Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Releases Thunderbird 2.0.0

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the come-and-get-it dept.

Mozilla 311

An anonymous reader writes "The Mozilla Corporation has released Thunderbird 2.0.0. Among the improvements are Message Tagging, updated UI, Advanced Folder Views, Better New Mail Notification and Full Support for Windows Vista and 64-bit versions of Windows."

cancel ×

311 comments

Looks great but (1, Funny)

BeoCluster (995566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795903)

Can I Make a Beowulf Cluster of Thunderbird's Email client to create the biggest spam zombiez army evar ?

Not without this ........ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18795949)

What about Webmail? (1, Insightful)

MrNiCeGUi (302919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795909)

How long until Webmail (http://webmail.mozdev.org/index.html) is updated for 2.0?

Good for them, but... (2, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795919)

How many people, aside from the slashdot crowd, actually use POP3/SMTP clients anymore (at home, not work)? Isn't some ridiculous amount like 90% using gmail/hotmail/yahoo mail/aol mail/etc?

Re:Good for them, but... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18795939)

I do

Re:Good for them, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18795973)

Yep, but by implication, you're one of the Slashdot crowd.

Re:Good for them, but... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796053)

Hey, stop posting such lies under my name!

Re:Good for them, but... (1, Interesting)

spamking (967666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795975)

I haven't used a POP3/SMTP client in almost 3 years. Of course I've got like 5 gmail accounts so it'd be a pain to configure a POP3/SMTP client to check that many accounts. Or atleast it was the last time I did it and checked each account all at once.

I'd rather let Gmail deal with filtering the SPAM first and then deal with the stuff that slips through. That right there is enough for me to not bother with a client.

Maybe one of these days I'll return to a client . . .

Re:Good for them, but... (4, Interesting)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795985)

I use Thunderbird to download my POP3 email and my Webmail at home. I have multiple POP3 accounts from my ISP, and a couple of GMail ones too, and my wife have one from Hotmail, one from Yahoo and one from her job. I shared the thunderbird profile between my Linux partition and her Windows partition so, no matter what partition we booted on, our email is all there. This is a way to save time and get all email with a One Click (tm) without having to surf through several ad-infected pages to read a couple of messages. All props to thunderbird, for providing this useful piece of software for free (as in speech and as in beer).

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796403)

aside from sharing the profile (good work) that's exactly what I do too..

Re:Good for them, but... (4, Insightful)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795991)

Most I know (that don't frequent slashdot) use the emails they get from their ISP's, which are mostly set up with POP3 or IMAP and they don't really know much or care about Gmail and the likes apart from using them as log-ins to chat applications.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795995)

I use gmail for most things, but keep a outlook express setup for my ISP mail and hotmail.

Does Thunderbird allow hotmail connections (which aren't quite pop and are technically meant to be phased out eventually)?

IMAP (3, Insightful)

duguk (589689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796015)

I use IMAP and Thunderbird - and so do all my customers. POP3 is just way too insecure, Outlook is sucky and Thunderbird is the perfect solution.

Maybe think before you write such generalising statements.

Monkeyboi

Re:IMAP (3, Informative)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796061)

actually, he was commenting on webmail as the competing factor, not Outlook.

Personally, on Windows, I use Outlook Express (set to not auto-preview emails), because thunderbird wasn't deleting mails from the server as it was supposed to (everything over 5 days old), and seemed to corrupt my mail local mail store every week or two (TBird 1.5). In BSD I use KMail.

Re:IMAP (1)

kobaz (107760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796121)

I use IMAP and Thunderbird - and so do all my customers. POP3 is just way too insecure, Outlook is sucky and Thunderbird is the perfect solution.

I don't know about you, but my pop3 server has SSL/TLS support (Courier). But mostly I use SSL IMAP anyway.

Re:IMAP (5, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796411)

I use IMAP and Thunderbird - and so do all my customers. POP3 is just way too insecure, Outlook is sucky and Thunderbird is the perfect solution.
Outlook sucks rocks yes, but Thunderbird 1.5 wasn't a shining beacon either. There's several UI decisions that just suck rocks in Thunderbird (search kinda blows, although worlds better than Outlook). Mac's Mail is better in some ways, but it's not the panacea I'm looking for either. I still feel like I'm in circa 1992 with Eudora. Mail clients have essentially stagnated since then with very little improvement from a user perspective. Maybe TB 2.0 will fix that. I'll be looking forward to trying it out.

POP3 is perfectly secure in SSL mode. IMAP is supposed to add some features, but is not inherently more secure than POP3.

Maybe think before you write such generalising statements.
As should you.

Re:Good for them, but... (3, Insightful)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796023)

You don't need to be technical to recognise usability. Non-technical users are probably the core market of desktop readers.

Also I would hope the slashdot crowd use IMAP/SMTP, POP3 is terribly limited if you want to read your mail from more then one device.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796089)

Not really, I have my clients leave the mail on the server for 3+ days, depending on the server and the mail I get.

It keeps the server uncloged, and all my devices get my mail. The server is set to use encrypted transfer (including passwords), so it's secure as well.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796189)

This does not allow you to mark mail as read accross devices, or sort it into folders. What is the advantage?

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796319)

(1) each device will get a copy of the mail, so I'm not sure what "across devices" means
(2) For decades, pretty much *every* mail client could sort mail into folders, locally
(3) Most mail clients also have filters to auto-sort mail, which I have set up on each machine
(4) All my mails are on all my machines, with minimal effort
(5) My mails are not on the server for long where it's easier for a hacker to get to them
(6) My mails are not on a server where they are taking up space and pissing off the admin.

Re:Good for them, but... (3, Insightful)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796603)

Didn't mean to start a flame war.

Everyone has to occasionally sort a mail by hand. With IMAP if I move a mail into a folder on one device it moves on all the other devices, with POP3 I have to move it on each device.

With IMAP I can see which mail I have already read from any device, this sounds simple, but for most people is very useful.

I can see that using less storage on the server could be vital. But for most people storing a mail once on the server is going be better then storing a copy on every client. I know my mail server has considerably more space then some of my clients (i.e. phone).

If I was worried about the privacy of my mail archive I would encrypt it, wherever it was stored.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796685)

I didn't mean that as a flame, those are the reasons I use POP3.

I don't actually use my phone for mail, so that's never been a problem. I also have a relatively low mail volume on th eonly accounts I would check in multiple places, so I know what I've already read. Most of my conversations are still based on that thing I don't use for mail...

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796113)

Non-technical users are probably the core market of desktop readers.
Clearly, you don't know too many non-technical users.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796025)

If you're running a small business with multiple email accounts and/or make heavy use of attachments then a desktop client is the only way to go. You can even use thunderbird with your Gmail account.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796035)

I'd say about 2/3rds of the people I know who aren't /.ers

many of them /also/ have webmail, but not all of them.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796041)

How many people, aside from the slashdot crowd, actually use POP3/SMTP clients anymore (at home, not work)? Isn't some ridiculous amount like 90% using gmail/hotmail/yahoo mail/aol mail/etc?

I'd say only college kids and people who either pay for good indie ISPs (or run their own server) have the luxury of using actual non-http email services. For what it's worth, for most of the major online email providers, there's a service to scrape from the html interface - I used to use YoSucker back in the day when I used Yahoo? mail.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796049)

I do, on my own server (IMAP) and I use GMails POP3 service.

Oh, and you can bet that you use SMTP servers. All those webmail services use SMTP in background...

I just hope that Thunderbird 2.0.0 is good, because Firefox 2.0.0 wasn't and still isn't. The 1.5.x range is much better.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796465)

I just hope that Thunderbird 2.0.0 is good, because Firefox 2.0.0 wasn't and still isn't. The 1.5.x range is much better.
So I'm not the only one that noticed that FF 2.x seems significantly slower than FF 1.5.x? It appears that something was broken in the JS engine, perhaps that stupid spell checker? I can literally out type it when posting to /. :)

Re:Good for them, but... (0, Offtopic)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796665)

I do not know what it is exactly, but it seems just sluggish in comparison to 1.5.x. I have a fast machine (Nice Core 2 Duo, oodles of RAM) at work and I have FF 2.x.x and I still find it sluggish. At home I even didn't bother upgrading... FF 1.5.x is quick, responsive and stable. I hope that that branch will live on, but as far as their website says it will be discontinued soon.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

Your_Mom (94238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796109)

Webmail is great, until you want to get your mail on a mobile device or a slow connection. Then it's painful.

IMAP over SSL allows me to keep my INBOX synced between my work computer using portableapps, my HTC Wizard, and my computer at home. And because I run my own server. I still have more storage space Gmail too. :)

Re:Good for them, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796135)

I use POP3/SMTP at home as my main email account, and I have a couple of google/yahoo email accounts as well...

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

superbus1929 (1069292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796245)

APART from the Slashdot crowd? Only a few; a few of my friends have email addresses from my site. Most of the others that had it dumped it, simply because the webmail wasn't glitzy enough and they don't use Thunderbird/Outlook.

Re:Good for them, but... (2, Interesting)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796275)

There is still a place for a mail client like Thunderbird, even if you use Gmail. What if you want to reference an e-mail message, but gmail is having problems at that time...and it is critical that you find it NOW? Also, having a client like Thunderbird allows you to only have to use your internet connection intermittently, like for folks still stuck with dial-up.

Thunderbird also offers more filtering options than the web providers, for those who depend on filtering to keep their inbox sane.

My wife uses Thunderbird at home. It has been sufficient for her up to now, so I see no reason to force her to use gmail's web site.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796323)

How many people, aside from the slashdot crowd, actually use POP3/SMTP clients anymore (at home, not work)? Isn't some ridiculous amount like 90% using gmail/hotmail/yahoo mail/aol mail/etc?
Only everyone that has Comcast, RoadRunner, AOL, AT&T, or Verizon ISPs. They may also use the webmail listings, but every single one of those ISPs has POP/IMAP/SMTP clients, even if they are installed/configured by a script.

And they are extremely unfriendly to the Mac/*nix crowd. My current home ISP recently converted to TW's RoadRunner. Finding out what the settings were for mail took a month, mainly because I don't think they had them on their site. They wanted you to run an ActiveX script via IE. Hard to do on my Linux and Mac boxes. :)

Re:Good for them, but... (2, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796337)

Commercial people from my company usually use a webmail for personal mails but outlook or thunderbird for their professional mail. Why ? because they use laptops and cannot depend on web connectivity to write emails.

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796529)

It's a bit weird asking the /. crowd what everyone apart from the /. crowd thinks. I doubt many people here have the ability to think as a non techie noob. Maybe someone knows the statistics though.. At work I use an Exchange server anyway =p

Re:Good for them, but... (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796627)

Well, I do use gmail. I also use Thunderbird. On my home machine, it's nice to use it as a traditional e-mail client, imparting filters and rules to sort my mail, and a more dynamic client for formatting messages than a web page can provide. On my notebook I use it to store an off line copy of my e-mail so I can access important information and my contacts when I don't have net access.

It's also handy to have a single client that can access not only my gmail, but also several other accounts at the same time and keep all that mail in one place (even uploading some of it back to Google for storage and remote access). I use Outlook for my IMAP access to my work systems and keep my work and private e-mail separate. I only go the the gmail web page to access mail when I'm temporarily using a machine I don't own (visiting family, etc).

So far so good (5, Informative)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795923)

Have been using it (2.0) for a day now and so far its a really nice experiance.

The greatest thing with Thunderbird is its "simplicity" (do not confuse with "simple, bare minimum") it just very easy to get into and when you'r ready there is allot of usefull features that the advanced user appricate.

Having used 1.5 for a long period of time its also one of the more stable programs I'v use every day, havnt so far seen a crash or something that dosnt work as intended.

Re:So far so good (1)

conradov (1026760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796033)

Since its first beta TB 2.0 has been pretty bug-less from a user point of view. This is a very strong piece of software. The calendaring has gotten better too. That used to be the main complaint for the "Not an Outlook replacement" crowd. Mozilla is going to score high with this one.

Re:So far so good (1)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796211)

Yea, its really a great peice of software.

Makes me wonder when we'r going to see a mail/group server from Mozilla. Having a complete replacement for the MS exchange/Outlook stack is kind of the best starting point you can get to implement other OS:es on the desktop in large scale.

Re:So far so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796299)

It is nice, but there are still quite a few things that I don't like:

* It is slow, sometimes painfully slow. Opening a new message window sometimes takes a few seconds.

* No integration with the OS X Address Book

* Non-native widgets feel clunky compared to a real OS X app like Mail

Re:So far so good (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796545)

I too used 1.5 (1.5.0.10) for quite some time, and hated it. Some of the complaints I had are:

1. If you set TB as your handler for news: URLs and click on such a URL, it will ignore any NNTP server you already have configured, but will ask you to configure an NNTP account instead (pops up the wizard).

2. No Next/Previous/Next Unread/Previous Unread etc. buttons in mail view window. Go->Next->Message is not really very friendly (and yes, I do like to use my mouse).

3. Weird handling of messages in IMAP folders. Click somewhere, action applies to a message elsewhere. Especially true with marking messages as "Junk".

4. Bayesian filtering simply doesn't work. I have fed several dozen emails from the same address with substantially the same text through the spam learner, but it still doesn't mark these as spam. Even MS Outlook learned much faster than that. Gmail was a fast learner too.

5. No per-folder turning the preview pane on/off. In fact, several things which ought to be per-folder aren't configurable that way (message threading, sort order etc.).

Some which I managed to fix using extensions:

1. No support for ROT-13 (which is a must for a newsreader).

2. No "Bounce Message" (a la Mutt's 'b' key) feature.

3. No "Minimise to system tray" option.

I personally consider TB to be FF's distant and poor relation. Now that Gmail has started letting people pull emails from other POP servers, I can actually get rid of TB from my computer.

OS X CPU Hog (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18795951)

Thunderbird 2.0 sits there with 5 percent CPU usage when idle - not checking mail or any other task once a single message arrives - before the first email arrives after startup idle CPU usage is down in the 0 percent range.

Some task or thread is getting spawned the first time a mail message arrives I assume and isn't being terminated properly or something. 5 percent isn't much but it is annoying and a waste. Anyone know what the problem is?

Re:OS X CPU Hog (1)

ez76 (322080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795987)

It's not really a waste unless your CPU usage was above 95% to begin with. Why so stingy?

Re:OS X CPU Hog (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796051)

Of course it is a waste.

Thunderbird CPU usage on initial startup - approx 0 percent.

Thunderbird CPU usage spike up, of course, on the reception of an email for the first - as it should.

Thunderbird CPU usage now remains at approx 5 percent for absolutely no reason no for as long as the program runs.

Quit Thunderbird and restart, CPU usage goes right back to 0 percent...

Would you gladly accept a 5 percent downgrade in your CPU's performance?

Re:OS X CPU Hog (1)

ez76 (322080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796151)

I see your point about it being annoying, but have you put the machine under 100% load and observed that Thunderbird still consumes the same 5% of CPU?

Until you know that, what performance can you truly say really being "lost" if the machine is otherwise 95% idle?

Are you arguing that it's wasting electric power or wasting performance?

Perhaps it is a bug, or perhaps some task is being scheduled opportunistically when there is nothing else to do.

Re:OS X CPU Hog (3, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796039)

TB2 has 0.00 processor usage according to activity monitor on a PPC Mini 1.42 GHz.

I would Digg you down as inaccurate, but wrong site.

Re:OS X CPU Hog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796083)

I just tried it. It has 0.0 percent on startup. I sent myself a test email. The program now bounces around 3.3 and 4.5 percent. Definitely something gets started when an email arrives that isn't turned off when the program goes back to idle.

Re:OS X CPU Hog (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796285)

You can find out with a debugger...

Yikes! (2, Funny)

ez76 (322080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795953)

Folder views? New mail notification?

Watch your back, Eudora for Windows 3.1!

Minor annoyance but... (1)

snecklifter (903945) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795955)

How about just "Mozilla release Thunderbird 2"? The Mozilla website says its 2.0.0.0 The article says 2.0.0 Does this mean we bait our breath for the ground-breaking news that "Mozilla release Thunderbird 2.0.0.1" I can't wait.

Re:Minor annoyance but... (2, Funny)

asobala (563713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796293)

Because Thunderbird 2 is an international rescue craft [wikipedia.org] .

64bit support? (3, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795957)

What exactly do they mean by full 64-bit support. I didn't find an x64 bit binary anywhere.

Compile your own 64-bit! Here's how : (3, Funny)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796097)

You have to compile your own. I compile mine on Ubuntu Edgy 64-bit. This will get you started :
  1. Download source [mozilla.org]
  2. Run configure with the following command (this solves a compile time known bug in gcc 4)

    ac_cv_visibility_pragma=no ./configure --enable-application=mail
  3. make and sudo make install

Painful marketing (2, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795963)

Any chance the Mozilla people could trouble to put up some real information about the new version instead of a flashy page of meaningless marketspeak?

Re:Painful marketing (3, Funny)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796075)

I know! I came in with 2 questions:

1) How's the Mail.app importing?
2) Does it work with Spotlight

These are crucial questions that affect whether I even consider switching, and the info pages say nothing.

All I want *built in* is... (2, Insightful)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795967)

1. A shared calender
2. An integrated Calendar
3. Exchange support a la evolution (even if it just supports a few features :) )

I have introduced Thunderbird to my work place to a limited extent. But these features would allow me to push its introduction further.

Calendar plugin just announced on slashdot (4, Interesting)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796047)

This article [slashdot.org] came out a couple of days ago. It's a calendar plugin for Thunderbird 2 that syncs with google calendar. In my opinion, it's not an "Exchange killer," as the title states, but it could be very useful.

Re:Calendar plugin just announced on slashdot (1)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796217)

Yeah, it looks nice. But this could not be used in a work environment. Email stored remotely like this would be an impossible sell.

I would have thought they would have integrated lightning [mozilla.org] (an integrated calendar extension, currently on 0.3). Again, I would love to have this built in...ah well Thunderbird 2.5? :)

Re:All I want *built in* is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796093)

Tried Lightning? [mozilla.org]

I'm not entirely down with Exchange, it always appeared more of a problem than a solution to me.

What specific integration features are you hoping for?

Re:All I want *built in* is... (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796127)

1. A shared calender
2. An integrated Calendar
Support is there, sort of. You can install the Lightning extension. For sharing calendars between users, put an iCal file on Apache and subscribe all the clients to it. Enable WebDAV to allow editing. It's still rather primitive, though. Still, it works decently. I set this up at work for a little bit before switching to Scalix (with the web client).

3. Exchange support a la evolution (even if it just supports a few features :) )
I'd like to see full Scalix or Kolab (so I can dump Scalix) support. All of the scheduling stuff is needed.

Re:All I want *built in* is... (1)

MazzThePianoman (996530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796497)

Well give their web browsers all a personalized Google page (www.google.com/ig) and then set them up with Google Calendar which can be shared and accessed to any number of Google Accounts.

vcal support? (4, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795969)

The single lacking feature stopping me from using it? Heck, even if it ties in with that other calendaring application from mozilla, at least recognizing outlook calendar requests and calling the other app.

Cake (1)

eealex (835401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795977)

Any cake from Microsoft this time??

One wonders (1)

metushelach (985526) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795983)

Are there any corporations out there actually using Thunderbird?

I know that in my organization, we actually adopted Firefox as the official browser (with IE removed, after much pains, from the "base installation" of our laptops).

But Outlook still dominates without any real competition as the mail program. I have seen the odd case of Lotus Notes still surviving here and there but as a whole - Its an Exchange/Outlook world.

So - Any /.er out there that knows of a corporation actually using Eudora/Thunderbird/Other non-outlook product as their official mail client?

Re:One wonders (1, Redundant)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796017)

Most corporations use the groupware in Exchange/Outlook, Thunderbird can't really compete there as it does not have a proper exchange equivalent to talk to.

I've seen countless people use Thunderbird as a regular email client, that they use with their personal email.

Re:One wonders (3, Informative)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796493)

Most corporations use the groupware in Exchange/Outlook, Thunderbird can't really compete there as it does not have a proper exchange equivalent to talk to.
Actually, that's not true. Look here:

http://www.citadel.org [citadel.org]

Citadel is a good candidate for an open source "Exchange killer" and it works nicely with Thunderbird. If you have the Lightning calendar extension, it works with that too, and you can also connect your address book. Those are the big three, of course, but it goes deeper than that...

Re:One wonders (1)

untouchableForce (927584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796269)

My old employer (Fortune 500 company, about 40,000 employees) is entirely Lotus Notes. It was my first experience with it, and I must say it has some clever things. The user interface always felt a bit off to me though. They also had duplicate servers running but the default installation put everyone to server #1 so that server tended to be very slow. This worked out OK for me because I switched to server #2 manually.

Re:One wonders (1)

iamjoltman (883526) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796283)

Had to plop in here and say 'We do!' Every machine has Firefox and Thunderbird on it. Of course, we don't run Exchange, we run our mail on Postfix, so it's not a problem at all for us.

Re:One wonders (1)

Aczlan (636310) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796437)

Bristol Myers Squib uses Thunderbird and Firefox as the corporate standard.

Re:One wonders (1)

virago81 (67404) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796513)

Oracle Corp gives the users a choice. I think most people in the org use Thunderbird basically because it's the best client available to them.

I'm not sure why, but Oracle actually hacked up an Outlook plugin to their non-Exchange servers, but it's so buggy that people hate it (I know I did). The Oracle internal web-mail looks like a summer intern project gone bad. Thunderbird wins by default.

SUN MICROSYSTEMS (1)

Informix (975583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796609)

Yep, Sun Microsystems use Firefox and Thunderbird as their "official" supported apps on Windows laptops, home office (anything non-SunRay). Took me about a week to fully give up my calendar from Outlook, but Lightning does just fine.

Performance (1)

andre_nho (570394) | more than 7 years ago | (#18795997)

What I want to know is: what about performance? Has it increased or decreased since last version?

Re:Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796375)

What I want to know is: why do you care? and is the 0.001uS you'll save every time you click an email really that critical to your use of the program?

Cross Platform UI/Widgets Are Jarring On OS X (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796011)

Thunderbird 2 has a much more modern refined UI compared to earlier versions, but it still feels and looks very clunky compared to native OS X apps.

I've noticed the same thing about apps like OpenOffice. Looks and feels absolutely hideous under OS X but feels just fine when running on Windows or Linux. It has to be that the OS X desktop/app toolkit and widgets really are THAT much more refined/polished/whatever than other OSes.

I don't want to come off as an Apple fanboy because I use all three major desktops, but running non-native apps on OS X really brings to light just how much more elegant and modern OS X is compared to others.

I don't know why Windows or Linux can't seem to get anywhere near the elegance and polish that Apple seems to be solely able to.

Re:Cross Platform UI/Widgets Are Jarring On OS X (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796165)

I totally disagree, I've been using the Thunderbird 2.0 RC for a while now, and I'm very impressed with it's integration with OS X UI. It looks beautiful (and I wouldn't say that about many OSS apps on OS X). Really solid too. One of the best releases of an OSS app I've seen.

Re:Cross Platform UI/Widgets Are Jarring On OS X (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796305)

Trust me, the X11-based port feels hideous as well, although version 2 is a huge improvement over version 1.

Re:Cross Platform UI/Widgets Are Jarring On OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796395)

If one spent some time going over OS X's application toolkit and widgets in minute detail and compared every little facet like:

Highlighting
Spacing
Use of colour
Timing
Redraw/updating
Font rendering

to Windows and Linux it would quickly become clear just why people have such a powerful reaction to OS X when they first use it. Even if they can't put their finger on it.

Windows has never had that attention to detail.

Linux desktops are so bad they aren't worth talking about. Most Linux users and developers think of the incredible amount of work that goes into the OS X desktop is just 'trivial eyecandy' or just 'pretty skins'

Fedora and Mozilla (1)

qrwe (625937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796029)

Does anyone know about the Fedora Project? Will they import Thunderbird 2.0 or will they go on with 1.5 as the did with Firefox, while waiting for the 3.0 release?

But the big hole is... (5, Interesting)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796031)

Calendaring. TB is not used in the (office) workplace - even progressive workplaces that are happy to go with FF - because Outlook calendar support doesn't exist. I've no idea how good Sunbird (is that right?) is, but FF managed to get a foothold because the switch was painless. Without the ability to integrate with Outlook calendars, TB's not going to get that foothold.

I'm not suggesting this is Mozilla's fault, I'm just stating what I understand to be the real stumbling block for TB - and TB2 hasn't fixed it. It's a real shame.

Incidentally, TB really didn't need an overhaul, as far as I could tell. Prolly one of the most stable apps I've used in a long time, and quite powerful enough. Still, I'll have a look...

Re:But the big hole is... (1)

sherriw (794536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796161)

I use the Lightening calendar extension for Thunderbird. It's ok. Nowhere near as full featured as Outlook's calendar, but it gets the job done.

I really wish it would scroll the calendar with the mouse wheel though.

But I totally agree, a solid calendar is what will really bring Thunderbird into the mainstream. You! Mozilla developers! Focus on Lightening please! :)

Can it filter image spam? (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796119)

I've had no luck getting Thunderbird 1.5 to filter mail with .gif attachments. Is this something that's easier to do in 2.0?

This is what I posted... (3, Funny)

robertlagrant (1090367) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796131)

I posted this one to here a few hours ago, thought you might prefer this version of the story :)

Mozilla's Thunderbird email software has reached version 2.0.0.0 [mozilla.com] . Includes tagging messages, quick navigation through threads, improved (and saved) searches, and (most usefully for some) support for checking .mac and gmail. Reports that Thunderbird 2 may contain a mole [thunderbirdsonline.co.uk] were quickly quashed.

This is going to ruin my Karma, but..... (2, Interesting)

Alex (342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796145)

Last week I switched from Linux to Mac OSX, purely so I could run Entourage and interface properly with Exchange.

Thunderbird is an awesome IMAP/POP3 client super stable, really great to use - in an organization that uses Exchange a lot not being able to interface with Exchange properly was a real pain in the arse.

I had a real nightmare trying to use Evolution, it was very unstable, I reinstalled my workstation and did all sorts of stuff but I couldn't get it to be as stable as Thunderbird.

So I've started using a mac for email so I've got a Unix box I can use Exchange on.

Just don't get me started on sharepoint.....

cheers,

Alex

Thunderbird vs. Mail.app (5, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796153)

Thunderbird is by far the best mail client for Windows, and from my limited experience the best email client for Linux (though I haven't used Linux much recently). Mail.app (the Mac mail program) runs circles around Thunderbird and any other mail client I've ever used.

Thunderbird has been moving in the general direction of parity with Mail.app, but it isn't there yet. Mail.app still wins handily for its superior preferences menu layout which includes account info and mail filters all in one place. It's also integrated with the OS X address book and spell-checking dictionary. Once Leopard comes out, Mail.app will be integrated with the system-wide calendar process (another new Leopard feature).

And before anybody calls me a Mac fanboy, I still have a strong preference for Firefox over Safari. Safari is so light on features, especially those I take for granted with Firefox, that it's simply not usable (although Firefox should steal a feature or two from Safari to be even better).

Re:Thunderbird vs. Mail.app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796463)

Same for me. Last time I had to use exchange for work, I was running it inside a VMware WinNT4 session inside of RedHat linux 7 and that ran good enough... Firefox extensions, must-have... My friend tried the older Thunderbird on OSX and he said there were some major bugs in it. For whatever reason he said he didn't like Mail.app. Anyways... I'm wondering how the new TB stacks up to Mail.app...

Still no Sent / Received Date options (5, Interesting)

Hohlraum (135212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796155)

They are still blindly using the Date: field for received and sent mail. The so called fix is to sort by the 'Order Received' column. That column is inaccurate when you start moving messages around between folders. I really wish the TB developers would wake up. I know of no other mail client that doesn't parse out the Received date from the headers and make it available. In fact it is the default date for most other mail clients as well. I've lost count of the number of people who have brought this up to me when I tell them to check out TB. TB (imo) is a superior email client to outlook express except for this one issue that they keep ignoring.

This is based on a beta from a few weeks ago, feel free to correct me if they woke up between then and the release and fixed this issue.

Tagging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796197)

Tagging was in Thunderbird v1.5 (and possible v1 as well) except it was called labels. Why does renaming something suddenly make it a major feature?!

Is there a way to make it behave like Eudora? (1)

syukton (256348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796225)

Eudora has an MDI interface for working with mailboxes and messages. I can have multiple messages and/or mailboxes opened simultaneously within a single window in Eudora, whereas last I checked, Thunderbird behaved like Outlook with regard to mailboxes and messages; you can only view one at a time, no tiling or cascading of MDI windows.

Is there a plugin or something that makes Thunderbird behave like Eudora in this regard? If there is, I would totally switch mail clients. I'm only hooked on Eudora because I prefer its UI...

newsreader changed? welcome to 1995 (3, Interesting)

Xenomorph.NET (969401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796227)

Thunderbird's newsreader seems the same as it was ever since it was the Netscape newsreader.

hardly anything has changed.

it still displays "Lines" instead of "Size". it also can't join posts like Outlook Express is able to.

why has the newsreader been left unchanged for so long? it looks and works the same (crappy) as it always had. hardly anything has changed since the mid 1990s.

Real Ninjas Use Thunderbird (3, Funny)

sherriw (794536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796243)

I've read lots of posts about how most people use webmail or whatever their ISP gives them. Well.... that may be true but we all know that the really cool ninjas own their own domain so they can create unlimited email addresses, spam-traps, forwards, mail lists and all kinds of other ninja-like cool stuff. Every time I see a techie person who's using his/her cogeco or hotmail address, I just laugh.

Yes, I am a cool email ninja. :)

And you still can't import/export vCard files... (2, Informative)

Karpe (1147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796343)

Bummer.

Passwords (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796365)

i think i will use it if... the passwords, and out going mail servers, are handled in a normal way.

ie, dont have 1 global outgoing server, and passwords are easily managable per account, and can be set up when setting the account up.

Re:Passwords (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796479)

Has it ever _not_ been like that? You're taking about the Mozilla email client, right?

Tagging (2, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796389)

Message tagging has existed for a long, long time in Thunderbird. You could already hit numeric keys to tag emails, which would change the color of the text in the list. This version formalizes tagging, by adding a toolbar button and assigning actual (user-configurable) names to various colors. I'll continue to use the numeric keys, because as usual keyboard shortcuts are so much faster than mouse-based UI. Still, it's nice to see Thunderbird's features continue to mature.

Dan East

where the FUCK is native Exchange support. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18796413)

Mozilla: don't bother releasing any more Thunderbird versions until you give us Exchange support. Thunderbird will go nowhere and deserve it until then. I can't understand why you would not make something that people in business offices can adopt easily. Are you stupid?

Embedded graphic problem (1)

Eastender (910391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18796611)

I used Thunderbird extensively, and then one day, a table that had been pasted onto my message from Excel just "disappeared", i.e., no one who read my mail using outlook could see it at all... just blank space!

Not having the time to figure out what went wrong, here I am, at the mercy of my MS Outlook overlord...

Help!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...