Philip Chee wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:49:47 -0800, Rufus wrote:Philip Chee wrote:...that's sort of funny...given that it's about the reverse of how I feel about SM 1.1.18 vs SM 2.x.x...On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:44:15 -0800, Rufus wrote:I do keep Thunderbird 3.x around just to evaluate it and I'm quite pleased with it - more so than I might have expected.There appear to be a very vocal minority of veteran SeaMonkey1.1^WThunderbird2.0 users who hate, absolutely hate the new SeaMonkey2.0^WThunderbird3.0 and are sticking resolutely to the old version (or threatening to move to Outlook Express (?!?). PhilI installed TB 3.0 expecting to hate it, and ended up loving it compared to what got under my skin about SM 2.0. First thing I noted was that their Mac presentation was far more "Mac-like" than the new SM default...and maybe that's what people hate most!I suppose that it's what you are familiar with. TB3 was a big leap not just in features but in significant changes to the UI. If you've spent years burning TB2 into your muscle memory, you might get upset that your favourite wossits aren't in their accustomed locations - even or especially if the UI is more Mac-like. Phil
Yeah...I had also been using TB 2.x prior to 3.0...so I did have some expectations based on my negative experience with SM 2.0 - I installed TB 3.0 sometime after I had been fooling around with the newer SM, so I wasn't really expecting to be thrilled.
I was, and surprisingly so...I immediately liked the tabs, and everything was where I would have expected it to be on a Mac. It also didn't seem like I lost any functionality for what I do with TB like I did with SM 2.x.x, and that was also of note.
Maybe that team has more Mac users on it or something, but from my Mac user standpoint they got a lot of stuff right. Kudos to them.
--
- Rufus
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
