Hi Roman Katzer, On 19/01/2005 11:13 PM, you wrote: > I'm curious. What do you see as the most important advantages and > disadvantages of both clients? What do you like most and least about both?
My sentiments are based on my being a full IMAP user: ThunderBird is simpler so more attention is paid to simple functionality. This is very good since though we may do sophisticated things, we spend most of our time doing the simple things which include reading and replying to mail. ThunderBird does this very well. It's very efficient at retrieving mail as an IMAP client and it's highly reliable at the task. Keyboard navigation is nice and easy. I hit 'n' to move to the next unread message. It's very awkward leaving the letter 'n' to hit 'CTRL+]'. Ritlabs made a colossal error sacrificing all single keyboard shortcuts in the name of quick-searching which could have been preserved, but first invoked by a keyboard shortcut. Afterall, we spend far more time moving from message to message, rather than quick searching our messages. ThunderBird's model seems to revolve around a solidly working and protected foundation which is enhanced via the addition of extensions. TB! is highly functional and I do admire it for this reason. I use a lot of this functionality, so it's the client that I prefer using, though not without frustration. From an IMAP standpoint, it's reliable for me, though problematic. I can't use it at work since it's not efficient enough in low bandwidth environments. These issues are fundamental. They comprise the groundwork and need to be addressed. In all fairness, I must admit that both applications histories are different in that TB!'s IMAP support is relatively young while ThunderBird was built as an IMAP client. As a result with TB!, we end up with a major piece of fundamental functionality in evolution amidst quite advanced and well developed functionality. It certainly amplifies the reality that without a good base, the advanced stuff becomes useless. It's the basic functionality that keeps that basic and frequent user happy without concern for the more advanced features. It's that basic functionality that makes the user interested in the advanced functionality, not too frustrated and wondering why a client with such great advanced functionality, has such fundamental problems. The fundamental issues also concern the editors, the general interface, and appearance. -- Cheers, -= Allie =- Imagination is more important than knowledge - Einstein
________________________________________________ Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
