If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
pws wrote:
> On 7/4/2010 11:51 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> Mutt and slrn are far, far more "simple" than Thunderbird (which is a >> huge, bloated program) or Live Mail (which is from Microsoft -- 'nuf >> said). > > Chris, do you find this to be simple? > > http://www.mutt.org/ > > Thunderbird is bloated, I agree, but it runs very well on my two ancient > machines, and the fact that we are communicating now shows that it works > at doing what I need it to do. > > Pat > > look at the screen shots of mutt and you can tell why it lacks popularity. not saying that it is bad, and certainly the totally text based interface is what makes it fast and that is probably its appeal to those that like it. http://www.mutt.org/screenshots/ here is a nice round up of some readers with a good comparison and lots of interesting user comments to boot. note that this selection are cross platform readers, meaning products that are available in windows, osx, and linux. as such you won't find mutt and a few others on the list. http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/downlo...x-windows.html that said, thunderbird is a no brainer. it works well, is a mature product (you can import your old mail from tons of other readers, is widely used, and is widely supported. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
"Christopher Muto" > wrote in message t... > look at the screen shots of mutt and you can tell why it lacks popularity. > not saying that it is bad, and certainly the totally text based interface > is what makes it fast and that is probably its appeal to those that like > it. > http://www.mutt.org/screenshots/ > here is a nice round up of some readers with a good comparison and lots of > interesting user comments to boot. note that this selection are cross > platform readers, meaning products that are available in windows, osx, and > linux. as such you won't find mutt and a few others on the list. > http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/downlo...x-windows.html > that said, thunderbird is a no brainer. it works well, is a mature > product (you can import your old mail from tons of other readers, is > widely used, and is widely supported. Thanks Christopher, I see exactly what you mean, the screenshot helped. So far we got T-Bird set up and running, imported contacts and such and seems to be working well. I doubt my wife will ever use a newsgroup but I might give T-Bird a shot on this computer to see how it does as a news reader. Everyone is always talking trash about OE / Windows Mail as a news reader but, it's all I've ever used. Thanks again! Chris 99BBB |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> > "Christopher Muto" > wrote in message > t... >> look at the screen shots of mutt and you can tell why it lacks >> popularity. not saying that it is bad, and certainly the totally text >> based interface is what makes it fast and that is probably its appeal >> to those that like it. >> http://www.mutt.org/screenshots/ >> here is a nice round up of some readers with a good comparison and >> lots of interesting user comments to boot. note that this selection >> are cross platform readers, meaning products that are available in >> windows, osx, and linux. as such you won't find mutt and a few others >> on the list. >> http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/downlo...x-windows.html >> >> that said, thunderbird is a no brainer. it works well, is a mature >> product (you can import your old mail from tons of other readers, is >> widely used, and is widely supported. > > > Thanks Christopher, I see exactly what you mean, the screenshot helped. > So far we got T-Bird set up and running, imported contacts and such and > seems to be working well. I doubt my wife will ever use a newsgroup but > I might give T-Bird a shot on this computer to see how it does as a news > reader. Everyone is always talking trash about OE / Windows Mail as a > news reader but, it's all I've ever used. > > Thanks again! > Chris > 99BBB > oe is ok but it had quirks. the data files were stored in a bazzar location, but that could be changed to a sub folder of 'my documents' so that you could back up your mail along with all of your other data. however the address book was stored to yet another bazzar location and that could not be modified making backup of the address book difficult. thunderbird stores everything (address book, mail, newsgroups) in one location that they call a profile. it separates mail from newsgroups (something that ie does not do) so you don't have to backup all your newsgroup data which can be sizeable. the entire profile can be moved/relocated to a common folder like 'my documents\thunderbird' to make backup easier. i don't think microsoft killed ie becuase it was a bad product but rather to try to get people to sign up to live/hotmail to help bolster membership in the face of gmail taking market share. since they did not offer an alternative on vista/windows7 machines many people just went ahead with getting a live account as it is seemingly the easier thing to do. smarter people install thunderbird enjoy. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
"Christopher Muto" > wrote in message > i don't think microsoft killed ie becuase it was a bad product but > rather to try to get people to sign up to live/hotmail to help bolster > membership in the face of gmail taking market share. since they did not > offer an alternative on vista/windows7 machines many people just went > ahead with getting a live account as it is seemingly the easier thing to > do. smarter people install thunderbird > > enjoy. In this case, it's 'people with smarter friends' who went with T-Bird ;-) And, I think you're right about MS's motivation for the Windows Live deal. cd 99BBB |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
On 7/07/2010 3:11 p.m., Christopher Muto wrote:
> since they did not > offer an alternative on vista/windows7 machines many people just went > ahead with getting a live account as it is seemingly the easier thing to > do. smarter people install thunderbird > I use Thunderbird (usenet) and live mail (email). Just to make it clear, you do not need to sign up to a windows live or "hotmail" account to use live mail. MS may make it appear that way as they wan people to sign up, but live mail works perfectly fine (and better than OE or Vista mail) as a stand-alone application. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
Me wrote:
> On 7/07/2010 3:11 p.m., Christopher Muto wrote: >> since they did not >> offer an alternative on vista/windows7 machines many people just went >> ahead with getting a live account as it is seemingly the easier thing to >> do. smarter people install thunderbird >> > I use Thunderbird (usenet) and live mail (email). > Just to make it clear, you do not need to sign up to a windows live or > "hotmail" account to use live mail. MS may make it appear that way as > they wan people to sign up, but live mail works perfectly fine (and > better than OE or Vista mail) as a stand-alone application. true. kind of like you could use oe without using windows messenger that would open automatically (and could not be closed without closing oe). but windows live is all about the online synchronization with live.com so that your address book, calendar, etc is synced with the live.com account. it is not necessarily a bad things to have your data automatically backed up, but you are putting your personal information on somebody else's server. i recall when google released google buzz, its social network answer to facebook, and to get their gmail users started they automatically created accounts with all the people in your address book as 'friends' letting the world know everyone that you know. nice huh? of course it was pretty quickly reversed but such is the risk of having all of your personal information on a server that is not owned or controlled by you. also, given the comments about thunderbird being bloatware, my understanding is that live mail includes an instant messenger like oe did as well as a photo editor and a movie maker that install along with the mail reader (as well as the supporting software namely .net, sql compact edition, and directx). seems like a lot of overhead if the only intended use is as a mail reader. but these are just petty points. if you like it better then that is all that really matters. lots of good comparisons out there of the two that are just a google search away. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
"Me" > wrote in message ... > On 7/07/2010 3:11 p.m., Christopher Muto wrote: >> since they did not >> offer an alternative on vista/windows7 machines many people just went >> ahead with getting a live account as it is seemingly the easier thing to >> do. smarter people install thunderbird >> > I use Thunderbird (usenet) and live mail (email). > Just to make it clear, you do not need to sign up to a windows live or > "hotmail" account to use live mail. MS may make it appear that way as > they wan people to sign up, but live mail works perfectly fine (and better > than OE or Vista mail) as a stand-alone application. > Good to know! Thanks, cd 99BBB |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:51:09 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-07-04, Chris D'Agnolo > wrote: >> >>> Wow! I used mutt for years, and elm before that. Mutt especially is >>> fast and incredibly powerful. On the other hand I have no complaints >>> with Thunderbird, and I don't have to manually configure procmail, >>> spamassassin, etc etc. >>> >>> I've used slrn quite a bit as well, but for the past five years or >>> so I've been using Pan. >> >> UGLY TRUTH: >> >> I've never heard of CYGWIN or MUTT or PROCMAIL, SPAMASSASIN or PAM! >> I think I'm more along the lines of the Keep It Simple Stupid side of >> things. In such a case, seems to me Thunderbird or Live Mail are the >> most likely choices. > > Huh? > > Mutt and slrn are far, far more "simple" than Thunderbird (which is a > huge, bloated program) or Live Mail (which is from Microsoft -- 'nuf > said). Well, I suppose this is all true. However, my current desktop PC has a quad core i7 cpu and 12 gb ram. I'm running five VMs and am still only at ~30% load. I could run dozens of instances of tbird if I so chose. I used to feel the same way about bloat. It's why I preferred elm over pine all those years ago. But honestly, how can any of this matter now? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
* Carbon wrote in rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:51:09 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2010-07-04, Chris D'Agnolo > wrote: >>> >>>> Wow! I used mutt for years, and elm before that. Mutt especially is >>>> fast and incredibly powerful. On the other hand I have no complaints >>>> with Thunderbird, and I don't have to manually configure procmail, >>>> spamassassin, etc etc. >>>> >>>> I've used slrn quite a bit as well, but for the past five years or >>>> so I've been using Pan. >>> >>> UGLY TRUTH: >>> >>> I've never heard of CYGWIN or MUTT or PROCMAIL, SPAMASSASIN or PAM! >>> I think I'm more along the lines of the Keep It Simple Stupid side of >>> things. In such a case, seems to me Thunderbird or Live Mail are the >>> most likely choices. >> >> Huh? >> >> Mutt and slrn are far, far more "simple" than Thunderbird (which is a >> huge, bloated program) or Live Mail (which is from Microsoft -- 'nuf >> said). > > Well, I suppose this is all true. However, my current desktop PC has a > quad core i7 cpu and 12 gb ram. I'm running five VMs and am still only > at ~30% load. I could run dozens of instances of tbird if I so chose. > > I used to feel the same way about bloat. It's why I preferred elm over > pine all those years ago. But honestly, how can any of this matter now? > Only for the purpose of customization. mutt/slrn are hugely customizeable and you can string together tools that work the way you want instead of using whatever is built into TB. THis way you get only what you need. Its no longer an issue of space but I challenge you to get TB started before mutt! -- David |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
completely OT!
Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> I know we have some serious computer nerds here, and I say that > affectionately, even jealously ;-) > > Microsoft, in their own form of brilliance (stupidity really!), when XP > changed to Vista, Outlook Express was dropped in favor of 'Microsoft > Mail' which, is about the same but just enough different to be a 'pain > in the arse'. Didn't make any sense to me but now, in Windows 7 they > make another move that makes about as much sense, they've dropped the > mail program completely as close as I can tell. > > Can I get recommendations on (preferably) free software for sending and > receiving email and newsgroups? > > I appreciate your input! > > Chris > 99BBB I use Mozilla Thunderbird. It's been at least five years since I installed it and it seems to work fine. Ken 90B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two-wheeling in a Honda (not completely OT) | Frank ess | Auto Photos | 0 | March 4th 07 04:53 AM |
Completely OT but worth a look | Gene Poon | Dodge | 1 | January 27th 06 12:52 PM |
And now for something completely different... | DrEntropy | Alfa Romeo | 0 | September 18th 05 02:30 PM |
OT but not completely | Shag | VW air cooled | 21 | February 17th 05 07:10 AM |
Completely O/T | Jafo | Ford Mustang | 10 | December 16th 04 08:09 PM |