Tony, [T] wrote: > The 1st thing I do after installing XP is reverting everything to > classic w2k look.
Choice. It's all a matter of choice. Roelof recently stated that TB! doesn't look any different to him since he still uses the glyph set he likes. With your glyph set and the classic Windows look, you'll not see any difference with TB!. The fact that you immediately switch to the classic look is testimony to the fact the even you care about the appearance of your applications. However, what about those who use the XP look and quite understandably wish TB! to have the consistent XP look like most other applications they run have? Should Ritlabs ignore them? I absolutely think not since appearance *does* mean a lot to users. >> Putting reliability and robust functionality aside as being a must, an >> attractive interface adds a lot to an application that requires day to >> day user interaction. > But v2 had a nice look. For you. v3 can be made to look like v2 so you can be made happy. Those who like a more compatible XP look can be happy. TB! now has an appearance that can be altered to please more users. I'd say this makes TB! a better app for more where appearance is concerned. Not a wasted effort at all. > Fat icons are one of the reasons that scared me away from Outlook > (and Eudora) So the looks can attract and scare away users. 'Drab' icons have many disgruntled about TB! too. The beauty of TB! is that you can still use your icons of choice. http://www.thebatworld.de/system/sections/index.php?op=listarticles&secid=10 > And even if RitLabs hired 100 graphics artists TB! will never be > main stream. It's targeted at a different market than Outlook. A > market with people that are prepared to invest more time in an > application. And I could be very wrong here but I think that kind of > people are teh ones that complain the most about bloatware. Yes. You could be wrong, and I do believe you're wrong on this unfounded assumption. > On itself not. But somehow it often goes hand in hand with > instability/bloating. Everything can be programmed bugfree. However > company policy dictates how long is spend on tracking bugs. I disagree here. I'm saying that bugs are in TB!, many are frustrated with their bugs not being fixed, and many quite unreasonably cast a lot of blame/attention/emphasis on the changes being made to the user-interface appearance as being the reason for this. I've outlined a lot bigger development efforts/enhancements that are occurring concurrently. Overwhelming reasonably bugfree development with the simultaneous introduction of all these new components seems like the bigger problem here. Simultaneous introduction of features quite likely borne of a strong desire to please customers. > Sure it makes it larger. But I'm also sure that TB! could fit in half > the size! But that would take a lot longer to program. I'm aware of that. > It's just like K9. Below 100Kb and outperforms all/most 4MB+ > spam filters. I don't have enough knowledge or information to argue on this so I'll reserve any comments on this to those who wish to. I do smell a heavy dose of speculating/conjecture here but I just can't be certain. > That probably would be a better approach. I do a little programming > myself and I learned that debugging every feature before adding more > functionality saves lots of time later. Yes. Seems reasonable and I witness this approach with MDaemon, my mailserver. They run an exemplary beta program with a top-notch and very stable mailserver resulting. Of course, there are always bugs being reported. :) > But please, I'm personally really getting tired of the comments about > what I'm allowed to say :-) I don't see how on earth I can really determine or have direct influence on what you choose or choose not to post here. I can only post my own opinion as well. Being tired of reading a particular sentiment is just another sentiment. It cannot and therefore should not be construed as a request to stop posting such a sentiment. > If everybody shuts up how should RitLabs know what its users wants. > And you selectively snipped all the stuff I said in favour of RitLabs > to make it look like hate mail. Can we be reasonable here? No one is telling anyone here to shut up. Accusing me of making your mail out to be hate mail is a bit over the top too. > Besides I think you missed my point about icons and smilies. > History has proven that it very often (not always) is a start of bloatware. (not always) This is my rebuttal. Not always. Let's not jump to conclusions. They do not contribute significantly to coding time when looking at TB!'s overall development progress and it's not like TB!'s appearance should be left alone while Windows appearance is changing and general application appearances are changing all around. Fire up a Windows 3.1 application and the same for an application in 2004 and you see what I mean. Whether one looks better than the other isn't the point. The point is that they're quite different, and it's reasonable for RIT to wish TB!'s appearance to be compatible with XP's look and for TB! to look like an application in 2004. How that implies or heralds the road to bloat is beyond me. <shrug> -- -= Allie =- The Bat!� v3.0 � Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2) ..... 10 out of 5 doctors feel it's OK to be skitzo! ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
