's not supposed to be, .Chris. It's a different target market (small, personal groups instead of a big, impersonal Internet forum). RSS updates and WL Alerts would still be a benefit, so +1 to this suggestion.

mjflynt wrote on March 11, 2009, 8:41pm

This is what I don't understand, that if they are supposed to be small, why are you (gregsedwards) starting and active in groups with over 20 members? It seems to me that if they are meant to be small then they would be limited to a maximum size. It seems more like that saying they are meant to be small is an explanation of the current limited functionality of them. It is an excuse for the paltry feature set of groups in the same manner that saying the removal of the time line from WL Movie Maker is to make it easier. But is that the real reason or is it that they want to release it, and that feature will come later? Sans the time line doesn't make it more useful, and people don't like it. If people don't like Live Groups then they'll go somewhere else like Yahoo groups. I'm sure the Windows Live Team would rather us not do that.

I look at everything and say - gee this is what we used to have, and this is what they have now. Sometimes it's much better, but when you lose big swaths of functionality people are going to complain. I notice things like the calendars no longer support attachments, time lines are missing, and groups are just a shadow of what they used to be.