I join/read the list on and off, and without starting another *specific* war regarding individual features and functions, I always wonder:
Do the vast majority of TB users run 386/486 machines? Are most users running with 450MB hard drives and 16 MB of RAM? During the era in which TB was first released, it's compactness was not only nice, but it was maybe even necessary. Today, in the year 2002, it seems just plain silly that so many folks go on and on about each and every byte that might be added to TB code. Either it will add "bloat", or increase the footprint, or require more bandwidth to exchanges messages. I certainly don't advocate turning TB into MS Outlook, but on the typical system of today, who really cares if TB grows by even a whole whopping megabyte or two? If that means it will get a facelift that will attract new users, and that it will move into the current millennium and support outgoing HTML, then I say "Go for it!". I see much of this "lets keep The Bat small" mentality as doing little more than strangling it. It's a great mail client, and it gets better all the time, but I fail to see the logic in keeping it small for "small's sake" to satisfy the passions of some of the fanatical *already registered* users. Give TB some mainstream appeal! Attract *new* users! Add HTML composition! Sure, some users will move to iScribe, because they feel the need to fit their mail client on a floppy, but many more users will evaluate and register a mail client that actually reflects the current era we're in with both features and visual appeal. Put those 386's and 486's out to pasture! Buy more RAM! Mark -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --> New Opcode #23: CPTCB - Call Programmer and Take Coffee Break -- ________________________________________________________ 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
