Hello Allie, Andre, Mary and others following this thread,
Thanks to all those who've take the time to respond. BTW, is *anyone+ else still using TB! v 1.x? In response to the message Allie Martin sent on 13/07/2004 regarding "Time to Upgrade (Was: One caveat about Folder View Settings in v. 2.11.02 [was Re: Time to Upgrade?])" DH>> The question is, how are the virtual folders implemented? AM> Create one. A folder appears. I had to quit downloading v.2. ReGet wouldn't let me download my mail. I'll do it tonight. AM> Go in the properties where you can define what's common to the AM> messages that are to be displayed. There you can define strings and AM> where they are pretty much as in filters. AM> You then define which folders are to be 'watched' for matching AM> messages. AM> From there new matches are dynamically added as the real folders are AM> watched. Andre mentioned using it for the messages he wants to reply to. That sounds like the process is agile enough to set them up easily, for temporary use. It also sounds like there ought to be a toggle (flag or menu choice) created specifically for that purpose. >> It sounds like messages from several accounts can be viewed in the >> same window, a la Calypso (which has an "account" column). AM> Yes. >> The question is, how are the messages to be included selected? AM> Through string searches and defined target folders. >> Since I depend heavily on the Message Dispatcher, I'd prefer to >> select any mail I want put in the virtual window from there (just as >> I'd like to be able to flag and / or color mail from within the >> Message Dispatcher). AM> VF's cannot be used with the dispatcher. VF's work with messages that AM> have already been downloaded to your real folders. That was a suggestion (which was why I copied it to Stef). MB>>> *RitLabs is getting close to another full release.* >> >> So maybe I should wait a bit. AM> :) Why??? Because 1).- RitLabs is getting close to another full release (Mary said); and 2).- She also mentioned an irritating bug that might not be present in the coming version. >> Furthermore, most of the mail I receive is *never* read (which is >> why the Ticker doesn't serve my purpose - the volume of unread mail >> is too great). I use the Mail Dispatcher to Selectively Download as >> well as alert me to important incoming mail. For this reason, I >> don't need IMAP4 that much either and IAC, not all my account >> providers offer it. AM> IMAP's strength is in managing the same e-mail account from multiple AM> locations and PC's. When you move between PC's or IMAP clients all is AM> as you left things on the other PC or in the other IMAP client. Good point. Using IMAP, the computers at cyber cafes could be used (w/o TB!, however). I am using two computers, one of which is portable and only deletes spam, while the desktop deletes the rest a week after their date. Also, IMAP means storing messages on the server and most of my accounts are free and therefore have limited server space, so storing them on two computers means more space and an automatic backup. Lastly, prodigy.net.mx has 3000 nodes in Mexico, plus access to the 800 in the USA (Telmex's owner bought Sears in Mexico, and Sears owns or owned Prodigy), so I can access the internet from almost any phone using the TP. AM> If you don't have need for this then you don't have need for AM> IMAP. >> Despite Mic's example, I feel that adding html creation marks a >> detour from TB!'s original emphasis and the beginning of a wrong >> development path for TB! (which was motivated probably in order to >> cater to M$Express users in the USA, who are *not* oriented to TB!'s >> priorities, anyway. TB!'s principle competition / market consists of >> the apps used by by Eudora, Pegasus, Poco, Becky, PMMail and even >> Mozilla Messenger users - anyone *except* M$ addicts, IMO). AM> Which all support HTML creation with the exception of probably Becky. I don't even consider using any of them. The only back up email app I have installed is Foxmail (a good client, for a free mailer), and it's been a year or more since I've used it. >> You are talking the talk. Now please explain in what way v 2.x is >> much superior to v. 1.62, in relation to your needs. What *are* your >> needs and how does v. 2 do a better job of meeting them? (This is an >> open question directed at any and all tbudlers who've gotten this >> far). AM> I wouldn't directly answer that question. But will give a response to AM> your original question as well as this one. AM> I genuinely suggest that you try TB! v2 and see for yourself. AM> Stability is a very personal experience. We all operate under different conditions, with different hardware, different software and internet accesses. AM> Testimony to this is the miracle of your using a Win9x system AM> and being Ok with its reliability. Both of my computers run WinXP (one Pro, one Home). The first OS I used was OS/2 v 2.1, a better windows than windows, a better dos than dos, now used only by banks. AM> Same for Opera 3.x, I think. It crashes when resources get low but doesn't freeze, a problem I have with the Mozilla and later Opera browsers (they're all installed). I like Firefox a lot (when it doesn't freeze on me), and Operas ability to change the color scheme, the cookie regimen and pull out the links (all of which v. 262 can do - but not the tabs). Thanks to tbot members suggestions I began to try out the M$IE shells and have been doing pretty well with NetCaptor ($15 if bought when downloading - since I had already used it on the other machine, I could invest with certainty). I hadn't gotten around to trying Slim Browser and another or two of the newer ones, though). AM> Those are two examples of the most unstable experiences of my AM> computing life, and yet you don't have much problems with them AM> and have more problems with what I personally find to be FAR AM> better options. In that case, we must be two different persons that can speak the same language. AM> Additionally, I couldn't use Win9x or Opera 3.x because of the AM> features I enjoy in WinXP and Opera 7. Same for TB! v1.6x vs v2.11. AM> Our needs are clearly quite different and a testimony of what I find AM> useful in TB! will very likely be followed by why you wouldn't find AM> those same things useful. The dispatcher is a tool I never use and yet AM> you find it indispensable. The kind of mail you get allows you to systematize / automatize your mail to a greater extent. Also, your work may emphasize or require repetitive ways of doing certain tasks, where I need to innovate. AM> Finally, every TB! version has its problems and there'll be AM> those who have their problems. Since you're one of those who AM> seems to get on better with older versions of software, I'd be AM> careful taking testimonies from v2 users that things are running AM> great. There are those who enjoy each new release. There are AM> those who have serious problems and those who have none. You AM> really need to take it for a spin and see what it has to offer AM> *you*. This roundabout way of finding out about it is odd and AM> will likely not change anything much. I always begin by doing a survey relative to the experience of others, if only to know what to look for. IOW, rather than roundabout, it's a valuable, initial, regimental step (from a different regimen, obviously). -- Douglas ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
