Hello R�mi,
On 6 Dec 2001 at 11:30:25 you wrote (at least in part):
>> Don't a lot of old DOS editors use free caret type interfaces?
RP> Who uses DOS these days? Please, that's history!
I dunno ... What's your OS? Win9x? OK, you're using DOS.
>> True, but the free caret system requires mono-spaced fonts.
RP> One more reason for the free caret to go. Ask normal e-mail users out
RP> there (i.e. not militant batters) what they would prefer and you'll
RP> see.
I'm for myself are absolutely happy with fixed fonts. In fact they
make reading messages more easy to me. Serifs lead my eyes through the
lines, and this monospacing lookout makes it easy to orientate to me.
BTW: my daily work is done in a *nix-console and this is even
with frambuffered 1024x786 every time fixed font displayed.
>> Perhaps, but trying to do a table with proportional fonts will
>> result in a total mess more times than not.
RP> First, who needs tables in an e-mail? Second, if you really need to
RP> create a table (once in a blue moon) you can use the spacebar. Third,
RP> you can be almost certain that a table created with TB will look awful
RP> to the recipient since 90% of all e-mail users have e-mail clients
RP> that use proportional fonts. That was my point and you have no answer
RP> to that.
Who needs tables? Not with boders, OK, but I do!
Look at this:
,-----= [ Some example stuff ] =-----
| Username: somebody
| Pass: secret
| Incoming Mail-Server: some.host.name.com
| Outgoing Mail-Server: some.other.host.com
| Incoming Server Port: 110
| Outgoing Server Port: 25
`-----= [ End Quote ] =-----
Now imagine this in TTF and the lines will all become different in
length (point (1)) plus is looks absolutely terrible.
The same in a tabled form:
,-----= [ The same stuff tabled ] =-----
| Username: somebody
| Pass: secret
| Incoming Mail-Server: some.host.name.com
| Outgoing Mail-Server: some.other.host.com
| Incoming Server Port: 110
| Outgoing Server Port: 25
`-----= [ End Quote ] =-----
Ain't it much easier to read. Monospaced PLUS tabled?
>> Toggle it [the auto-formatting feature] on and
>> off as necessary <ctrl><shift><F>. Unfortunately at this time, TB
>> does not make the current state of the auto-format function obvious.
RP> The point is that if you turn off the auto-format feature you have to
RP> hit Alt-L all the time to reformat manually.
No I don't! Leave 'Auto-Wrap' active and you're free to type until
your fingers glow. TB! will wrap every line correctly at position you
defined in "Options" / "Editor" / "Wrap text at". If a word don't fit
in that line it becomes wrapped to the next one. If line is _one word_
nothing becomes wrapped as TB! does not wrap within 'word characters'.
RP> Try Eudora's editor and you'll see how well the autoformat feature
RP> is implemented. That should be a lesson for TB's programmers.
IIRC It uses this soft-returns and sends out the line with a hard
return plus a special code ('=' as character in line) to define this
line should be continued but did not fit in 70 (80) character limit.
this limit is historical and there're still mail server that do not
transport lines longer than 80 characters. So a MUA has to wrap to be
sure. And think about this many, many *nix users that use e.g. 'mutt',
a command line MUA. You don't want to force them using a GUI MUA just
for you being able to write lines longer than distance
Earth-Moon-Earth, don't you?
>> The current beta series has taken that to a completely new level,
>> and may actually be the beta series for V2. You may not even see a
>> release of version 1.54.
RP> The only differences I see between 1.53d and the 1.54 series are
RP> giimmicks and obscure features and shortcuts that no-one needs in real
RP> life.
OK, I'll change my account settings and alter my Real-Name part to
'nobody'. BTW: I wouldn't call every new function in 1.54/Beta
'gimmick' or even 'obscure'. Some are very useful :-)
RP> TB will never become a serious alternative to major e-mail clients
RP> if its developpers don't look at what people need in the *real
RP> world*,
As e.g. Microsoft 'looks what people need'? Correct your sentence to
'look what the global players think people need' and your correct. How
many times I've seen people _really thinking_ they need what the new
software offers? But one intensive question what they _do_ need it for
and they stumbled. It's right, there're nice features around in
different software, but I don't want to call it all 'needed' only
because a global software producer wrote it.
You know what I need from TB!? Speed! And until now it offers speed.
OK, the current Beta has some resource problems, but that's a beta.
I've used Eudora when OE made me completely crazy with it's error
messages and obscure behaviors. And I got bored by it's sluggishness.
Several other thing don't fit my needs and was was looking for an
alternative ... and some day TB! crossed my way. I thought 'Uhhh ...
nice 16-Bit look' *g* But I tested ... and there was nearly nothing I
missed. It did one thing: handling my mail. And it did it fast. Really
fast. I wrote my mails without being forced to struggle with the
program, the editor or something else. As long as I did not used the
quick-templates I had no problems. Than I had to get used with QT's
and thought 'What a system ... Damn.'. But reading, trying and
understanding made me think 'Why the heck does no other MUA had this
before?' And so there're many things I miss in the
'need-what-people-need-in-real' MUAs. So why do _you_ want to tell me
you're able to decide what people need 'for real'????
RP> as opposed to a dedicated "fan club", which is what this mailing
RP> list sometimes appears to be.
If you're a power mailer and use TB! for a longer period of time you
would become a 'fan' too ... Because TB! advantages for people that
mail a lot are really amazing.
RP> TB's editor is the only one of its kind. Can it be that TB is
RP> right and all the others wrong? Highly unlikely.
No. TB! ain't 'right' ... It is 'different'. For
grandma-granny-is-writing-a-mail users OE is the easiest. Others like
Eudora or even Pegasus. I don't know the exactly count of MUAs out
there, but every has it's fans and users.
Some of us determined TB! is what _we_ need for mailing. It fits out
needs. Not 100% as you can see at the wish list(s), but mostly.
So for us TB! 'is right' and the others 'are wrong' but that's no
absolute statement, that's a personal decision!
If you don't like it, don't use it.
--
Regards
Peter Palmreuther mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Bat! v1.54 Beta/15 on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2)
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. - O. Wilde
--
________________________________________________________
Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Vers: 1.53d
FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
