I also wanted to chime in on this subject.... First of all, I have to agree 110% with the statements about the reliability of Powermail. My current email database is 240mb. It's reliability has been awesome, in fact bulletproof. The only mail storage system which I've seen which comes close is the /Maildir/ format which is used by qmail - I've never lost anything with either Powermail or Maildir formats. I can categorically say that no other email application or mail format I have used (at least 20) rises to this level.
As for upgrading to OS-X...... Well, you may find this funny, but I used a Mac for a LOOONG time and all I did with it was use it as an X-server to about 8 several UNIX systems I had here and running about 10 different account/word processing/etc applications locally. I did it with a PC at first, but the multi-monitor support was terrible, the terminal programs sucked, and the X-servers were all very slow and difficult to configure.. Sure, my Mac crashed every now and then... But, after having windows crash on me and going through this whole reinstall nonsense one two many times I switched over to my Mac... Now that OS-X is out: I only have 3 UNIX systems (well, 4 if we count OS-X as UNIX), I have relocated all of the other 5 UNIX servers applications to OS-X which involved recompiling code, libraries, tools, database servers, etc..... This was trivial under OS-X and *IMPOSSIBLE* under any version of Windows.. While Microsoft scorns non-windows/open-source developers Apple has embraced us.... Apple deserves a lot of credit for what they have accomplished - I never thought I would see the day where UNIX would be at the heart of such an elegant and user-friendly operating system.... The fact that under the hood OS-X is UNIX and an end-user doesn't even have to know it's there is reason enough to move to OS-X.. It's a technical feat that deserves some sort of award... Microsoft would have never done this - and what's funny is they actually had an opportunity... It's a little-known fact that in the 80's Microsoft "owned" a product called Xenix, which was probably the fastest UNIX-like implementation out there at the time (and probably would blow any modern UNIX system away had it's development continued).... Instead out of Microsoft we got MS- DOS 1.0.... The point is: OS-X *DESERVES* to be a success - it's that good. - Greg >There are two things I would like to point out on this (before giving it >a rest): > >I have been using PM now heavily since about 3 years or more (my database >has been well over 100mb big at times, right now it sits around 40mb). I >have never lost or corrupted an attachment. Nor lost any mail. Nor lost >an entire database. Nor anything the like. I use it with 10 email >accounts, several list servers (heavy traffic). And I don't think I am >just a lucky of a kind (even though, I AM a Sunday child:). > >PM is a very strong application. It is NOT a weak, or quirky or 'maybe it >will work but maybe not' type of software. > >Some error's and problems happen due to user error. One big outpoint of >PM is a lacking good manual, but then often, the simplest ReadMe will not >be read (as clearly can seen at times with some 'problems' reported after >an upgrade). Also, when user's who say they just can't find the 'any key' >(which they should press), use software, the amount of reported 'bugs' >usually increase quickly and tremendously (not pointing fingers at anyone >here, only stating observed situations). If one then listens to these >reports, software can look way more complex, complicated, unstable or >quirky which it isn't. User error IS one of the most common problems in >software support, as far as I know. > >Also, I have heard of corrupted databases in just about any other email >application. Or problems. It's just inherent to the amount of people >under the amount of different systems and situations being used, that >software can and will show some bug(s). > >I guess my point here is that sometimes it takes a bit longer to get to >know a piece of software for one person than another. Sometimes one >software just fits better to an individual then another. Does not make >the one software 'better' than the other, but it is interesting that also >with the use of software, 'brand thinking' can play a role or even just >'to have the best'. > >Hopefully I didn't come accross offensive or so, just some thought of >mine on this subject. > >If it's not your hat, it's not, no biggie. > >---marlyse >
