Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Mary and others following this thread, In response to the message Mary Bull sent regarding Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]) Thanks for the note re the v. 2.12 release. As you'd said earlier, it was about to be released. DH These are undoubtedly Moldavian terms g. MB No. PCWSmileys are a feature that Leif had the help of 9Val to work MB out, and I was among a half dozen or so early beta testers on them, MB which soon mushroomed to many dozens, as the interest in using these MB increased--most of the use being on tbot. MB The term Roguemoticon is from Dierk, who offered it as the name for MB the new pictures for use in signatures that Leif also wrote the code MB for, based on 9Val's original Smiley code, as I understand it. MB The RitLabs programmers have now modified that code such that the MB Roguemoticons appear (as a user's option) in the headers. MB Note: I changed the subject line (which you changed back) to MB conform to the recently given Moderator request to make subject MB lines as specific as possible MB Allie had recently (just yesterday) reprimanded a friend of mine on MB this list for just such a catch-all subject as yours, when the MB discussion turned to a specific part. Maybe he needs you to remind him to reprimand me. (But since he participated in this thread with Time to Upgrade as the subject, maybe his understanding of the subject subject is similar to mine). MB I was addressing a specific part, an annoying folder view settings MB behavior, that I understood, from reading the tbbeta list, had been MB cured in a beta release. You sure did, within the context of the subject I posted. Your focusing on one aspect of it didn't change that. MB Full release v. 2.12 has just been announced as out this evening. You MB might like to go to the RitLabs site and read about it. Naw, I'm just downloading it. -- Douglas Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Douglas Hinds, [DH] wrote: Maybe he needs you to remind him to reprimand me. (But since he participated in this thread with Time to Upgrade as the subject, maybe his understanding of the subject subject is similar to mine). Yes. I thought the subject was fine. -- -=[ Allie Martin ]=- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com pgpqDP54fWv7D.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Douglas Hinds, [DH] wrote: How many Sustainable Development, Alternative Agriculture, Co-op, GeneWatch and Political News lists do you subscribe to? You must get more biomed literature, though; and more things that need a reply. It doesn't really matter. Using the dispatcher to screen all mail is definitely an approach though not a necessary means to an end. It's inefficient but works. We've been through that discussion before and any further discussion on this would require a subject change. ;) -- -=[ Allie Martin ]=- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com pgp5cMaPBOcHQ.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Allie! On Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 6:07 AM, you wrote: MB Maybe he needs you to remind him to reprimand me. (But since he MB participated in this thread with Time to Upgrade as the subject, MB maybe his understanding of the subject subject is similar to mine). AM Yes. I thought the subject was fine. Allie, could you please clarify the guidelines a bit more for me, then? I was really trying to cooperate with you when I changed the subject line in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?] Had I been in PM discussion with Douglas, I would not have changed it. He bawled me out (no other word for it) on tbot when I modified a subject line on a thread he and I were participating in--there I was trying to cooperate with Melissa in her plea for better subject lines (despite my reaction to her there--as soon as it got easy for me to do it, I wanted to try to make things more comfortable for her). On tbudl, with your recent specific admonitions still in my mind, I thought that in replying to only one aspect of Douglas's query, I should detail in the subject line the aspect I was addressing. And I really did think he would want to know about my experience with the unstable folder view settings on my machine. Should I not have changed that subject line? I understand (and understood) that in general Douglas's subject line is fine. But I'm confused and I need some help from you. Much appreciation in advance, and -- Best regards, Mary :Mary: The Bat! 2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Mary Bull, [MB] wrote: AM Yes. I thought the subject was fine. Allie, could you please clarify the guidelines a bit more for me, then? I was really trying to cooperate with you when I changed the subject line in ... I realize this, empathize and appreciate the efforts you're making at cooperating. However, there's no precise measure of the adequacy of a subject. I can only provide basic guidelines which I have. See my response to Maggie's 'trout not accepted' message. Another problem is that with every basic guideline there can be valid exceptions. Time to upgrade? ... this subject seems to be about the asking of a question of whether or not it's time to upgrade TB!. This is what Douglas discussed. There's nothing really to break down or specify in the subject especially since he really didn't have anything specific to discuss on the matter. So it can stand by itself and be adequate. We know that such a thread will likely involve brief mention or explanations of new features. Of course, if a sub-thread begins focusing on a particular issue, then fine, change the subject, but our threshholds tend to be different. I don't usually change the subject until the 2nd message that is focusing on a new subject. If I abruptly change the topic, then I start a new thread. IOW's exercise judgement. Now, things may not go smoothly because of a variety of reasons. We are all different, with different opinions, temperaments and thresh-holds etc. I plan to moderate only those subjects that IMO, fall significantly short of adequately reflecting what the discussion is about. Douglas seems sensitive about subject hijacking. This is a side of Douglas we'll have to get along with or come to terms with. You change the subject and he changes it back. Interesting and I'll leave that to you both to sort out. I don't see the need for my direct involvement. I can only give advice. -- -=[ Allie Martin ]=- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com pgpKMgSSvKDDi.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Allie! On Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 7:27 AM, you wrote: AM I can only give advice. Sorry for the delay in conversation. We had a little weather here overnight and real life took my attention for awhile here. Your advice is much appreciated. If you don't mind having one more post about this, and don't mind to reply, how soon should this discussion of Subject: guidelines have its thread changed? Just taking it for an example. I don't mean to be facetious--I'm entirely serious about these questions. I was, to speak boldly and frankly, appalled at the way Maggie wrote to you in regard to your Mod post to her. I consider her a friend, as I do you, and so I made no comment to either of you, publicly or privately at the time. It's like an old joke, which some who are against any mention of violence might find distasteful, but which, given my background as a teacher, I like: Parent: Teacher, my child is sensitive. If he misbehaves, just slap the child next to him, and he'll get the message. I took what you said to Maggie perhaps too much to heart. You know, I think my best course will be to change no subject lines and wait for you to appear in your Mod hat. I don't think this issue, contrary to what you have said, and I say this most respectfully, is between me and Douglas alone. He directly challenged me as to your Moderator's ruling. He implied that I was infringing on your role. I'm sensitive to my own feelings that I certainly do not want to move in on your territory. I got a C in conduct in first grade. My mother went to see the teacher about it. What had I done, my mother wanted to know. Oh, Mrs. Roberts, it is not really serious, replied my teacher in this face-to-face conference. Mary Eunice just wants to teach my class, that's all. She finishes her work in two minutes, and then she's up all over the room, disrupting everything and helping everyone else with his work. I may never have grown any older than 6 in age, Allie. You will just have to watch out for me. I'll be looking for the gentlest kind of trouts. :) -- Best regards, Mary :Mary: The Bat! 2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Changing the Subject Header (Was: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]))
Hello Mary and others following this thread, In response to the message Mary Bull sent to Allie on 14/07/2004 regarding Changing the Subject Header (sent with a Subject Header Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]) Since the focus is no longer on whether it's Time to Upgrade (to v. 2.x, which in fact, isn't even mentioned in either post), _NOW is the time to Change the Subject Header_. Secondly Mary, I never bawled you out. I simply changed the Subject Header back to what it was, since 1).- the subject hadn't changed and 2).- I was using the header to follow up / reply to the answers received. I suggest we all keep in mind that these are technical (rather than personal) matters. (On my part) Nuff sed! (The next thread I in which I participate is likely to be titled Installing v. 2.12 - which I downloaded last night. MB Maybe he needs you to remind him to reprimand me. (But since MB he participated in this thread with Time to Upgrade as the MB subject, maybe his understanding of the subject subject is MB similar to mine). AM Yes. I thought the subject was fine. MB Allie, could you please clarify the guidelines a bit more for me, MB then? I was really trying to cooperate with you when I changed the MB subject line ... -- Douglas Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Subject Header (Was: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]))
Hello Douglas! On Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 8:53 AM, you wrote: DH Secondly Mary, I never bawled you out. I simply changed the Subject DH Header back to what it was, since 1).- the subject hadn't changed DH and 2).- I was using the header to follow up / reply to the answers DH received. One or the other of us is misunderstanding what the other has written. I was already concerned about the conflict I perceived between Allie's first Mod post, which happened to be to Maggie, on this list in regard to meaningful subject choices, and what I had felt to be anger toward me from you in our last exchanges on tbot. I was not referring to what you had yesterday said on tbudl, when I said you had bawled me out. I was referring to two or three threads in which we had participated on tbot. Here's a cp from the tbot exchange: mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Begin copy-and-paste: Secondly: Changing the subject header may accurately reflect the content, but doing that makes it harder for me to find your post (which I saw coming in via the Mail Dispatcher). I consider it gratuitous, in this case. End copy-and-paste+++ Further on in that exchange, you asked me not to waste your time. Now, I'm probably a very stupid, slow learner in these matters. But I genuinely don't know what to do. The best I can think to do is not to correspond with you any more. I was only trying to help and I got what felt to me like lectures and sarcasm, both earlier on tbot and yesterday on tbudl. And the best I can think to do as far as subject lines on tbudl, with regard to those threads I do choose to post to, is not to change them, and to wait for Allie to come on in his Mod hat and tell me when to change them. -- Best regards, Mary :Mary: The Bat! 2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Mary, Mic Cullen, Roelof and others following this thread, In response to the reply Mary Bull sent on 13/07/2004 to my request regarding Time to Upgrade?] DH Is TB! v 2.11.02 (the latest release version) stable? MB Yes. it is stable. I've been using it for several weeks now. MB There's one annoying bug, however, that shows for some people MB and not for others: So it's both stable and unstable (that is, partially stable). MB The View settings are not conserved for folders. If you are MB reading in one folder and change to another, when you return to MB the first folder, the order of messages in the message list pane MB has changed. MB I have been switching back and forth between Received time and MB Created time as a means of refreshing the folder back to my MB preferred View setting. A pain ITA, IMO. MB I have read on tbbeta that simply using the Virtual Folders MB capability avoids this problem. Also, I have read on tbbeta that MB the bug is now fixed, and with RC4 being tested, The question is, how are the virtual folders implemented? It sounds like messages from several accounts can be viewed in the same window, al la Calypso (which has an account column). The question is, how are the messages to be included selected? In spite of what some TB! users (including a moderator friend) declare, there is no way to filter them accurately, IMO. I'd have to do it message by message, because: 1).- I have no way of anticipating the content or nature of some of the mail I am sent and therefore; 2).- My decisions are made on the fly, depending on what I find. Since I depend heavily on the Message Dispatcher, I'd prefer to select any mail I want put in the virtual window from there (just as I'd like to be able to flag and / or color mail from within the Message Dispatcher). Can any of that be done using v 2.x? MB *RitLabs is getting close to another full release.* So maybe I should wait a bit. MB I'm planning to get that latest one within days of its MB availability, ... MB However, not everyone has experienced this. ... MB I've been too lazy to learn Virtual Folders. In that case, you may not be the best person to ask to explain them to me. MB Everyone says they are a wonderful time-saver, however. I need to know more about them. All I can relate to at present is the virtual folder the Ticker (which I don't use) can create. Furthermore, most of the mail I receive is *never* read (which is why the Ticker doesn't serve my purpose - the volume of unread mail is too great). I use the Mail Dispatcher to Selectively Download as well as alert me to important incoming mail. For this reason, I don't need IMAP4 that much either and IAC, not all my account providers offer it. Despite Mic's example, I feel that adding html creation marks a detour from TB!'s original emphasis and the beginning of a wrong development path for TB! (which was motivated probably in order to cater to M$Express users in the USA, who are *not* oriented to TB!'s priorities, anyway. TB!'s principle competition / market consists of the apps used by by Eudora, Pegasus, Poco, Becky, PMMail and even Mozilla Messenger users - anyone *except* M$ addicts, IMO). MB Go get v. 2.11.02. If it's not good for you, roll back to v. MB 2.0.06. As I mentioned, I'm using v. 1.62, and no roll back is possible AFAIK, since the file format was changed - unless the original message files are saved, of course. At present, my prime motive for upgrading is that I have a corrupt TB! installment on my ThinkPad, due to a corrupt FAT32 Table in the Applications Partition have made me reinstall all of them in a slightly different manner (I lacked the original directory structure and installing a missing application can't be done), which resulted in AVG's plugin not working (virii aren't found until AVG's test is run, not while my email is downloaded, although very few get in anyway, because that's one of the things I check for when using the Mail Dispatcher - that's very easy if I select the size column). MB Both are much superior to v. 1.62, as far as my needs go. YMMV. (Your MB Mileage May Vary--am I turning into a Geek or what, Douglas? :) ) You are talking the talk. Now please explain in what way v 2.x is much superior to v. 1.62, in relation to your needs. What *are* your needs and how does v. 2 do a better job of meeting them? (This is an open question directed at any and all tbudlers who've gotten this far). TIA -- Douglas Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Douglas! On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 12:18 PM, you wrote: DH ... What *are* your needs and how does v. 2 do a better job of DH meeting them? Like you, I prefer to select my mails from the Mail Dispatcher. Don't know your other preferences, but I prefer to sort by Received time and view threads by None. I filter to five list folders. I filter to about half a dozen PM folders. All that works fine for me in v. 1.62. For some reason--I'm a very amateur user, with little knowledge and skills and not much native ability to acquire more--v. 2.xx loads about twice as fast for me. I use The Bat!'s back-up tool, and it backs up faster, also. I can't say for certain that it's the code in the new version doing that. I have one need you don't have which v. 2.xx meets: I want to use and see the Roguemoticons. This is only possible in v. 2.0.06 and higher. It's the reason I paid for the upgrade. The faster loads and backups were an unexpected bonus. But I *hate* the unstable folder View function. I'd roll back from v. 2.11.02 to v. 2.0.06, except the Smiley functions (a separate but related project to the Roguemoticons) are available only in 2.11.02 and in the subsequent betas. Note: I changed the subject line (which you changed back) to conform to the recently given Moderator request to make subject lines as specific as possible and to change the thread if there is a sharp veering of the topic under discussion within the thread. We talked about this once before on tbot. I had changed a subject line in order to conform to the informal consensus of tbotters that this should be done. You were, to say the least, quite vocally displeased. Now it is a formal requirement on the The Bat! moderated lists. Note regarding Virtual Folders, which you might like, as they let you read threads across folders without changing folders: I suggest that you make a complete new thread with a subject line something like: How Do Virtual Folders work? or How, told in simple steps, can I use Virtual Folders? There was a long thread on these when v. 2.xx first became available. But I doubt if you have time to search the archives and find the understandable and useable parts of it. Mostly it was Greek to me, as at the time I was still running v. 1.62. Sorry to be a PITA. But, it's your life, and you have to make your own decisions. I just try to offer information when I can, in memory of our many common interests outside The Bat! -- Best regards, Mary :Mary: The Bat! 2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Douglas, On 13 Jul 2004 at 12:18:35 -0500 GMT [19:18 CEST] you wrote: DH The question is, how are the virtual folders implemented? It sounds DH like messages from several accounts can be viewed in the same DH window, al la Calypso (which has an account column). They are folders that contain links to messages. The messages aren't really in there but you can manipulate them as if they were. DH The question is, how are the messages to be included selected? Two ways. Using the search tool you can save a search as a vf. Or you can create vf and then define a filter for it. DH In DH spite of what some TB! users (including a moderator friend) declare, DH there is no way to filter them accurately, IMO. I'd have to do it DH message by message, because: 1).- I have no way of anticipating the DH content or nature of some of the mail I am sent and therefore; 2).- DH My decisions are made on the fly, depending on what I find. DH Since I depend heavily on the Message Dispatcher, I'd prefer to DH select any mail I want put in the virtual window from there (just as DH I'd like to be able to flag and / or color mail from within the DH Message Dispatcher). You can create virtual folders that look for flagged messages or parked ones or those that belong to a certain colour group. The moment you mark them they will appear in the vf. The only thing I use virtual folders for is mails I want to reply to. I just flag them when I think I want to do that. -- Cheers, Andre :andre: The government of the people, by the people, for the people. Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Douglas Hinds, [DH] wrote: The question is, how are the virtual folders implemented? Create one. A folder appears. Go in the properties where you can define what's common to the messages that are to be displayed. There you can define strings and where they are pretty much as in filters. You then define which folders are to be 'watched' for matching messages. From there new matches are dynamically added as the real folders are watched. It sounds like messages from several accounts can be viewed in the same window, al la Calypso (which has an account column). Yes. The question is, how are the messages to be included selected? Through string searches and defined target folders. Since I depend heavily on the Message Dispatcher, I'd prefer to select any mail I want put in the virtual window from there (just as I'd like to be able to flag and / or color mail from within the Message Dispatcher). VF's cannot be used with the dispatcher. VF's work with messages that have already been downloaded to your real folders. MB *RitLabs is getting close to another full release.* So maybe I should wait a bit. :) Why??? Furthermore, most of the mail I receive is *never* read (which is why the Ticker doesn't serve my purpose - the volume of unread mail is too great). I use the Mail Dispatcher to Selectively Download as well as alert me to important incoming mail. For this reason, I don't need IMAP4 that much either and IAC, not all my account providers offer it. IMAP's strength is in managing the same e-mail account from multiple locations and PC's. When you move between PC's or IMAP clients all is as you left things on the other PC or in the other IMAP client. If you don't have need for this then you don't have need for IMAP. Despite Mic's example, I feel that adding html creation marks a detour from TB!'s original emphasis and the beginning of a wrong development path for TB! (which was motivated probably in order to cater to M$Express users in the USA, who are *not* oriented to TB!'s priorities, anyway. TB!'s principle competition / market consists of the apps used by by Eudora, Pegasus, Poco, Becky, PMMail and even Mozilla Messenger users - anyone *except* M$ addicts, IMO). Which all support HTML creation with the exception of probably Becky. You are talking the talk. Now please explain in what way v 2.x is much superior to v. 1.62, in relation to your needs. What *are* your needs and how does v. 2 do a better job of meeting them? (This is an open question directed at any and all tbudlers who've gotten this far). I wouldn't directly answer that question. But will give a response to your original question as well as this one. I genuinely suggest that you try TB! v2 and see for yourself. Stability is a very personal experience. Testimony to this is the miracle of your using a Win9x system and being Ok with its reliability. Same for Opera 3.x, I think. Those are two examples of the most unstable experiences of my computing life, and yet you don't have much problems with them and have more problems with what I personally find to be FAR better options. Additionally, I couldn't use Win9x or Opera 3.x because of the features I enjoy in WinXP and Opera 7. Same for TB! v1.6x vs v2.11. Our needs are clearly quite different and a testimony of what I find useful in TB! will very likely be followed by why you wouldn't find those same things useful. The dispatcher is a tool I never use and yet you find it indispensable. Finally, every TB! version has its problems and there'll be those who have their problems. Since you're one of those who seems to get on better with older versions of software, I'd be careful taking testimonies from v2 users that things are running great. There are those who enjoy each new release. There are those who have serious problems and those who have none. You really need to take it for a spin and see what it has to offer *you*. This roundabout way of finding out about it is odd and will likely not change anything much. -- -=[ Allie Martin ]=- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com pgpUOxs3TvHjk.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Allie, Andre, Mary and others following this thread, Thanks to all those who've take the time to respond. BTW, is *anyone+ else still using TB! v 1.x? In response to the message Allie Martin sent on 13/07/2004 regarding Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]) DH The question is, how are the virtual folders implemented? AM Create one. A folder appears. I had to quit downloading v.2. ReGet wouldn't let me download my mail. I'll do it tonight. AM Go in the properties where you can define what's common to the AM messages that are to be displayed. There you can define strings and AM where they are pretty much as in filters. AM You then define which folders are to be 'watched' for matching AM messages. AM From there new matches are dynamically added as the real folders are AM watched. Andre mentioned using it for the messages he wants to reply to. That sounds like the process is agile enough to set them up easily, for temporary use. It also sounds like there ought to be a toggle (flag or menu choice) created specifically for that purpose. It sounds like messages from several accounts can be viewed in the same window, a la Calypso (which has an account column). AM Yes. The question is, how are the messages to be included selected? AM Through string searches and defined target folders. Since I depend heavily on the Message Dispatcher, I'd prefer to select any mail I want put in the virtual window from there (just as I'd like to be able to flag and / or color mail from within the Message Dispatcher). AM VF's cannot be used with the dispatcher. VF's work with messages that AM have already been downloaded to your real folders. That was a suggestion (which was why I copied it to Stef). MB *RitLabs is getting close to another full release.* So maybe I should wait a bit. AM :) Why??? Because 1).- RitLabs is getting close to another full release (Mary said); and 2).- She also mentioned an irritating bug that might not be present in the coming version. Furthermore, most of the mail I receive is *never* read (which is why the Ticker doesn't serve my purpose - the volume of unread mail is too great). I use the Mail Dispatcher to Selectively Download as well as alert me to important incoming mail. For this reason, I don't need IMAP4 that much either and IAC, not all my account providers offer it. AM IMAP's strength is in managing the same e-mail account from multiple AM locations and PC's. When you move between PC's or IMAP clients all is AM as you left things on the other PC or in the other IMAP client. Good point. Using IMAP, the computers at cyber cafes could be used (w/o TB!, however). I am using two computers, one of which is portable and only deletes spam, while the desktop deletes the rest a week after their date. Also, IMAP means storing messages on the server and most of my accounts are free and therefore have limited server space, so storing them on two computers means more space and an automatic backup. Lastly, prodigy.net.mx has 3000 nodes in Mexico, plus access to the 800 in the USA (Telmex's owner bought Sears in Mexico, and Sears owns or owned Prodigy), so I can access the internet from almost any phone using the TP. AM If you don't have need for this then you don't have need for AM IMAP. Despite Mic's example, I feel that adding html creation marks a detour from TB!'s original emphasis and the beginning of a wrong development path for TB! (which was motivated probably in order to cater to M$Express users in the USA, who are *not* oriented to TB!'s priorities, anyway. TB!'s principle competition / market consists of the apps used by by Eudora, Pegasus, Poco, Becky, PMMail and even Mozilla Messenger users - anyone *except* M$ addicts, IMO). AM Which all support HTML creation with the exception of probably Becky. I don't even consider using any of them. The only back up email app I have installed is Foxmail (a good client, for a free mailer), and it's been a year or more since I've used it. You are talking the talk. Now please explain in what way v 2.x is much superior to v. 1.62, in relation to your needs. What *are* your needs and how does v. 2 do a better job of meeting them? (This is an open question directed at any and all tbudlers who've gotten this far). AM I wouldn't directly answer that question. But will give a response to AM your original question as well as this one. AM I genuinely suggest that you try TB! v2 and see for yourself. AM Stability is a very personal experience. We all operate under different conditions, with different hardware, different software and internet accesses. AM Testimony to this is the miracle of your using a Win9x system AM and being Ok with its reliability. Both of my computers run WinXP (one Pro, one Home). The first OS I used was OS/2 v 2.1, a better windows than windows, a better dos than dos, now used only by banks. AM Same for Opera
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Douglas Hinds, [DH] wrote: AM From there new matches are dynamically added as the real folders are AM watched. Andre mentioned using it for the messages he wants to reply to. I do the same. I created a colour group for replies. I then created a VF which will list all messages unreplied to and which have the 'for reply' colour group. So when I wish to mark a message for reply later on, I assign it the reply colour group. Since it's unreplied to it appears in the VF. When I reply to the message, it loses it's unreplied to status and therefore disappears from the VF. So maybe I should wait a bit. AM :) Why??? Because 1).- RitLabs is getting close to another full release (Mary said); Since the v1 to v2 step, Ritlabs has always been close to full releases. The next will be out shortly. :) and 2).- She also mentioned an irritating bug that might not be present in the coming version. One irritating bug tends to replace another. The question is how much do these bugs mean to you. What I'm trying to say is that there's no sense waiting. There are many using the current incarnation of v2 for serious work and without significant problems. The only reason I'd suggest waiting for the next full release before trying v2 would be for IMAP. It has undergone a lot of improvements since its debut in v2's initial offerings. AM Which all support HTML creation with the exception of probably Becky. AM Stability is a very personal experience. We all operate under different conditions, with different hardware, different software and internet accesses. Exactly. So the only way to know if TB! v2 will be stable for you is to actually try it. Features are another thing, but again there's only so much one can get out of a description of them. Both of my computers run WinXP (one Pro, one Home). Fabulous. Since when? :) The first OS I used was OS/2 v 2.1, a better windows than windows, a better dos than dos, now used only by banks. I lasted a couple months with Win95 and moved to OS/2 Warp. I agree wholeheartedly. OS/2 v2.1 was FAR better than Windows 3.1 and Warp 34 better than Win9x/ME and also NT4 in some respects. However, OS/2 stagnated while the others progressed. It's now a relic. :) The kind of mail you get allows you to systematize / automatize your mail to a greater extent. Also, your work may emphasize or require repetitive ways of doing certain tasks, where I need to innovate. I don't think it's the different type of mail but the difference in how we work and choose to approach mail management. -- -=[ Allie Martin ]=- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com pgp858aBjdHB5.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Mary and others following this thread, In response to the message Mary Bull sent on 13/07/2004 regarding Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]) DH ... What *are* your needs and how does v. 2 do a better job of DH meeting them? MB Like you, I prefer to select my mails from the Mail Dispatcher. MB Don't know your other preferences, but I prefer to sort by Received MB time and view threads by None. We coincide there too. I use a three panel vertical partition spit, with no main tool bar, just the configuration tool bar, on the left; and use both the American English and Spanish dictionaries. MB I filter to five list folders. I filter to about half a dozen PM MB folders. I counted 300 folders on an earlier installation, when I had 17 working accounts. MB All that works fine for me in v. 1.62. MB For some reason--I'm a very amateur user, with little knowledge MB and skills and not much native ability to acquire more--v. 2.xx MB loads about twice as fast for me. I use The Bat!'s back-up tool, MB and it backs up faster, also. I can't say for certain that it's MB the code in the new version doing that. That's good to know. MB I have one need you don't have which v. 2.xx meets: I want to MB use and see the Roguemoticons. This is only possible in v. MB 2.0.06 and higher. It's the reason I paid for the upgrade. The MB faster loads and backups were an unexpected bonus. Photos for the address book, I assume. (It's harder to check recent headers when hundreds of posts care the subject header and most are full of chit chat). MB But I *hate* the unstable folder View function. I'd roll back MB from v. 2.11.02 to v. 2.0.06, except the Smiley functions (a MB separate but related project to the Roguemoticons) are available MB only in 2.11.02 and in the subsequent betas. These are undoubtedly Moldavian terms g. MB Note: I changed the subject line (which you changed back) to MB conform to the recently given Moderator request to make subject MB lines as specific as possible My interpretation of that is different than yours. AFAIC, the theme hasn't changed. The thread remains: Whether or not it's time to upgrade from v. 1.62, which depends on the differences that exist between that version and the current release, as well as the existence or absence of bugs remaining in v. 2.11.02, and nothing else has been discussed. Furthermore, my post asked for responses, all of which I am reading. Rather than look for them within the mass of posts on other subjects, I selected the subject column. MB and to change the thread if there is a sharp veering of the MB topic under discussion within the thread. That hasn't happened. MB We talked about this once before on tbot. I had changed a MB subject line in order to conform to the informal consensus of MB tbotters that this should be done. You consulted with others before doing that, did you? MB You were, to say the least, quite vocally displeased. Not particularly. I simply changed it back, for the reasons stated above. MB Now it is a formal requirement on the The Bat! moderated lists. AFAIC, the subject hasn't changed. MB Note regarding Virtual Folders, which you might like, as they MB let you read threads across folders without changing folders: MB I suggest that you make a complete new thread with a subject line MB something like: How Do Virtual Folders work? or How, told in simple MB steps, can I use Virtual Folders? MB There was a long thread on these when v. 2.xx first became available. MB But I doubt if you have time to search the archives and find the MB understandable and useable parts of it. I see no point in fragmenting this thread. We are not discussing food, nor motor vehicles, nor vacation spots or even, running TB! under Linux. We are discussing v. 2.11.02 as compared to v. 1.62, both of which are on the RitLabs download page. MB Mostly it was Greek to me, I spent a month in Greece and understand a bit of it (a comment which doesn't change this thread). MB as at the time I was still running v. 1.62. MB Sorry to be a PITA. I don't say that. I referred to the bug you described. MB But, it's your life, I know. MB and you have to make your own decisions. And I decided to post and ask what I asked, so here we are. MB I just try to offer information when I can, in memory of our many MB common interests outside The Bat! Yes, Mary. Thank you for your helpful remarks. Also, it was nice to hear from again. BTW - Mexico is 2-1 with Ecuador at the moment, having beaten Argentina in a soccer game held a couple of days ago. Our women's team won over Australia the next day. (And please don't change the subject of any response to this post to a soccer thread unless no reference at all is made to TB! v. 2.11.02). -- Douglas Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Douglas! On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 7:50 PM, you wrote: DH These are undoubtedly Moldavian terms g. No. PCWSmileys are a feature that Leif had the help of 9Val to work out, and I was among a half dozen or so early beta testers on them, which soon mushroomed to many dozens, as the interest in using these increased--most of the use being on tbot. The term Roguemoticon is from Dierk, who offered it as the name for the new pictures for use in signatures that Leif also wrote the code for, based on 9Val's original Smiley code, as I understand it. The RitLabs programmers have now modified that code such that the Roguemoticons appear (as a user's option) in the headers. MB Note: I changed the subject line (which you changed back) to MB conform to the recently given Moderator request to make subject MB lines as specific as possible Allie had recently (just yesterday) reprimanded a friend of mine on this list for just such a catch-all subject as yours, when the discussion turned to a specific part. I was addressing a specific part, an annoying folder view settings behavior, that I understood, from reading the tbbeta list, had been cured in a beta release. Full release v. 2.12 has just been announced as out this evening. You might like to go to the RitLabs site and read about it. -- Best regards, Mary :Mary: The Bat! 2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])
Hello Allie and others following this thread, In response to the message Allie Martin sent on 13/07/2004 regarding Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?]) AM From there new matches are dynamically added as the real AM folders are watched. Andre mentioned using it for the messages he wants to reply to. AM I do the same. I created a colour group for replies. AM I then created a VF which will list all messages unreplied to and AM which have the 'for reply' colour group. So when I wish to mark a AM message for reply later on, I assign it the reply colour group. Since AM it's unreplied to it appears in the VF. When I reply to the message, AM it loses it's unreplied to status and therefore disappears from the AM VF. Very good. I intend to do that also. (I _would_ like to be able to assign a color to a message from within the Message Dispatcher, however). So maybe I should wait a bit. AM :) Why??? Because 1).- RitLabs is getting close to another full release (Mary said); AM Since the v1 to v2 step, Ritlabs has always been close to full AM releases. The next will be out shortly. :) and 2).- She also mentioned an irritating bug that might not be present in the coming version. AM One irritating bug tends to replace another. The question is how AM much do these bugs mean to you. AM What I'm trying to say is that there's no sense waiting. There AM are many using the current incarnation of v2 for serious work AM and without significant problems. All right, I'll try it. AM The only reason I'd suggest waiting for the next full release before AM trying v2 would be for IMAP. It has undergone a lot of improvements AM since its debut in v2's initial offerings. I can still upgrade again when it is issued. AM Which all support HTML creation with the exception of probably AM Becky. AM Stability is a very personal experience. We all operate under different conditions, with different hardware, different software and internet accesses. AM Exactly. So the only way to know if TB! v2 will be stable for you is AM to actually try it. When I began using TB! 1.35 (on a IBM Value Point 486 upgraded to an Evergreen AMD P133 3 small hard disks which I almost never turned off over 8 years), *nothing* except TB! would run smoothly. AM Features are another thing, but again there's only so much one can get AM out of a description of them. I'm hearing experiences. Both of my computers run WinXP (one Pro, one Home). AM Fabulous. Since when? :) A couple of years ago (2002). The first OS I used was OS/2 v 2.1, a better windows than windows, a better dos than dos, now used only by banks. AM I lasted a couple months with Win95 and moved to OS/2 Warp. Warp began with v. 3, then moved to 4 and sat there, forever. AM I agree wholeheartedly. OS/2 v2.1 was FAR better than Windows 3.1 and AM Warp 34 better than Win9x/ME and also NT4 in some respects. However, AM OS/2 stagnated while the others progressed. It's now a relic. :) It had 10 million users, at one time (but win95 had 90 million). IBM couldn't compete with M$'s promises. M$ managed to keep windows users on the line (and rebooting constantly) until they were finally able to duplicate the functions OS/2 already had, years earlier. Another factor driving M$ was making sure their new versions weren't compatible with OS/2. BG and GWB have a lot in common. While M$ was supposed to be developing OS/2 for IBM, it was getting it's own dos shell out the door instead. The kind of mail you get allows you to systematize / automatize your mail to a greater extent. Also, your work may emphasize or require repetitive ways of doing certain tasks, where I need to innovate. AM I don't think it's the different type of mail How many Sustainable Development, Alternative Agriculture, Co-op, GeneWatch and Political News lists do you subscribe to? You must get more biomed literature, though; and more things that need a reply. AM but the difference in how we work and choose to approach mail AM management. I have always taken your recommendations seriously, which is not to say I'm in the same situation. -- Douglas Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
