On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:40:44 +0000, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
> MK> If this is true, then this may not provide other TB! users enough
> MK> initiative to report program bugs and problems since their effort,
> MK> time, and work is not worthwhile to RIT Labs.
>
> While this is absolutely true and not acceptable for a large and fully
> staffed software house, those of us that are more used to the lack of
> response from the less well endowed labs accept that they are busy
> guys and submit bug reports wherever we can to make their job easier,
> with or without feedback ;-).
I hate spending time analyzing, testing, and duplicating problems in a
program and sending them to the software company where they end up in the
Trash folder or /dev/null. If I know my message(s) containing bug
reports, or design flaws :), will be hopefully acknowledge where the
problem will be fixed in the program, this is more initiative to send
those bug reports to RIT Labs.
> To be fair, "Showstopper" bugs that are "every time" issues are
> usually fixed with a few days (if that long). There aren't many bugs
> like that left in TB.
Hopefully RIT Labs can correct the Ctrl-* bug, what I refer to a bug since
it is easily reproducible here on several computers running Windows 2000,
and prevent TB! from crashing.
> For the most part, it's pretty stable software.
> What's more, it does the job it's supposed to do *extremely* well
> IMHO.
TB! is a fabulous e-mail client. If I did not experience the adjusting
message columns problem with enduring the Ctrl-* problem/bug too, I would
probably make TB! my primary e-mail client to use. TB! runs fast and
seems to be very reliable. However, there are few minor tasks that I do
in TB! that makes it crash.
> MK> I have never seen an e-mail client designed to adjust the message
> MK> columns based on the Subject thread expansion.
>
> Nor have I. I didn't say that it was a *good* design. Actually, the
> consensus (even from me) is that it isn't. I'm just trying to say that
> *this* issue (shifting subject when expanding threads) is down to an
> incorrect design decision that we're kind of stuck with right now.
I thought you were first agreeing that the adjusting message columns when
expanding the message threads is a correct design. I see now that you
agree and basically stating how it just works in TB!. I cannot stand
threading messages by subject since I have always used threading by
references. Once you attain yourself to a particular message reading
method, it is very hard to break the method.
> MK> This is the first ever. If this is not a bug and it is a design,
> MK> then this should be referred to a design flaw.
>
> Agreed.
Wow! We agree on something! :)
> MK> This reminds me of the Microsoft saying, "it is not a bug, but a
> MK> feature." :)
>
> LOL. Understood, but disagreed for the current context <g>.
That was meant to be an aside remark.
> MK> I encountered two other bugs (or designs) in TB! 1.49 that will
> MK> definitely crash TB! 1.49:
>
> These are bugs for sure, not designs.
>
> MK> #1:
>
> <snip>
>
> I can't confirm this one :-(.
I kept experience this bug where it about drove me crazy. This is one of
the reasons why I am using Agent 1.8 right now rather than TB!.
> MK> #2:
>
> MK> (X) List index out of bounds.
>
> Confirmed!
What a bug. :)
> MK> ... After exiting and running TB! several times, I was able to
> MK> read messages in the mail folders.
>
> Pass. I've not seen this happen and don't know how to make it happen
> from your description.
I do not know how to make it happen again, but I experience this problem
twice today alone with unintentionally experiencing the problem.
> MK> After reading your first part of this message, this gives me no
> MK> ambition and initiative to report these problems to RIT Labs since
> MK> they will probably ignore them.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I said "don't expect a response". I didn't say
> "you'll be ignored". There's quite a bit of difference. They certainly
> read them all and, if 1) the problem description is sufficient to
> allow them to reproduce it and 2) if the fix isn't going to break
> anything else or take an inordinate amount of time for the improvement
> in functionality then they will try to make the repair.
It is hard not to have the feeling of being ignored when you receive no
response(s) back. I am not talking about any automated or canned
responses, but a real response from a real human with insight to the
problem(s)/bug(s).
> MK> ... Could you cite the message from the TBUDL archives for me?
>
> There have been several places where this behaviour has been
> discussed. Firstly with TB v1.36
>
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:11:16 -0500
> From: Ali Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Message list comments.
>
> ... and the ensuing thread. This was a very early conversation on
> exactly the same point as you are making. You can see by this how far
> back the issue has been complained about - and there has not been a
> single defender of this design.
>
> Then there was this thread...
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:46:34 +0200
> From: Oliver Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Column width with threading
>
> ...and especially...
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:36:40 -0700
> From: Ming-Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Column width with threading
>
> ... and an entire related thread.
>
> Then, very recently ...
>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:26:38 +1100
> From: John Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Old Bat bug!
>
> ... and the ensuing explanations.
>
> HTH.
I will review those messages from the archives.
--
______________________________________________________
Archives : <http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com>
Moderators : <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TBTech List: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
