281–290 of 358 posts
Wonder what the hard-drive footprint this takes now, my version; 60.9.1(32-bit) takes 126MB and i consider that bloated for what it is. At the Thunderbird 60.9 release mark; Pegasus footprint was 30MB, Opera Mail was 38MB, Sylpheed was 28MB, even the Bat was only 50MB. I run Thunderbird portable from a data pen, which is why this metric is important to me (i realize it won't be for the majority of users). Edit; Okay…
The problem with E-Mail is always html.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love thunderbird but I don't understand their update schedules. I just now got an update (thought it would be to 115) but it's to 102 [1]. In the release notes of 102 it says it was made public only 5 days ago (and they say 115 is coming soon). And seemingly it can't update to 115? Am I missing something here? [1] https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/102.13.0/relea... [edit] okay it seems 115 is not yet re…
That threw me for a loop. I went to download 115 and got 102. I've mostly stuck with webmail (Fastmail for personal, Gmail for work) but would love to get back to a local client. So I'm willing to give the new Thunderbird a shot, but it's perplexing when they advertise 115 and give me 102 and it's really unclear how to get the nifty stuff they're advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, I don't think they'll be able to. I have had the displeasure of using their web Outlook client and it was absurdly buggy for a software company of the stature of Microsoft. I can only imagine how terrible the web version of a complex software like Excel will be. Not to mention the poor performance. There's no way they will lose all of their finance customers like that... but, it's Microsoft, so... who knows. S…
Users can't run macros or create macros in the office webapps. Seems like a major step backwards in usability. > Although you can't create, run, or edit VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) macros in Excel for the web, you can open and edit a workbook that contains macros. Any existing macros will remain in the workbook, and you can open the workbook in the Excel desktop app to view and edit the macros. https://suppor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can only imagine how terrible the web version of a complex software like Excel will be. It's actually not that terrible, but I believe it's nowhere near feature parity. Not to mention there is a galaxy of add-ons that still need to be rewritten from scratch to work on the web version, and a lot of people cannot live without them. Excel is a classic case of 80% of users requiring 20% of all functionality, but that…
If you don't have feature parity, you really are in trouble, because then you are competing with Google Sheets, on which actually competent engineers are working.
What happened to the look that was announced? [0] The announcement was way more modern than the screenshot that is shown now. [0]: https://developer.thunderbird.net/planning/roadmap
That concept looks so much better than the result, it's not even close.
I don't want to take away from the work that has been done here, but like .. just copy the design? You can take screenshots and compare to the design until it matches. It looked amazing, I feel bad for the designer because their vision has really been lost in what's been implemented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are actually four "outlook" implementations now. 1. Outlook desktop - old MFC / win32 crapfest 2. Windows Mail / Calendar - new WPF crapfest. 3. O365 online outlook / outlook.com - fat web app. 4. "New" Outlook - this is a fat Electron style app based on the web app. The latter is actually pretty good - been using it for a couple of months. This is apparently going to replace all the other ones on the desktop.
5. iOS Outlook 6. MacOS Outlook
I'm an avid Thunderbird user and I like to support the team making it, but drives me crazy that sending them money costs 8%. So if you give them $100, they only get $92.
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/donate/
I know Mozilla is anti-crypto, but there still has to be a cheaper way to send them money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Information density can be very overwhelming and a factor for stress. Often a lower density is totally enough and less stressful to use. Providing an optional "compact mode" for people with smaller screens or who prefer denser layouts would be my way to go.
I’m interested to know where this idea comes from. Is there a good reference you recommend? My anecdotal experience has been that low density websites like Medium are more stressful than higher density websites like Substack/HN because I have to do more work to read the text on the page.
I find the UX for GMail, for example to be particularly good, not perfect but very very good for the task. The biggest issue I have with gmail is really folder and rule management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone correct me if wrong but "outlook for windows" is not the same as "office outlook". The first one seems like it was created to fill the hole of outlook express and the mail app that came out later. i.e. the free email application that windows ships with.
There are actually four "outlook" implementations now. 1. Outlook desktop - old MFC / win32 crapfest 2. Windows Mail / Calendar - new WPF crapfest. 3. O365 online outlook / outlook.com - fat web app. 4. "New" Outlook - this is a fat Electron style app based on the web app. The latter is actually pretty good - been using it for a couple of months. This is apparently going to replace all the other ones on the desktop.
You must be using a different New Outlook than me. I've been conscripted into trying it before the mass rollout to the rest of my company. It's so slow and missing so many features from the Old Outlook that it's only really usable for the most basic tasks.
It hit me that they may be listening to their users more than most desktop app developers when I scrolled to the section about display density. The overwhelming majority of modern desktop apps have exploded the use of white-space and grossly reduced the information density of applications. Mind you, I suspect I will personally want an even more dense setting than their current densest option. But having density settings demonstrated front and center gives me hope.
I'm also concerned that I will still want a traditional three-pane split view (folders at left, message list at top-right, message text at bottom-right). Many desktop users do not run their mail client fully maximized, so a horizontally-biased window size should not be assumed. I run Thunderbird on the left half of a single monitor, meaning it's taller than it is wide. A three-column view will probably not use that space well.
I'm guessing this is not an Electron app. If I am right, that alone deserves praise.
In sum, I am now cautiously optimistic!