Thunderbird is supposed to have wow ?

Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...derbird_e_mail

--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net

1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

R Fruth in Houston

R Fruth in Houston wrote:
> Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...derbird_e_mail
>
>

I saw this yesterday too. For the most part, its a pretty fair
assessment, though many of the features it complains about TB lacking
can be added easily via extensions.

In all, TB, to me at any rate, has been rushed to 1.0 before tis really
ready. Its very good beta software.

Then again, its true of Firefox as well. The original plan was to have
re;eases of 0.11 and 0.12, then a series of release candidates, before
the 1.0 release, which would have put 1.0 probably early summer, 2005.
It was seen, correctly I think, that the marketing time was ripe for an
assault on IE, and so FF was rushed out.

TB pretty much got dragged along for the ride. Mid summer 2005 ought to
see a very different piece of software then we are using now.

Lee

In article <qKowd.466$>,
says...
> R Fruth in Houston wrote:
> > Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor
> >
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...derbird_e_mail
> >
> >
>
> I saw this yesterday too. For the most part, its a pretty fair
> assessment, though many of the features it complains about TB lacking
> can be added easily via extensions.
>
> In all, TB, to me at any rate, has been rushed to 1.0 before tis really
> ready. Its very good beta software.
....

Hmmmm.... I've used TB as my only email client since version
0.1, and frequently installed nightly builds just for the fun of it.
In all that time, I've had no problems. Not just minor ones, but
really zero problems.
So in what way is it not ready to be 1.0? What about it dooms it
to continual "betaness?"

Gunther (Note that I don't use it as a newsreader, since Gravity
still works for me. But the few times I've tried it for that,
TB certainly seemed functional.)

On 12/16/2004 4:49 PM R Fruth in Houston wrote:
> Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...derbird_e_mail
>
>

[quoted]
I just can't see too many people abandoning Microsoft's Outlook, if they
use it. Outlook is the gold standard in e-mail programs, despite its
$109 list price.
[/quote]

I didn't know Thunderbird was competing against Outlook; I've always
thought of it as an alternative for OE users.
--
Brian

Email Info -
http://68.1.17.8/p0nykiller/email.htm

:: BRIAN :: wrote:
> On 12/16/2004 4:49 PM R Fruth in Houston wrote:
>
>>Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor
>>
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...derbird_e_mail
>>
>>
>
>
> [quoted]
> I just can't see too many people abandoning Microsoft's Outlook, if they
> use it. Outlook is the gold standard in e-mail programs, despite its
> $109 list price.
> [/quote]
>
> I didn't know Thunderbird was competing against Outlook; I've always
> thought of it as an alternative for OE users.

I abandoned Outlook for Thunderbird. I prefer Thunderbird's separate
mail folders to Outlook's combined .pst file.

I prefer the ability in Outlook to respond to an e-mail in a local
folder and have the sent message automatically be placed in the folder
from whence it came without having to either manually transfer from the
sent file or request a copy be placed in the folder when mailing.

On 12/16/2004 11:38 PM Url wrote:
> :: BRIAN :: wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2004 4:49 PM R Fruth in Houston wrote:
>>
>>> Review: E-Mail Program Lacks 'Wow' Factor
>>>
>>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...derbird_e_mail
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> [quoted]
>> I just can't see too many people abandoning Microsoft's Outlook, if
>> they use it. Outlook is the gold standard in e-mail programs, despite
>> its $109 list price.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> I didn't know Thunderbird was competing against Outlook; I've always
>> thought of it as an alternative for OE users.
>
>
> I abandoned Outlook for Thunderbird. I prefer Thunderbird's separate
> mail folders to Outlook's combined .pst file.
>
> I prefer the ability in Outlook to respond to an e-mail in a local
> folder and have the sent message automatically be placed in the folder
> from whence it came without having to either manually transfer from the
> sent file or request a copy be placed in the folder when mailing.

I guess when I think of "Outlook users", I think of a work environment;
I forget that there are home based users who use Outlook also.
--
Brian

Email Info -
http://68.1.17.8/p0nykiller/email.htm