Re: Licence unhappiness?
Some time around 09/04/2004 19:14:22, I think I heard Roelof Otten say: You might be overlooking Allie's point too. No, I understood his/her point (sorry, I have learned not to assume gender by names); hence my response. !SNIP! Whereas what Allie said was that Ritlabs had to satisfy a lot of customers. Some need another UI, some need one bugfix or another. When you're a company and 100 users need a bugfix and 1000 users need a UI (or state that they didn't buy the software because of the UI). Bug fixes, by their very nature, require prioritizing, as they are functional deficiencies, which impede use at the most, and annoy and frustrate users at the least. And make no mistake, a 100 users do not need bugfixes, the *product* itself requires them in order to be complete and fulfill RitLabs' original commitment to its paying customers. I agree that the UI could use a facelift and would benefit from a usability study, yes that is also an important thing. But again, focusing on this and the addition of new non-core features to the detrement of the quality and functionality of the product itself, not to mention the promises made when v2.x was introduced, is just plain wrong. Specially when history shows that it is very probable that the introduction of new features can introduce its own legion of bugs, and increase the complexity of the application. You are one of those 100, so apparently you don't like the decision, but that doesn't make Ritlabs priorities wrong, only different from yours. RitLabs priorities are wrong, whether you want to agree with my comments or not. You might like the direction that RitLabs is taking with development, that is your prerrogative of course, and others might too, but it still does not change the fact that there are plenty of old bugs that have not even been addressed in the least, which shows a poor development process and a lack of commitment to quality. It is, like others have said, the way that huge corporations such as Microsoft work: add enough bells and whistles and chrome and hope the users do not see the bugs crawling all inside it. -dZ. -- Powered by The Bat! v.2.12.00, Hindered by MS Windows 2000 v.5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Dear Dz-Jay, @5-Sep-2004, 09:38 -0400 (05-Sep 14:38 UK time) DZ-Jay [DJ] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Roelof: DJ !SNIP! Whereas what Allie said was that Ritlabs had to satisfy a lot of customers. Some need another UI, some need one bugfix or another. When you're a company and 100 users need a bugfix and 1000 users need a UI (or state that they didn't buy the software because of the UI). DJ Bug fixes, by their very nature, require prioritizing, Correct. DJ as they are functional deficiencies, which impede use at the most, DJ and annoy and frustrate users at the least. Incorrect. Bugs are functional deficiencies that impede at worst, yes, but the least effect of a bug is to not even affect the majority of users. Such a bug is a low priority bug. DJ And make no mistake, a 100 users do not need bugfixes, the DJ *product* itself requires them in order to be complete and fulfill DJ RitLabs' original commitment to its paying customers. You have a very mistaken view of the software market. The only bug-free software is very small and very limited in functionality. I've only been working in this field for 30 years - this is a fact, believe it! DJ I agree that the UI could use a facelift and would benefit from a DJ usability study, yes that is also an important thing. Precisely everybody else's point. DJ But again, focusing on this and the addition of new non-core DJ features to the detrement of the quality and functionality of the DJ product itself, Who said that was what happened? It isn't. This has been explained over and over. While the responsible programmers who were familiar with the code focused on the buggy functionality, what would *you* have paid the idle staff to do? Go home? Take a holiday? They don't know the code behind the bugs and it is not cost effective to force them to work on it while the responsible programmers were doing so. If anything, such a procedure could slow down the bug-fixing effort while the new programmers received on-the-job training. Instead, the new programmers were effectively employed on the equally essential face lift. It just happened that the face-lift code was finished before all the bug fix code was in. Just because you don't understand the complexities of a multi-person software project, no need to waste bandwidth arguing a corner that doesn't make sense, is there? DJ not to mention the promises made when v2.x was introduced, is just DJ plain wrong. That's another issue. Yes, promises have been broken. That's bad marketing. RIT's marketing department need to take a long hard look at that as a matter of policy. Do you know what I think the outcome will be? No more feature promises. Marketing rules in the sales-centric universe that our flawed western society has created. I'm not happy about that and it doesn't speak well to ethics. But it is where we live. DJ Specially when history shows that it is very probable that the DJ introduction of new features can introduce its own legion of bugs, DJ and increase the complexity of the application. ... and while this is true, the product cannot stand still because of competition and new market demands. Every review of TB ever published has slammed it for its outdated interface. I know what I'd do if I were its publisher. Exactly what they have done! You are one of those 100, so apparently you don't like the decision, but that doesn't make Ritlabs priorities wrong, only different from yours. DJ RitLabs priorities are wrong, whether you want to agree with DJ my comments or not. ... only in your (and a couple of other equally ill-informed and unsympathetic individuals). In my opinion, the programmers have it right and the marketing department have made an error. Then again, with the huge facelift, I can see why too. It's not press-worthy to launch Shiny new The Bat! Version 2.13.0x announced - look at the shiny new XP front end / enhanced IMAP / blah blah. Press release about the all-new look for version 3 and you break into markets you couldn't touch before. So the only error is in the treatment of the existing user base. ... snip DJ ... plenty of old bugs that have not even been addressed in the DJ least, which shows a poor development process and a lack of DJ commitment to quality. And yet, the fixing of bugs is an ongoing process. They continue to work on them. Some bugs take longer to fix than others and, at some point, you have to replace a bug-ridden release with a less bug-ridden release. It's ridiculous to say that a software company can leave bug-ridden versions on sale just because they didn't fix *all* the bugs. And that's what you're saying. -- Cheers -- //.arck D Pearlstone --List moderator and fellow end user TB! v3.0.0 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 ' pgpoiXbp22ppC.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Some time around 09/05/2004 09:42:17, I think I heard Marck D Pearlstone say: DJ as they are functional deficiencies, which impede use at the most, DJ and annoy and frustrate users at the least. Incorrect. Bugs are functional deficiencies that impede at worst, yes, but the least effect of a bug is to not even affect the majority of users. Such a bug is a low priority bug. Which is paraphrasing what I said. I do agree with you that bugs which do not affect a majority of users have a lower priority, but the fact still remains there are plenty of core-functionality issues that have been reported for years, which have not been addressed. You have a very mistaken view of the software market. The only bug-free software is very small and very limited in functionality. I've only been working in this field for 30 years - this is a fact, believe it! I have been working in the software industry for about 15 years; I am a software developer myself. I am not talking about bug-free software; I am talking about addressing known core-functionality bugs and other issues which have been outstanding for some time now. *And* communicating to your existing customers, in a diligent and honest manner, your development plans and the future of the product. DJ But again, focusing on this and the addition of new non-core DJ features to the detrement of the quality and functionality of the DJ product itself, Who said that was what happened? It isn't. This has been explained over and over. But this is *exactly* what happened. By your own admission later in your comments, this was a pure marketing decision, which ignored the wishes and needs of the current (rather large) user base. What has been explained over and over is that RitLabs made a poor marketing decision, not that their software development process is following the right path. And this is what frustrates me and many others. While the responsible programmers who were familiar with the code focused on the buggy functionality, what would *you* have paid the idle staff to do? Go home? Take a holiday? They don't know the code behind the bugs and it is not cost effective to force them to work on it while the responsible programmers were doing so. If anything, such a procedure could slow down the bug-fixing effort while the new programmers received on-the-job training. I see your point; keep adding chrome in order to keep the idle staff busy. Do you really believe this is a sound development philosophy for a software company? Instead, the new programmers were effectively employed on the equally essential face lift. It just happened that the face-lift code was finished before all the bug fix code was in. Just because you don't understand the complexities of a multi-person software project, no need to waste bandwidth arguing a corner that doesn't make sense, is there? As a software developer, I do understand the complexities of a multi-person software project. This was a big assumption on your part. And employing new programmers to add chrome, bells and whistles is the sort of direction that me and others believe is wrong; Current programming efforts should be concentrated in fixing what's broken first, adding chrome later. If what's broken is so much, and if efforts directed towards correcting them would drive the company away from a competing position in the market, then the problem is not the feature set or the lack of programmers, but a fundamental flaw in the original scope and mission. That is what I and others see, which tells us that RitLabs is scrambling to grasp at straws with a product that might have lost its steam. TB! is a great product, no doubt about that; but part of its appeal was its promise of all good things that would come from the tight, purist, and focused approach the developers initially took on it. It is my feeling, as well as others, that this has been lost. What's left is a buggy application with a new shiny chrome and some useless bells and whistles, with some powerful features to be sure, but with a lack of future in the face of intense competition from new comers like the Mozilla Foundation, Opera, et al. DJ not to mention the promises made when v2.x was introduced, is just DJ plain wrong. That's another issue. Yes, promises have been broken. That's bad marketing. RIT's marketing department need to take a long hard look at that as a matter of policy. Do you know what I think the outcome will be? No more feature promises. Marketing rules in the sales-centric universe that our flawed western society has created. I'm not happy about that and it doesn't speak well to ethics. But it is where we live. And behold, your admission to my point above; a marketing move -- and a bad one at that -- does not correspond to a proper software development process. I'm sure you understand that both are different; I am complaining about the latter, while you are responding about
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Some time around 09/05/2004 09:42:17, I think I heard Marck D Pearlstone say: DJ as they are functional deficiencies, which impede use at the most, DJ and annoy and frustrate users at the least. Incorrect. Bugs are functional deficiencies that impede at worst, yes, but the least effect of a bug is to not even affect the majority of users. Such a bug is a low priority bug. Which is paraphrasing what I said. I do agree with you that bugs which do not affect a majority of users have a lower priority, but the fact still remains there are plenty of core-functionality issues that have been reported for years, which have not been addressed. You have a very mistaken view of the software market. The only bug-free software is very small and very limited in functionality. I've only been working in this field for 30 years - this is a fact, believe it! I have been working in the software industry for about 15 years; I am a software developer myself. I am not talking about bug-free software; I am talking about addressing known core-functionality bugs and other issues which have been outstanding for some time now. *And* communicating to your existing customers, in a diligent and honest manner, your development plans and the future of the product. DJ But again, focusing on this and the addition of new non-core DJ features to the detrement of the quality and functionality of the DJ product itself, Who said that was what happened? It isn't. This has been explained over and over. But this is *exactly* what happened. By your own admission later in your comments, this was a pure marketing decision, which ignored the wishes and needs of the current (rather large) user base. What has been explained over and over is that RitLabs made a poor marketing decision, not that their software development process is following the right path. And this is what frustrates me and many others. While the responsible programmers who were familiar with the code focused on the buggy functionality, what would *you* have paid the idle staff to do? Go home? Take a holiday? They don't know the code behind the bugs and it is not cost effective to force them to work on it while the responsible programmers were doing so. If anything, such a procedure could slow down the bug-fixing effort while the new programmers received on-the-job training. I see your point; keep adding chrome in order to keep the idle staff busy. Do you really believe this is a sound development philosophy for a software company? Instead, the new programmers were effectively employed on the equally essential face lift. It just happened that the face-lift code was finished before all the bug fix code was in. Just because you don't understand the complexities of a multi-person software project, no need to waste bandwidth arguing a corner that doesn't make sense, is there? As a software developer, I do understand the complexities of a multi-person software project. This was a big assumption on your part. And employing new programmers to add chrome, bells and whistles is the sort of direction that me and others believe is wrong; Current programming efforts should be concentrated in fixing what's broken first, adding chrome later. If what's broken is so much, and if efforts directed towards correcting them would drive the company away from a competing position in the market, then the problem is not the feature set or the lack of programmers, but a fundamental flaw in the original scope and mission. That is what I and others see, which tells us that RitLabs is scrambling to grasp at straws with a product that might have lost its steam. TB! is a great product, no doubt about that; but part of its appeal was its promise of all good things that would come from the tight, purist, and focused approach the developers initially took on it. It is my feeling, as well as others, that this has been lost. What's left is a buggy application with a new shiny chrome and some useless bells and whistles, with some powerful features to be sure, but with a lack of future in the face of intense competition from new comers like the Mozilla Foundation, Opera, et al. DJ not to mention the promises made when v2.x was introduced, is just DJ plain wrong. That's another issue. Yes, promises have been broken. That's bad marketing. RIT's marketing department need to take a long hard look at that as a matter of policy. Do you know what I think the outcome will be? No more feature promises. Marketing rules in the sales-centric universe that our flawed western society has created. I'm not happy about that and it doesn't speak well to ethics. But it is where we live. And behold, your admission to my point above; a marketing move -- and a bad one at that -- does not correspond to a proper software development process. I'm sure you understand that both are different; I am complaining about the latter, while you are responding about
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hi Jack, Sunday, September 5, 2004, 7:44:57 PM, you wrote: Jack Sunday, September 5, 2004, 10:43:52 AM, you wrote: Maybe RitLabs is not well suited to build a good e-mail client capable of competing in todays market. Jack IMO, until they learn how to spell the word D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N, Jack they're dead meat. Jack And that would truly be a damn shame. That's one of the worst things about the way they released 3.0 to the outside world -- who releases a new version with no documentation, or rather including the documentation from the last version? Doug -- Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated The Bat! 3.0 Doug and Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Tony, [T] wrote: there is no much use continuing this chat. I picked this up from early. It's OK. -- -= Allie =- The Bat! v3.0 · Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2) . Oxymoron: Definite possibility Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re: Licence unhappiness?
Maybe RitLabs is not well suited to build a good e-mail client capable of competing in todays market. Jack IMO, until they learn how to spell the word D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N, Jack they're dead meat. Jack And that would truly be a damn shame. That's one of the worst things about the way they released 3.0 to the outside world -- who releases a new version with no documentation, or rather including the documentation from the last version? All of the above is one of the reasons that I am thinking of leaving The Bat! I am beginning to think it is an unstable program, it just continues to give me problems. Jimmie Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Sun, 5 Sep 2004, at 14:41:47 -0600, @ @ when Jimmie Toney wrote: . All of the above is one of the reasons that I am thinking of leaving The Bat! I am beginning to think it is an unstable program, it just continues to give me problems. I stick with v2.12 which works (still enough) fine (for me). What will happen in the future, with RL and TB, I couldn't predict, and am not very interested, since the current offer, and perhaps a wee bit the attitude as well, in this moment do not attract my attention. On the other side, I find that TB community, gathered in TB lists, is just a fine crowd of rogues, counting there the lurkers as well, as e-pals, and as a well versed and knowledgeable TB experts, and I couldn't leave just like that such a witty and intelligent environment, and all of that just because some company is... collapsing. (-: Or whose metabolism is challenged. It would be much more pitiful for me than a calamity and disaster of the company itself. (I've heard that even today there is a club of mustang from 67th fans, so I grow the hope, regarding survival of the world wide TB gang.) I mean, that I will miss them much more than any v3 or whatever they could call It, now or in any feature. (-: Even more, if I'd have to choose between them and the company itself, with no a blink of my handsome eye I'll chose the gang. OK, it is just a picture, but I mean that. If the crowd ever move somewhere, let me know for I am willing to go with them. (-: - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBO54o9q62QPd3XuIRAk4+AJ9HD3nDRxEbexJ/9xNcu0pesxJhzgCePgGZ ISqKgO6Jp2rlVlB8FVu5pPw= =YCF/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mica Mijatovic wrote: | I stick with v2.12 which works (still enough) fine (for me). I returned to Thunderbird (too many problems with nightly builds my fault for experimenting) and now have settled on Mozilla Suite while the dust settles. They too are old friends. | On the other side, I find that TB community, gathered in TB | lists, is just a fine crowd of rogues ~ snip | if I'd have to choose between them and the company itself, with | no a blink of my handsome eye I'll chose the gang. This is exactly the reason why I never unsubscribed from tbot and unsubscribed from tbudl and tbbeta only temporarily. The community is TheBat! and the continuity. Anything else is merely software. | If the crowd ever move somewhere, let me know for I am willing to | go with them. (-: Me too. I'll keep my bags packed :-) - -- Regards, ~ Plan9 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Experience is the comb that Nature gives us when we are bald. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBO7rJoTUgrKvCEfsRAnwDAJ44IH/fPumleiot4uBd2DocbfxdXQCeP08E g3p9KphHAKzCTbtiwG3erW8= =8wAi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Some time around 09/04/2004 19:14:22, I think I heard Roelof Otten say: You might be overlooking Allie's point too. No, I understood his/her point (sorry, I have learned not to assume gender by names); hence my response. !SNIP! Whereas what Allie said was that Ritlabs had to satisfy a lot of customers. Some need another UI, some need one bugfix or another. When you're a company and 100 users need a bugfix and 1000 users need a UI (or state that they didn't buy the software because of the UI). Bug fixes, by their very nature, require prioritizing, as they are functional deficiencies, which impede use at the most, and annoy and frustrate users at the least. And make no mistake, a 100 users do not need bugfixes, the *product* itself requires them in order to be complete and fulfill RitLabs' original commitment to its paying customers. I agree that the UI could use a facelift and would benefit from a usability study, yes that is also an important thing. But again, focusing on this and the addition of new non-core features to the detrement of the quality and functionality of the product itself, not to mention the promises made when v2.x was introduced, is just plain wrong. Specially when history shows that it is very probable that the introduction of new features can introduce its own legion of bugs, and increase the complexity of the application. You are one of those 100, so apparently you don't like the decision, but that doesn't make Ritlabs priorities wrong, only different from yours. RitLabs priorities are wrong, whether you want to agree with my comments or not. You might like the direction that RitLabs is taking with development, that is your prerrogative of course, and others might too, but it still does not change the fact that there are plenty of old bugs that have not even been addressed in the least, which shows a poor development process and a lack of commitment to quality. It is, like others have said, the way that huge corporations such as Microsoft work: add enough bells and whistles and chrome and hope the users do not see the bugs crawling all inside it. -dZ. -- Powered by The Bat! v.2.12.00, Hindered by MS Windows 2000 v.5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Bryan Anderson wrote: BA Butwhat has happened? I buy the software, install it and sign BA up to the mailing list only to discover dissent in the BA rankswhat is the score with the licence and why are so many BA people unhapy with the new version? I think there's a feeling that a lot of features were promised for 2.x. With the sudden announcement of 3.0 before these features were fully implemented folks feel they are being forced to pay again for features they already paid for. And, it's easy to argue that the major version bump and upgrade fees were purely a marketing move, unwarranted by the feature set. There's also been growing dissatisfaction on the beta list with Ritlabs' development process. They appear to ignore existing bugs to implement new features. Also, the releases, both beta and official, are getting sloppy. BA Have I made a guff in deciding to stay away from Outlook and stay BA with/invest in The Bat!? It depends. Go into it with your eyes open and you'll probably be OK. As I see it, the good stuff is: It's a powerful product. Spend some time learning to use it, and it will pay off. It's pretty safe. It does its own HTML rendering, refusing to download external images or execute code. It'll work hard to prevent you from launching an attached virus. Good support from these lists. This is a great community; treasure it. The bad stuff: The company has a history of poor customer relations. The 3.0 fiasco is pretty much a repeat of 2.0 a year ago. Really bad documentation. It's obviously not a priority, and it'll make you glad these lists exist. Sloppy development. IMO their betas are really alphas, and their releases are betas. What is being pitched as 3.0 is arguably 2.13 beta 10. In fact, I think the 3.0 release version had *no* external testing before release. Don't upgrade as soon as you see a new release. Monitor the lists and learn from the experience of the early adopters. I've tried to be fair here, but to give you some idea of where I'm coming from I'm one of the people who was really pissed about the 3.0 release. I went ahead and paid for it, but in retrospect feel pretty sick about it. Final advice: pay for features, not promises. -- George Using The Rat! 3.0 on Windows XP Pro 5.1, Build 2600, Service Pack 1. Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Tony, [T] wrote: Add fat graphics, animated stuff, and useless gadgets. IMO TB! made it's 1st step in that direction with the new icons and promise of skins. soapbox You know, I find this interesting. The very common negative commentary about new icons and smilies with improved XP look support is just testimony to how these things are noticed, whether it be positively or negatively. The applications appearance is the first thing that greets the user. Putting reliability and robust functionality aside as being a must, an attractive interface adds a lot to an application that requires day to day user interaction. IOW's, if I had two applications with equal functionality, reliability and ease of use, I'd personally go for the one that I found more pleasant to look at. It's not a waste of time and development to spend a while focusing on improving the applications appearance. Furthermore, it's not usually the cause of unreliability creeping in, neither does it contribute much to bloating the software. What has made TB! difficult to tame in terms of reliability and bugs are not the introduction of smilies and the efforts at improving the applications appearance as is so commonly mentioned, since it seems to be popular to do so like promoting Linux. ;) - A completely reworked view column modes setup/interface introduced a lot of bugs for a while. - The continuing effort at offering Full IMAP support in what originally was a sophisticated POP3 client has offered serious challenges in maintaining reliability and keeping the bugs out. Not to mention the overall size of the application. There are clients like ThunderBird and Mulberry who focus only on IMAP since it's work enough in itself to fully implement. - A completely reworked filtering system has added its own problems while being ironed out. - A scheduler was added - Chat support was added - The plug-in interfaces were added. - Reworking of the macro support was done - Don't forget the addition of alternative editors I'm sure there's more. It's these major additions/enhancements that have made TB!'s executable that much larger, that much harder to maintain it's reliability and to keep the bugs out. Perhaps these major features could have been introduced more gradually? A more reliable approach perhaps? That makes for a sound argument. But please, I'm personally really getting tired of the comments about smilies and new icons as if they comprise a HUGE coding effort that could have been channeled elsewhere, or that they comprise a significant source of buggy behaviour and bloat in TB!. /soapbox -- -= Allie =- The Bat! v3.0 · Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2) . Drive A: format failure, formatting C: instead... Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
An XP look :-) (was: Re: Licence unhappiness?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Sat, 4 Sep 2004, at 07:44:44 -0500, @ @ when Allie Martin wrote: The very common negative commentary about new icons and smilies with improved XP look support is just testimony to how these things are noticed, whether it be positively or negatively. Ah, it is so an XP look! :-) I wonder no more. And I heard even of some skins... There, it becomes interesting all the more. :) Will say nothing and will not disturb the masters anymore. Will just watch, from the gallery. ... With the another old man. :-) An XP look. ... I knew that something's screwed with it, but thought it's only icons... Now... Kidding, partly. The interface of v3 is better (as the look got from steamroller influence is started swelling a bit getting some of 3D shape), approximately just what I meant (a slight touch up of the *surfaces*, no any skins), while it's still (thanks God) far from an XP look. Icons can be replaced by external glyphs anyway so it's not disaster. The skins... It's scalpable, so no problems with it too. :-) ...Are there some furry ones? For fall-winter seasons. :-) - -- Mica :dude: PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBOcrs9q62QPd3XuIRArzKAJ40w/mtACjkZ5k98v7S28F4ov/9qACgkQKG Qi/iMowld8RyKHCr9sk4VXU= =1mRN -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Allie, Saturday, September 4, 2004, 1:44:44 PM, you wrote: Tony, [T] wrote: Add fat graphics, animated stuff, and useless gadgets. IMO TB! made it's 1st step in that direction with the new icons and promise of skins. soapbox You know, I find this interesting. The very common negative commentary about new icons and smilies with improved XP look support is just testimony to how these things are noticed, whether it be positively or negatively. The applications appearance is the first thing that greets the user. Putting reliability and robust functionality aside as being a must, an attractive interface adds a lot to an application that requires day to day user interaction. IOW's, if I had two applications with equal functionality, reliability and ease of use, I'd personally go for the one that I found more pleasant to look at. It's not a waste of time and development to spend a while focusing on improving the applications appearance. Furthermore, it's not usually the cause of unreliability creeping in, neither does it contribute much to bloating the software. What has made TB! difficult to tame in terms of reliability and bugs are not the introduction of smilies and the efforts at improving the applications appearance as is so commonly mentioned, since it seems to be popular to do so like promoting Linux. ;) - A completely reworked view column modes setup/interface introduced a lot of bugs for a while. - The continuing effort at offering Full IMAP support in what originally was a sophisticated POP3 client has offered serious challenges in maintaining reliability and keeping the bugs out. Not to mention the overall size of the application. There are clients like ThunderBird and Mulberry who focus only on IMAP since it's work enough in itself to fully implement. - A completely reworked filtering system has added its own problems while being ironed out. - A scheduler was added - Chat support was added - The plug-in interfaces were added. But please, I'm personally really getting tired of the comments about smilies and new icons as if they comprise a HUGE coding effort that could have been channeled elsewhere, or that they comprise a significant source of buggy behaviour and bloat in TB!. The only issue I have with smilies is that it's impossible to ignore the ):( type characters in the text - and that's just as annoying for me as seeing the actual graphic (but maybe I am a grumpy old s*d as my wife says). I'd be ecstatic if the next version of TB could filter these characters out of my received messages. -- regards, Clive T Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Ben! On Saturday, September 04, 2004, 8:02 AM, you wrote: Allie But please, I'm personally really getting tired of the Allie comments about smilies and new icons as if they comprise a Allie HUGE coding effort that could have been channeled elsewhere, Allie or that they comprise a significant source of buggy behaviour Allie and bloat in TB!. BA Go Allie go Allie go. BA from the new non mod allie cheerleading squad May I join you on that squad? Allie always reasons more clearly and expresses himself more cogently than I'm able to do. So I'm ready to stop talking about Smileys and start learning how to do filters. :) -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Tony, 05-Sep-2004 00:48, you wrote: The very common negative commentary about new icons and smilies with improved XP look support is just testimony to how these things are noticed, whether it be positively or negatively. The 1st thing I do after installing XP is reverting everything to classic w2k look. You could as well discuss wether you like the beginning of the first track of insert-your-favorite-band-here's new CD, and how it evolves into the 2nd track. It all depends so much on one's taste, its not worth to discuss differences in the personal liking of a user interface. IMHO, of course. Any GUI designer can't possible make it right for everyone. Its just impossible. Deal with it. :-) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) It is not the business for science to inherit the Earth, but to inherit the moral imagination; because without that, man and beliefs and science will perish together. -- Jacob Bronowski Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Smileys go to Ignorewood (was: Re: Licence unhappiness?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Sat, 4 Sep 2004, at 15:52:42 +0100, @ @ when Clive Taylor wrote: The only issue I have with smilies is that it's impossible to ignore the ):( type characters in the text - and that's just as annoying for me as seeing the actual graphic (but maybe I am a grumpy old s*d as my wife says). I'd be ecstatic if the next version of TB could filter these characters out of my received messages. The ecstasy's around the corner, and is lurking. I think it can be done with some macro and/or regexp template (at least in reply 'edition' of a message), but still cannot convince my attention it's worth of trying. - -- Mica :happypiglet: PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBOd2H9q62QPd3XuIRAiGJAJ92qMtLctk2jqK2nZc9PxvTQ/DRFACgiuNQ jjwxBZHI9tj6CegROQvwNc4= =hAuF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Tony, [T] wrote: The 1st thing I do after installing XP is reverting everything to classic w2k look. Choice. It's all a matter of choice. Roelof recently stated that TB! doesn't look any different to him since he still uses the glyph set he likes. With your glyph set and the classic Windows look, you'll not see any difference with TB!. The fact that you immediately switch to the classic look is testimony to the fact the even you care about the appearance of your applications. However, what about those who use the XP look and quite understandably wish TB! to have the consistent XP look like most other applications they run have? Should Ritlabs ignore them? I absolutely think not since appearance *does* mean a lot to users. Putting reliability and robust functionality aside as being a must, an attractive interface adds a lot to an application that requires day to day user interaction. But v2 had a nice look. For you. v3 can be made to look like v2 so you can be made happy. Those who like a more compatible XP look can be happy. TB! now has an appearance that can be altered to please more users. I'd say this makes TB! a better app for more where appearance is concerned. Not a wasted effort at all. Fat icons are one of the reasons that scared me away from Outlook (and Eudora) So the looks can attract and scare away users. 'Drab' icons have many disgruntled about TB! too. The beauty of TB! is that you can still use your icons of choice. http://www.thebatworld.de/system/sections/index.php?op=listarticlessecid=10 And even if RitLabs hired 100 graphics artists TB! will never be main stream. It's targeted at a different market than Outlook. A market with people that are prepared to invest more time in an application. And I could be very wrong here but I think that kind of people are teh ones that complain the most about bloatware. Yes. You could be wrong, and I do believe you're wrong on this unfounded assumption. On itself not. But somehow it often goes hand in hand with instability/bloating. Everything can be programmed bugfree. However company policy dictates how long is spend on tracking bugs. I disagree here. I'm saying that bugs are in TB!, many are frustrated with their bugs not being fixed, and many quite unreasonably cast a lot of blame/attention/emphasis on the changes being made to the user-interface appearance as being the reason for this. I've outlined a lot bigger development efforts/enhancements that are occurring concurrently. Overwhelming reasonably bugfree development with the simultaneous introduction of all these new components seems like the bigger problem here. Simultaneous introduction of features quite likely borne of a strong desire to please customers. Sure it makes it larger. But I'm also sure that TB! could fit in half the size! But that would take a lot longer to program. I'm aware of that. It's just like K9. Below 100Kb and outperforms all/most 4MB+ spam filters. I don't have enough knowledge or information to argue on this so I'll reserve any comments on this to those who wish to. I do smell a heavy dose of speculating/conjecture here but I just can't be certain. That probably would be a better approach. I do a little programming myself and I learned that debugging every feature before adding more functionality saves lots of time later. Yes. Seems reasonable and I witness this approach with MDaemon, my mailserver. They run an exemplary beta program with a top-notch and very stable mailserver resulting. Of course, there are always bugs being reported. :) But please, I'm personally really getting tired of the comments about what I'm allowed to say :-) I don't see how on earth I can really determine or have direct influence on what you choose or choose not to post here. I can only post my own opinion as well. Being tired of reading a particular sentiment is just another sentiment. It cannot and therefore should not be construed as a request to stop posting such a sentiment. If everybody shuts up how should RitLabs know what its users wants. And you selectively snipped all the stuff I said in favour of RitLabs to make it look like hate mail. Can we be reasonable here? No one is telling anyone here to shut up. Accusing me of making your mail out to be hate mail is a bit over the top too. Besides I think you missed my point about icons and smilies. History has proven that it very often (not always) is a start of bloatware. (not always) This is my rebuttal. Not always. Let's not jump to conclusions. They do not contribute significantly to coding time when looking at TB!'s overall development progress and it's not like TB!'s appearance should be left alone while Windows appearance is changing and general application appearances are changing all around. Fire up a Windows 3.1 application and the same for an application in 2004 and you see what I mean. Whether one looks better than the other isn't the point. The point is that they're quite
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Ben Allen, [BA] wrote: Go Allie go Allie go. from the new non mod allie cheerleading squad LOL! A lightish weekend, so far (keeping fingers and toes crossed), does allow for the occasional soap-boxing. ;) -- -= Allie =- The Bat! v3.0 · Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2) . S met ing's hap ening t my k ybo rd . . Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Smileys go to Ignorewood (was: Re: Licence unhappiness?)
The ecstasy's around the corner, and is lurking. Well, assuming you're talking about smilies and not drugs, that would be fantastic. -- Regards Clive T Nursing the under-developed TB 3.0 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Smileys go to Ignorewood (was: Re: Licence unhappiness?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was Sat, 4 Sep 2004, at 17:44:44 +0100, @ @ when Clive Taylor wrote: The ecstasy's around the corner, and is lurking. Well, assuming you're talking about smilies and not drugs, that would be fantastic. I'm talking about a colon cleaner, a macro/template which would remove all :anynumberanyletter: forms from a given message you reply to. (Therefore, no any health risk included; even contrarily.) It could be done easily, I believe, just by using an automated search-replace with regexp. But I re-think that removing them from original messages wouldn't still do anything useful (because of interrupting a consistency of the original, whichever it can be). Actually I am not sure if it would do something useful even in replies... Perhaps only sometimes. But is not bad, anyway, to have such thingy handy. (Ops, I see now that I didn't delete the previous followups when changed the subject... Let the Force decide what to do now...) - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: http://pgp.mit.edu/ once just before breakfast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFBOgWI9q62QPd3XuIRAr+VAJkBwmllPIbN3n5Xl7ISFcZJ8Qs++ACffLXn zS0CFYwAhMg8hf6kVajz3Mk= =xdMq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Tony, [T] wrote: I never claimed diffrently. I even think a good UI takes a *lot* of development time. And is *very* important. But UI is more then icons. Sure, and this is why I keep saying 'user interface *appearance*'. The user interface as a whole is an entirely different thing to talk about. And even if RitLabs hired 100 graphics artists TB! will never be main stream. It's targeted at a different market than Outlook. A market with people that are prepared to invest more time in an application. And I could be very wrong here but I think that kind of people are the ones that complain the most about bloatware. Yes. You could be wrong, and I do believe you're wrong on this unfounded assumption. On what statement? The entire paragraph which seems to outline Ritlab's intended market segment. No I have no written proof about that statement. But you haven't either. This is why I usually make no claims in that regard. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. The #1 perfectly rational reason for one not understanding why Ritlabs would waste time on feature X is that one isn't aware of the needs of the userbase Ritlabs currently serves or targets. Of course, close behind that #1 would be the more popular #2 which is that Ritlabs don't know what they're doing. Agreed a icon with a different color doesn't make a program more buggy. But I can fully understand that users that have real problems with a certain bug rather would see RitLabs spend the X hours/$ they spend on the icons was spend on debugging. Yes, I know the feeling. I've felt it before, but not with icons. I've felt it watching other major new features being added, while I suffer at a fundamental level with IMAP. Accusing me of making your mail out to be hate mail is a bit over the top too. I actually defended RitLabs in my original post. And in later posts including this one. But focusing on the icons makes it sound like hate mail. It was not my intention to do that. -- -= Allie =- The Bat! v3.0 · Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2) . The calm confidence of a Christian with four Aces. - M.Twain Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Smileys go to Ignorewood (was: Re: Licence unhappiness?)
But I re-think that removing them from original messages wouldn't still do anything useful (because of interrupting a consistency of the original, whichever it can be). I made the original suggestion somewhat lightheartedly; I recognise that it would be difficult/impossible to implement. Still it would be nice. (There - no smiley) -- Regards Clive T Nursing the undeveloped TB 3.0 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Tony, 04-Sep-2004 09:38, you wrote: You could as well discuss wether you like the beginning of the first track of insert-your-favorite-band-here's new CD, and how it evolves into the 2nd track. Wouldn't that be of topic? LOL! It's just that I'm using software for over 20 years and that a new version not always means a better version. Yes, I find myself in the state of grumpy ol' unflexible blockhead incapable of adapting ma brane to sumpn new too - more often than I actually should. ;-) -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up. -- H. M. Power Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Some time around 09/04/2004 12:07:27, I think I heard Allie Martin say: I disagree here. I'm saying that bugs are in TB!, many are frustrated with their bugs not being fixed, and many quite unreasonably cast a lot of blame/attention/emphasis on the changes being made to the user-interface appearance as being the reason for this. I've outlined a lot bigger development efforts/enhancements that are occurring concurrently. Overwhelming reasonably bugfree development with the simultaneous introduction of all these new components seems like the bigger problem here. Simultaneous introduction of features quite likely borne of a strong desire to please customers. Allie: I believe you are missing the point. Its not that it is such a large programming effort to change the UI of the application and that those efforts could be diverted to debugging the application. The point is that focusing on the UI, however minor the modifications introduced, while there is a horde of outstanding, well documented bugs, shows an attitude that some of us think is very wrong; a lack of interest in prioritizing what should be most important. This is what Tony, me and many others complain about. Its not the icons -- and discussing whether having new and pretty icons is a good idea or not is petty, to say the least -- its the shift in development focus, or the lack thereof. I hope this clears things up better. -dZ. -- Powered by The Bat! v.2.12.00, Hindered by MS Windows 2000 v.5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hallo DZ-Jay, On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:05:39 -0400GMT (4-9-2004, 20:05 +0200, where I live), you wrote: DJ I believe you are missing the point. You might be overlooking Allie's point too. DJ The point is that focusing on the UI, however minor the DJ modifications introduced, while there is a horde of outstanding, DJ well documented bugs, shows an attitude that some of us think is DJ very wrong; a lack of interest in prioritizing what should be most DJ important. Whereas what Allie said was that Ritlabs had to satisfy a lot of customers. Some need another UI, some need one bugfix or another. When you're a company and 100 users need a bugfix and 1000 users need a UI (or state that they didn't buy the software because of the UI). You are one of those 100, so apparently you don't like the decision, but that doesn't make Ritlabs priorities wrong, only different from yours. -- Groetjes, Roelof The Bat! 3.0.0 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 1 pop3 account, server on LAN Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. pgpDLCF1FgXiD.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
On Fri 3-Sep-04 2:32pm -0400, Mary Bull wrote: I think that it loads faster upon launch, also. Mary, are you using the efficient version (pro) or the easy version (home)? -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Bill! On Saturday, September 04, 2004, 6:26 PM, you wrote: MB I think that it loads faster upon launch, also. BM Mary, are you using the efficient version (pro) or the easy BM version (home)? I'm using the Professional version. And just today, because I'm subscribed to tbbeta, I saw an opportunity offered to all there to download a release that has improved the New Filter System further. It loads fast, also, and--whether coincidence or not--my mails are coming down faster from the Mail Dispatcher, too. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.0.0.6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
On Sunday, September 5, 2004 @ 1:15:08 PM, Mary Bull wrote: [snips] Mary It loads fast, also, and--whether coincidence or not--my mails are Mary coming down faster from the Mail Dispatcher, too. How are you measuring that? -- cheers, Mic (reply address works) If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. Rene Descartes Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
On Sunday, September 5, 2004 @ 2:05:39 AM, DZ-Jay wrote: [snips] DZ-Jay Its not that it is such a large programming effort to change DZ-Jay the UI of the application and that those efforts could be diverted to DZ-Jay debugging the application. The point is that focusing on the UI, DZ-Jay however minor the modifications introduced, while there is a horde of DZ-Jay outstanding, well documented bugs, shows an attitude that some of us DZ-Jay think is very wrong; a lack of interest in prioritizing what should be DZ-Jay most important. What he said. -- cheers, Mic (reply address works) When you come to a roadblock, take a detour. Mary Kay AshFounder, Mary Kay Cosmetics Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Mic! On Sunday, September 05, 2004, 12:18 AM, you wrote: Mary It loads fast, also, and--whether coincidence or not--my mails Mary are coming down faster from the Mail Dispatcher, too. MicCullen How are you measuring that? Subjectively, of course. Didn't put a stopwatch on it. But 75 messages were waiting when I got in from dinner tonight, and they moved from the Mail Dispatcher to their various folders in the blink of an eye. I'm used to watching them change. I had some difficulties with mail back a few versions ago and so I configured the Connection Centre to be always up, so I could keep an eye on why an old message kept sending itself automatically. (Turned out I had a corrupted Outbox, but that's another story.) Anyway, the mails tonight came in as fast as just changing focus from one window to another. One second, I saw the list in the Message Dispatcher. In an eye-blink, there was the empty Connection Centre. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.0.0.6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
On Sunday, September 5, 2004 @ 1:32:58 PM, Mary Bull wrote: [snips] Mary It loads fast, also, and--whether coincidence or not--my mails Mary are coming down faster from the Mail Dispatcher, too. MicCullen How are you measuring that? Mary Subjectively, of course. Didn't put a stopwatch on it. Righto. -- cheers, Mic (reply address works) If you can't convince them, confuse them. Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
RE: Licence unhappiness?
The Bat! is a great client and if you were happy enough with it to buy it then I don't think you have wasted your money. However I have moved from TB! to Outlook 2003 with Nelson Email Organiser and I am loving it. It is an amazing bit of software :) -- Morgan Pugh E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.mpugh.co.uk PGP Key @ http://mpugh.co.uk/pgp.asc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Anderson Sent: 03 September 2004 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Licence unhappiness? Well - having been using The Bat! for a bit longer than was strictly legal I finally decided to buy it and give something back to the fine people who develop it. Butwhat has happened? I buy the software, install it and sign up to the mailing list only to discover dissent in the rankswhat is the score with the licence and why are so many people unhapy with the new version? Have I made a guff in deciding to stay away from Outlook and stay with/invest in The Bat!? Bryan Anderson. Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Bryan! On Friday, September 03, 2004, 10:48 AM, you wrote: BA Butwhat has happened? I buy the software, install it and sign BA up to the mailing list only to discover dissent in the BA rankswhat is the score with the licence and why are so many BA people unhapy with the new version? Have I made a guff in deciding BA to stay away from Outlook and stay with/invest in The Bat!? It was mainly a communications problem on the marketing side of the company. Version 3.0 is stable and better than the previous full release, 2.12.00, in my own experience. It has a new filter system. It has what seems to be useable IMAP mail management (though Im on POP3 and have never used IMAP). In some ways it is faster for me than the last full release. I just had occasion to move over 8,000 mail messages from one folder to another and it happened in about 1 second's time, with a little graph showing the progress. The little green graph went across as fast as a lizard scooting for cover. I think that it loads faster upon launch, also. The problem was that the decision-makers at RITLabs announced a v.3.0 beta/1 to the beta testers and right behind that announced a release date for v. 3.0 for the following day. Created a lot of confusion. But the product is a good one, I think. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Mary wrote: snippage But the product is a good one, I think. It is - but I have a suspicion that it's been released a tad early. The help system is all Version 2, the mail ticker seems to behave a bt oddly (showing read messages for some reason) and my headers are claiming I am running Pro when I registered Home. Bryan. Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Bryan Anderson, 03-Sep-2004 17:48, you wrote: Have I made a guff in deciding to stay away from Outlook and stay with/invest in The Bat!? No, you haven't, on the contrary. The Bat is one helluva fine email client (the more I've been looking for alternatives, the more I found myself rather sticking to TheBat... *sigh*). The current discussion is about marketing decisions by Ritlabs. Lets hope this won't happen again in the future. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Forever is a long time, but not as long as it was yesterday. -- Dennis H'Orgnies Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hi Morgan, On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, at 20:27:04 [GMT+0100] (which was Sat, 5:27:04 Australian Eastern Time) you wrote: However I have moved from TB! to Outlook 2003 with Nelson Email Organiser and I am loving it. It is an amazing bit of software :) Amazing how it top posts, as well! -- John Phillips, Sydney, Australia Using The Bat! v3.0 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Farewell, friend. I was 1000 times more evil than thou. Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Licence unhappiness?
Hello Bryan, It is - but I have a suspicion that it's been released a tad early. Yes, most of us think that way. But don't worry, I'm quite confident that quite soon we'll get completely boiled and cooked version 3.01 or something like that. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v4.123 Beta/Umpteen Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
