Hello John,
The Bat! in unique in other aspects that it's features. It is stable
fast and stable. I never loose mail and the filtering and folder
settings are impressive.
I do not think that the Lite version should be free. It could sell for
a few $'s less with an easy upgrade path to the "Pro" version.
Personally I would be willing to pay full price for this Lite version
since it would be everything I need, nothing I don't. But that's
me. Others may consider a slimmer version less of an offering wanting
to pay less. Offering both at the same price could be an idea also
with a selling point for the Lite version that it is the fastest
smallest stable and tested e-mail client around. That would get me
hooked. Come to think of it, I am already hooked on The Bat! Lite or
not... :)
Thursday, May 17, 2001, 2:00:29 AM, you wrote:
C>> But as a selling point to get people to buy TB!, after a 30 day fully
C>> functional evaluation period, the "Lite" version would become default
C>> until a valid license is purchased.
C>> I applaud Stefan and Max for producing and continually updating an
C>> excellant product and believe they well deserved to be paid! By
C>> causing the evaluation version to migrate to a Lite version the
C>> customer will not loose their email, but they won't have access to the
C>> enhancements either....until a valid key is purchaced.
C>> Cheers,
C>> Cricket
JR> I think there might be a slight danger that the lite version will
JR> satisfy too many persons' needs and take income away from the main
JR> version(s). Take myself, for instance - I only became a Bat user
JR> because I was fed up with Outlook Express pulling back html material
JR> when online and insisting on dialling in when viewing html offline.
JR> The dial-in demand could be disabled but at the expense of affecting
JR> other functions and I wasn't happy with the security aspect of html
JR> handling either.
JR> I didn't want a client with embedded advertising/spyware but needed
JR> good handling of multiple accounts and reasonably powerful filters.
JR> The Bat fitted the bill fine but the networking features, pgp, macros
JR> and templates are all redundant for me. In fact, I disable the mail
JR> ticker, find the editor a pain and also wipe most of the account
JR> default template settings. I'm not saying this is the way it should be
JR> - just that I'm sure there is a section of the market where people's
JR> needs are quite basic but they do not want to use OE or other html
JR> clients.
JR> One of the program's biggest plusses for me is the message dispatcher
JR> - I had no idea it was there for a couple of months until I found it's
JR> use being discussed on the mail list. As a feature, it is just
JR> described in the Help file as 'Manage your mail on the pop server' -
JR> what underselling for new users! An old hand or systems administrator
JR> might recognise the implications of this description straight away but
JR> a lot of people won't. It's an absolute godsend for deleting large
JR> mails, unsolicited or otherwise, without having to download them or
JR> apply a universal size block on a account that stops everything. Yes,
JR> I could telnet into my account but that's obscure for most people and
JR> this feature makes it so much easier. I know people who on being sent
JR> an unsolicited 5mb attachment will just moan about their phone bill
JR> and sit there while it downloads!
JR> My thoughts would be to stick to the current arrangement but to bear
JR> in mind the Bat customer base are a pretty varied lot and easy to use
JR> configuration of features is probably, IMHO, a better option than
JR> producing a lite version.
JR> John Rainer
--
Best Regards,
Christian Dysthe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://christian.dysthe.tripod.com
ICQ: 3945810
"Denial is not a river in Egypt"
--
______________________________________________________
Archives : <http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com>
Moderators : <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TBTech List: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
