I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2

It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the 
functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most 
particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than 
the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words, 
you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a 
large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.

Apparently there's an add-on to make the header smaller. In fact, it 
seems that with this new release, almost everything of interest is a 
separate add-on rather than a built-in feature.

It's not all bad though: I installed the UK English dictionary *again*, 
but now, for the first time ever in history, it *actually works*. I can 
now spell-check what I'm writing. Why the hell that never worked before 
I will never know... but it works now. (It does the MS Word style red 
underline that everybody copies now.) With this feature enabled, I am 
rapidly discovering just how abysmal my spelling actually is...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2010-09-02 04:59, Invisible a écrit :
> I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2
>
> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
> the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words,
> you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a
> large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.

Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.

Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".

>
> Apparently there's an add-on to make the header smaller. In fact, it
> seems that with this new release, almost everything of interest is a
> separate add-on rather than a built-in feature.
>

Your "everything of interest" may not be my "everything of interest". 
Less bloatware.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2010 7:43 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".

Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail. 
Rarely is it ever relevant, not only that, but accidentally hitting it 
can have negative consequences, and can clog the network if there were 
lots of people on the send list. Also, If you habitually smack 
reply-to-all, and reply with "Yes, I agree" or "Sign me up" etc.. .it's 
not relative to me, and it annoys me to the nth degree. :)

It does have its place, though. Sometimes what you want to say is 
relevant to all parties involved. Most of the time its not.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 02/09/2010 1:52 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 7:43 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.
> Rarely is it ever relevant, not only that, but accidentally hitting it
> can have negative consequences, and can clog the network if there were
> lots of people on the send list. Also, If you habitually smack
> reply-to-all, and reply with "Yes, I agree" or "Sign me up" etc.. .it's
> not relative to me, and it annoys me to the nth degree. :)
>
> It does have its place, though. Sometimes what you want to say is
> relevant to all parties involved. Most of the time its not.
>

IMO “Reply to all” is more relevant in work related emails. But for 
newsreader use it is a PITA.
As an aside I’m fed up with T/Bird and thinking of ditching it. Does 
anyone have any recommendations for a free newsreader for Win7.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 02/09/2010 04:29 PM, Stephen wrote:

> As an aside I’m fed up with T/Bird and thinking of ditching it. Does
> anyone have any recommendations for a free newsreader for Win7.

Thunderbird has a few annoying quirks - most especially, the broken 
threading bug which has existed since Thunderbird was part of the 
"Mozilla suite" yet still hasn't been fixed. (Or rather, Bugzilla claims 
it *has* been fixed, and that to fix it you need to do a complex 
sequence of configuration changes... which never actually work.)

The annoyance of the spell checker never working seems to be gone now, 
so that's something. I also wish quoting was a little less 
unpredictable, but hey.

Unfortunately, the only other newsreader for Windows that I know of is 
Outlook Express. Obviously, this sucks like hell.

Post a reply to this message

>> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
>> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
>> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
>> the toolbar
>
> Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.

Maybe. But it's going to take months for me to finally remember where to 
look for it now.

> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".

I had removed that years ago anyway. I hadn't even noticed it's hidden 
by default now.

>> Apparently there's an add-on to make the header smaller. In fact, it
>> seems that with this new release, almost everything of interest is a
>> separate add-on rather than a built-in feature.
>
> Your "everything of interest" may not be my "everything of interest".
> Less bloatware.

Being able to configure which columns show up isn't exactly an advanced 
feature. It's a basic function of the software. But now instead of being 
built-in, you have to install a special add-on to enable it again. 
Bloatware? Now I have to install a dozen poorly-supported 3rd-party 
add-ons just to get the functionality I should be getting out-of-the-box.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> It does have its place, though. Sometimes what you want to say is 
> relevant to all parties involved. Most of the time its not.

I find it depends to a great extent on whether it's personal communication 
or intra-business communication. I almost never reply to only the sender 
when I'm answering a question CC'ed to half a dozen work colleagues.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".

Does it have a functioning resend operation? Or just forward?

> Being able to configure which columns show up isn't exactly an advanced 
> feature. It's a basic function of the software. 

I'm honestly rather surprised it's not built into the GUI at a fundamental 
level like scrolling is. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

On 2-9-2010 14:43, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2010-09-02 04:59, Invisible a écrit :
>> I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2
>>
>> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
>> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
>> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
>> the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words,
>> you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a
>> large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.
>
> Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.
>
> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".

Does anybody know where the 'next' message button has gone to?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/09/2010 4:54 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Thunderbird has a few annoying quirks - most especially, the broken
> threading bug which has existed since Thunderbird was part of the
> "Mozilla suite" yet still hasn't been fixed. (Or rather, Bugzilla claims
> it *has* been fixed, and that to fix it you need to do a complex
> sequence of configuration changes... which never actually work.)
>

For me it works sometimes in some groups but not in my email accounts.

> The annoyance of the spell checker never working seems to be gone now,
> so that's something. I also wish quoting was a little less
> unpredictable, but hey.
>

I've not noticed any problems with "quoting"

> Unfortunately, the only other newsreader for Windows that I know of is
> Outlook Express. Obviously, this sucks like hell.

I used to use Free Agent but it is no longer free. I might have to pay 
for one (OMG)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Being able to configure which columns show up isn't exactly an
>> advanced feature. It's a basic function of the software.
>
> I'm honestly rather surprised it's not built into the GUI at a
> fundamental level like scrolling is. :-)

Well, yeah, you would think...

Then again, how many programs have you seen where you can't even resize 
a window?

My favourite is the one where you see what user profiles are on your 
computer. My Computer > Properties > Advanced > User Profiles. You get a 
great big window, with a tiny little scrollable list in the middle, and 
there's no way to resize either the list or the window itself. I mean, 
really, WTF?

(Maybe they fixed that in Vista. I don't know.)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2010-09-02 17:00, andrel a écrit :
> On 2-9-2010 14:43, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Le 2010-09-02 04:59, Invisible a écrit :
>>> I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2
>>>
>>> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
>>> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
>>> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
>>> the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words,
>>> you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a
>>> large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.
>>
>> Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.
>>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Does anybody know where the 'next' message button has gone to?
>

On your keyboard.  ;-)

"F" for next message.
"N" for next unread
"B" for previous message.
"P" for previous unread message.

Or in the "Go to" menu.

Or right-click on the tool bar and personalize it to your taste.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 3-9-2010 15:00, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2010-09-02 17:00, andrel a écrit :
>> On 2-9-2010 14:43, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>> Le 2010-09-02 04:59, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> I just updated to Thunderbird 3.1.2
>>>>
>>>> It's almost like installing a new version of MS Office. All the
>>>> functionality is the same, but all the buttons have moved around! Most
>>>> particularly, the Reply button is now in the message header rather than
>>>> the toolbar, which means the header is bigger now. In other words,
>>>> you've got the thread list at the top, the message at the bottom, and a
>>>> large useless grey header bar wasting space in the middle. Great.
>>>
>>> Less mouse movement to reach the "reply" button, I guess.
>>>
>>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>>
>> Does anybody know where the 'next' message button has gone to?
>>
>
> On your keyboard. ;-)
>
> "F" for next message.
> "N" for next unread
> "B" for previous message.
> "P" for previous unread message.

I knew that, but I generally browse my mail with my right hand on the 
trackball. Using the keyboard means I have to sit up straight again.

>
> Or in the "Go to" menu.

Sure, but a rather round about way with way to many mouse gestures to my 
taste.

> Or right-click on the tool bar and personalize it to your taste.

Ah, I tried to customize the new toolbar above the message but the 
button was not in that list. Apparently next message can only be in the 
general toolbar on top. Makes no sense to me, I still have to mouse a 
long way. Anyway this is what I was used to, so I also added the 
forward, the reply, and the reply to all there, just I have almost 
succeeded in undoing all improvements.
Thanks for the reply, it made me look in the place where it used to be 
but where I didn't expect it any more because I assumed they would be 
consistent.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Then again, how many programs have you seen where you can't even resize 
> a window?

Or worse, people who don't bother to look at how big text is before they lay 
out their window, so cut off half the text if you're not using the same font 
size as the authors.

But yes, this is bascially the problem that for many years there were no 
Windows graphics APIs that took anchors and stretch-factors and such and 
resized things automatically to fit the window. I've never seen this on (for 
example) a Tcl interface, where it's easier to do it right than wrong.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:
> On your keyboard.  ;-)

Or space bar, which means "scroll down a page, unless I'm at the last 
message, in which case go to the next unread message."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Then again, how many programs have you seen where you can't even 
>> resize a window?
> 
> Or worse, people who don't bother to look at how big text is before they 
> lay out their window, so cut off half the text if you're not using the 
> same font size as the authors.
> 
> But yes, this is bascially the problem that for many years there were no 
> Windows graphics APIs that took anchors and stretch-factors and such and 
> resized things automatically to fit the window. I've never seen this on 
> (for example) a Tcl interface, where it's easier to do it right than wrong.

I've just seen a GTK dialog where half the dialog text doesn't fit 
unless you manually enlarge the window (i.e., it opens too small 
initially). I have no idea how they could get that wrong, but hey...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2010 8:52 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 7:43 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.

Reminds me of those people who decide that everyone in their building 
needs to get an e-mail about their little fundraiser.  So they highlight 
every entry in the address book when putting names in the To: block.

If your building is the Pentagon, this isn't such a grand idea.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 2-9-2010 14:52, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/2/2010 7:43 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Personally, I like how they hid "Reply all".
>
> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.
> Rarely is it ever relevant, not only that, but accidentally hitting it
> can have negative consequences, and can clog the network if there were
> lots of people on the send list. Also, If you habitually smack
> reply-to-all, and reply with "Yes, I agree" or "Sign me up" etc.. .it's
> not relative to me, and it annoys me to the nth degree. :)
>
> It does have its place, though. Sometimes what you want to say is
> relevant to all parties involved. Most of the time its not.

There is another place where I find reply to all useful. I bcc every 
mail from every e-mail address I use to the same e-mail address. When I 
simply reply to that bcc e-mail as a sort of PS because I forgot 
something, that mail will only reach myself. Which is useless because I 
already knew it.

Post a reply to this message

> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.

If you work on projects with teams of people it's invaluable, and pretty 
much the standard button to press to keep everyone informed of the ongoing 
discussion/actions/outcomes.  It's very rare you only want a single person 
to see what you've got to say, it would actually cause a great deal of 
confusion later on.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2010 7:23 AM, scott wrote:
>> Reply-to-all was the worst feature in the entire history of e-mail.
>
> If you work on projects with teams of people it's invaluable, and pretty
> much the standard button to press to keep everyone informed of the
> ongoing discussion/actions/outcomes. It's very rare you only want a
> single person to see what you've got to say, it would actually cause a
> great deal of confusion later on.
>
>
>

But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than confusion 
when you're bitching about someone. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than confusion 
> when you're bitching about someone. ;-)

True, but I wouldn't recommend bitching about people on corporate email 
anyway, you don't know who is reading it (regardless of who you addressed 
the email to).

Post a reply to this message

On 6-9-2010 16:17, scott wrote:
>> But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than
>> confusion when you're bitching about someone. ;-)
>
> True, but I wouldn't recommend bitching about people on corporate email
> anyway, you don't know who is reading it (regardless of who you
> addressed the email to).
>
>
I'd say on any e-mail not just corporate. Though if I say that some 
people might try to find proof that I did it in this newsgroup.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2010 7:52 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 6-9-2010 16:17, scott wrote:
>>> But accidentally pressing the "reply all" can cause more than
>>> confusion when you're bitching about someone. ;-)
>>
>> True, but I wouldn't recommend bitching about people on corporate email
>> anyway, you don't know who is reading it (regardless of who you
>> addressed the email to).
>>
>>
> I'd say on any e-mail not just corporate. Though if I say that some
> people might try to find proof that I did it in this newsgroup.
>

Yes, my old grandmother used to say. “Never put anything in writing that 
you don’t want anyone to read.” And she was right.
I don’t do the bitching but I’ve seen the result of others mistakes.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2010 1:23 AM, scott wrote:

> If you work on projects with teams of people it's invaluable, and pretty
> much the standard button to press to keep everyone informed of the
> ongoing discussion/actions/outcomes. It's very rare you only want a
> single person to see what you've got to say, it would actually cause a
> great deal of confusion later on.

Like I said... it definitely has its place. Its irritating when people 
abuse the feature though. Like when they send a reply that was directed 
only at the sender...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message