Hello Alto, >> While it's nice for you if you can immediately map 3.454.565 to an idea of >> the practical message size in your mind [...]
> Not exactly: > In a single glance I can tell that "3.454.565" is "a lot", just > because there are a lot of digits. Who cares how much it is exactly. > At the same time, I'd see that "3.2" is not much. It definitly doesn't > trigger my "what the $%& is this" reflex. I believe the 3,2 would be accompanied by an "MB" in the list, so if your list were full of different KBs and suddenly a 64,5 MB had appeared, IMO it would catch enough attention. > So, the current representation is a much quicker way for me to judge > sizes by first glance. If I get down to really reading it there isn't > much of a difference, but when just browsing the list there certainly > is. That'll probably qualify as "a matter of taste" a.k.a. "Geschmackssache". So why not make it configurable as was originally suggested? My main problem here is with opinions along the lines of "people have no business sending large mails so why bother with large figures". -- Best regards, Viktor Kabelac mailto:[email protected] ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 5.0.22.15 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
