 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, so this is it: After so many years of working with Outlook, now
that I have this brand new computer, I ultimately decided to bid
farewell to that mail client, and give Thunderbird a try - actually
mainly because that stupid Outlook doesn't have a built-in newsreader,
and I'm getting kind of annoyed with that news.povray.org web interface.
Turned out that migrating my old e-mails archive and address book wasn't
as straightforward as I had hoped (how stupid is this: You can't import
from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed); fortunately, my
old computer's still alive and kicking, so I just installed TB there as
well to import, and followed the instructions I found somewhere on how
to "transplant" a TB profile. Seems to have worked pretty well at first
glance - I hope the second glance will confirm this.
So here we go - first newsgroup posting test with T'bird...
(Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> (how stupid is this: You can't import
> from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed)
Makes perfect sense when you realize Outlook is supplying the libraries to
read and write its data structures. It's like complaining the database is
stupid because you need the database manager to read the tables. :-) That's
how Windows is designed - that's what "component" software is all about.
> So here we go - first newsgroup posting test with T'bird...
Worked!
> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
That works too, perhaps even easier.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> (how stupid is this: You can't import from Outlook .pst files unless
>> Outlook is installed)
>
> Makes perfect sense when you realize Outlook is supplying the
> libraries to read and write its data structures. It's like complaining
> the database is stupid because you need the database manager to read
> the tables. :-) That's how Windows is designed - that's what
> "component" software is all about.
While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
from the usability point of view, as probably everyone who re-installed
Windows (carefully backing up the whole hard disk first), and then
decided to switch over from Outlook to TB in the process, will happily
confirm for sure.
Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
would *that* be? :-P
>> So here we go - first newsgroup posting test with T'bird...
>
> Worked!
Great!
Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
_underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.
(Speaking of which, I'm already pleased with how well-behaved the TB
mail editor seems to be regarding quoted lines in HTML-format replies.
Outlook really sucked at that.)
>> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
>
> That works too, perhaps even easier.
Sure - there's not much to migrate there, and the favorites are
essentially links living in a special directory, so no proprietary
format involved.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
clipka schrieb:
<blockquote cite="mid:4a77c31e@news.povray.org" type="cite">Now I
wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use of
some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
_underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web
interface.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Didn't dare to, and instead had TB convert it to ASCII - but <b>this
time</b> I <i>definitely will</i> try a <u>HTML-format posting</u>.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka schrieb:
> clipka schrieb:
>> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full
>> use of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
>> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web
>> interface.
>
> Didn't dare to, and instead had TB convert it to ASCII - but *this
> time* I /definitely will/ try a _HTML-format posting_.
>
Ah well, that doesn't look too nice in the web interface, so I guess
it's ill-advised...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
> from the usability point of view,
Perhaps not too stupid from the thunderbird developer's perspective. Why
would you want them to go thru the process of reverse-engineering
potentially many internal formats that you can only generate if you already
own Outlook, when instead they can just invoke Outlook?
It's a cost/benefit thing.
> Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
> read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
> would *that* be? :-P
Except that people don't mail around .pst files or outlook address books.
Plus, the people who wrote Thunderbird weren't competing with Outlook. The
people who OOo were competing with Office. Again, another cost/benefit decision.
> Outlook really sucked at that.)
Still does. ;-)
> essentially links living in a special directory, so no proprietary
> format involved.
Well, one easy proprietary format. :-) Plus, that one's build into the OS
rather than a third-party program.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 00:18, clipka wrote:
> clipka schrieb:
>> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
>> of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
>> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.
>
> Didn't dare to, and instead had TB convert it to ASCII - but *this time*
> I /definitely will/ try a _HTML-format posting_.
UGH!
So, I had customized my TB to use certain fonts, and render them in
certain colors. Your HTML post didn't "respect" that. I'll dig around in
TB to see if I can fix this.
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/09 23:24, clipka wrote:
> Turned out that migrating my old e-mails archive and address book wasn't
> as straightforward as I had hoped (how stupid is this: You can't import
> from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed); fortunately, my
The last time I used Outlook (Express) was way too long ago. Reading
your post, I can tell they didn't really improve it much. Perhaps they
even made it worse, as in those days you could read newsgroups with it
(or so I recall).
As for your complaint, sorry: No sympathies. Of all the mail readers
I've used, Outlook was the *only* one that did not use a standard format
for storing emails. There's simply no excuse for it, and over the years
I've had to "help" many people who wanted to switch to another client
and wanted to transfer their emails.
Not all clients support import from Outlook (and why should they?
Almost all mail readers store email using open formats). The simplest
solution if they had IMAP and not too much email was to put all the
email on the server, and redownload it using the new client.
The "other" solution was to install TB, have it import it, and then
just take the files from TB, which, like almost all mail readers, stores
stuff in a sane format.
> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
(Vomits).
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 00:11, clipka wrote:
> While I do understand why it makes sense technically, still it's stupid
> from the usability point of view, as probably everyone who re-installed
> Windows (carefully backing up the whole hard disk first), and then
> decided to switch over from Outlook to TB in the process, will happily
> confirm for sure.
Such people are few and far between. It's quite unlikely that a Windows
user will switch to TB right after reinstalling Windows.
> Following your argument, Open Office couldn't possibly be expected to
> read Microsoft Word documents without Word installed; now how stupid
> would *that* be? :-P
Because Microsoft Word was being used heavily by the majority.
Outlook's market capture is not even close. It's a small price to pay to
ignore Outlook.
> Now I wonder what happens if I reply in HTML format (and make full use
> of some essential features like using *bold*, /italics/ or
> _underline_...?) - especially how that will show up in the web interface.
*Don't!*
There are still plenty of folks whose clients don't have HTML support,
or stubborn oldtimers like me who disable HTML in their newsreaders.
I don't know about the web interface, but if someone does *bold*,
/italics/ or _underline_, my news reader will render it appropriately
(albeit without removing the delimeters). Just write it this way and let
the people set their newsreader behavior the way they want it.
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> UGH!
>
> So, I had customized my TB to use certain fonts, and render them
> in certain colors. Your HTML post didn't "respect" that. I'll dig
> around in TB to see if I can fix this.
>
My HTML post didn't respect *anything* ;-)
No need to find a fix - I promise I'll not do it again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
