Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Thunderbird

blog.thunderbird.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 473 posts

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#371

Post by no_news_is »

neogodless wrote: post #83
formerly_proven wrote: post #5

> “Why does Thunderbird look so old, and why does it take so long to change?” ~ A notable percentage of Thunderbird users Honestly this doesn't seem like the main issue with Thunderbird; the main issue is that the UI is very slow, it tends to use a lot of CPU and memory just sitting there and a lot of operations block the UI. This got a lot worse with 102. 102 unfortunately is so low in responsiveness that it's liter…

Anecdotally, on my high-end desktop, with 2 Google accounts and a NameCheap private email account (all IMAP), Thunderbird is sitting at 0-0.2% CPU, 2 entries in task manager totaling 190.3 MB. It does have a quirk with IMAP, in that it only checks your main folder until you visit a sub-folder. Then it'll check those, but even then, any time I go in and click a folder, it tends to react by "really checking." But quirk…

Besides the sibling comment by Gare to change the default, you can do this on a per-folder basis by right-clicking, Properties... and checking the box: "When getting new messages for this account, always check this folder"

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#372

Post by klooney »

dhdgrygev wrote: post #322
formerly_proven wrote: post #5

> “Why does Thunderbird look so old, and why does it take so long to change?” ~ A notable percentage of Thunderbird users Honestly this doesn't seem like the main issue with Thunderbird; the main issue is that the UI is very slow, it tends to use a lot of CPU and memory just sitting there and a lot of operations block the UI. This got a lot worse with 102. 102 unfortunately is so low in responsiveness that it's liter…

I'm super confused to come here and see people complain about its performance. For me it runs lightning fast, especially compared to other tools like Outlook. Clicking any message loads it instantly, searching through my 30000 emails in 10 different accounts is also instant, etc. Why is my experience so different? Mostly everything is on default settings. Pretty much the only complaint I have about this tool is that…

What operating system do you use? I think Windows, Mac and Linux have pretty different performance characteristics with Firefox and Thunderbird.

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#373

Post by dreamcompiler »

I hope the Thunderbird crew understand how incredibly important this software is and how much some of us depend on it. Good IMAP clients are hard to write and most civilians have become so used to crappy browser-based email that there's not much demand for IMAP clients except among people like the ones who frequent this website.

Apple ruined their IMAP client ("Mail") a few years ago so now that world is basically Outlook and Thunderbird, and I'm sure I don't need to describe why Outlook is unacceptable.

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#374

Post by userbinator »

neogodless wrote: post #83
formerly_proven wrote: post #5

> “Why does Thunderbird look so old, and why does it take so long to change?” ~ A notable percentage of Thunderbird users Honestly this doesn't seem like the main issue with Thunderbird; the main issue is that the UI is very slow, it tends to use a lot of CPU and memory just sitting there and a lot of operations block the UI. This got a lot worse with 102. 102 unfortunately is so low in responsiveness that it's liter…

Anecdotally, on my high-end desktop, with 2 Google accounts and a NameCheap private email account (all IMAP), Thunderbird is sitting at 0-0.2% CPU, 2 entries in task manager totaling 190.3 MB. It does have a quirk with IMAP, in that it only checks your main folder until you visit a sub-folder. Then it'll check those, but even then, any time I go in and click a folder, it tends to react by "really checking." But quirk…

A mail client taking up to 0.2% CPU doing nothing (I assume you're not interacting with it, nor is it trying to download/upload mail or similar), on a "high-end desktop", is itself a little surprising.

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#375

Post by seabrookmx »

masterof0 wrote: post #164

Thunderbird used to be a Native email client, that was awesome. I want an native email client, contacts and calendar. That's it. I dislike the browser tabs inside Thunderbird (I already use Firefox), either make a web version or keep the native version native. Most of the Thunderbird user base, are the ones that preferred the OG version. Not everything have to be a webview. Maybe they don't want users like me anymore…

OG thunderbird may have been better but it wasn't technically native. It used XUL instead of HTML but both were rendered by Gecko.

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#377

Post by qu4z-2 »

oaiey wrote: post #63
Veen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UI isn't a fashion show. Yes, it is. At least, it is for UI designers.

Also for the users. For my part, I appreciate if stuff looks modern. I understand the whitespace madness complaints, but a software which looks like 1999 is not something I want to work with. There is a degree of modern style needed because Thunderbird does not exist in a vacuum. Windows evolved, macOS evolved, iPhone/Android look different than 1997 Windows .. which Thunderbird looked like the last years.

Next you'll be moving my steering wheel 'cause my neighbour repainted his house.

Re: The Future of Thunderbird

#378

Post by zerocrates »

GordonS wrote: post #74
wielebny wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no support for O365, unless you pay for a 3rd party plugin It seems that Thunderbird supports O365 oauth natively now, including access to calendars. I know I had to use some plugins in the past, but now, it just works.

Hmm, I literally just double-checked before posting (with the beta version, too), and it still says it needs a plugin? Maybe I need to look a bit closer.

I definitely used Thunderbird for an O365 account that required 2FA and so had to use OAuth, back to.... 2021 at least, I think. Though I think you might have had to know to change the auth method to OAuth to get it working, at least at the time.
Post reply on HN