Train wreck
-
@boomzilla said:
Well, it just converts it to plain text, which it fine for me for the most part, except when I want to forward something.
It would convert replies, too, right? I think if everyone else is using HTML and I'm replying with plain text, it's probably going to cause problems.
@boomzilla said:
For personal uses, I only use gmail, though. I would love it if I could use that for work.
Yeah, I love Gmail, but business people tend to prefer Outlook, and I can see why they would. (I may even just set up Gmail to pull from Exchange.) One complaint I have is that Google Apps mail tends to lag in features and sometimes mail doesn't show up in the UI right away, but instead may not appear for 5-10 minutes. I haven't noticed this in my personal Gmail, although I don't use it as heavily.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
Well, it just converts it to plain text, which it fine for me for the most part, except when I want to forward something.
It would convert replies, too, right? I think if everyone else is using HTML and I'm replying with plain text, it's probably going to cause problems.I've never had a problem. When I was using Outlook, I tended to send plain text emails (though I think it would reply / forward the format as-is). Blackberries in particular seem to reply in plain text, and I get a lot of emails from people with those. I'm not sure what sort of problems it would cause, in any case, but YMMV. My emails generally have better spelling and fewer grammar errors, since I tend to proof read and edit them before sending, so maybe the people who get my email are just amazed at my use of outmoded things like proper punctuation and capitalization.
-
@Zemm said:
@gu3st said:
It's actually quite intuitive
I've run into problems with doing moves over the network. If there's a glitch or an error or something it can delete the source files even if they weren't written completely.
I now usually use command lines to do important things like this now. The Finder has lost my trust!
I know this was true when Leopard or Snow Leopard was first released. But like the first 10.x.1 release had a fix for this.
-
@ASheridan said:
but it makes some stuff a hell of a lot easier, like viewing the headers on an email (something that still isn't simple in Outlook 2010).
The only time I've ever had to view headers on an email was to fire off a spam report to the ISP that the emails originated from. And even then, double click email, click File, click Properties, tada, headers are there. Not hard. Also doesn't need to be relatively easy because I can not imagine a position where you would need to view the headers so often that four clicks is hard.
@ASheridan said:And it supports some pretty huge local mailboxes quite happily (for example, one folder in Evolution contains all mails from a mailing list I'm on for the past few years, which is ~100,000 at last count).
The Boss has a 45GB PST, and that's when Outlook starts to choke.
@ASheridan said:earching within my local mailbox as well takes a fraction of the time the same search takes in Outlook (although in Evolution I'm testing it on the folder with 100,000 emails, in Outlook I'm only attempting to search an inbox with about 300 or so)
Searching for the word "bacon" in my PST with 167 messages in the inbox finds the single message with Bacon in it in less than a second. On a Core 2 Duo. On a battery. The same search in my other PST's inbox with 2041 messages finds 15 in just over one second. Same thing.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Douglasac said:
I figured as much, I was mainly referring to gu3st's fanboyism re: obviousness.@morbiuswilters said:
@gu3st said:
Well, they should make it more obvious, because it isn't obvious that those keys do those things. Or, you know, do what every other OS does and offer cut, copy and paste functions for files?This behaviour can always be overriden by holding Option/Alt when dragging.
Intuitive!
I was being sarcastic.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
A lot of people use HTML email (mostly just for styled signature lines).
<sore-point>
I was forced to switch from plain text to HTML email at work, because HR insisted that we use a specific signature block format which includes images representing awards our company has won.It also has, at the end, a little picture of a green frog and small green text saying "be green, read from the screen!" <headdesk />
</sore-point>
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@morbiuswilters said:
A lot of people use HTML email (mostly just for styled signature lines).
<sore-point>
I was forced to switch from plain text to HTML email at work, because HR insisted that we use a specific signature block format which includes images representing awards our company has won.It also has, at the end, a little picture of a green frog and small green text saying "be green, read from the screen!" <headdesk />
</sore-point>What is this nerdy obsession with obsolete, bare-bones user interfaces? HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications? It would be like me complaining about web sites that use CSS, instead of unstyled HTML. I'd prefer it if we could just get rid of plain text email altogether; it would make writing email software a little bit easier.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
Searching within my local mailbox as well takes a fraction of the time the same search takes in Outlook (although in Evolution I'm testing it on the folder with 100,000 emails, in Outlook I'm only attempting to search an inbox with about 300 or so)
Bunk.
Outlook can be said to have many flaws, but slow searches isn't one of them.
Let me guess, you're one of those idiots who "optimized" your computer by turning off the Search Indexer service, and is now complaining that searches take too long, right? That's the usual problem.
Nope, I don't turn off the search index feature in Windows. I'm sorry, but I've been using Outlook in various versions at work for years, and they've all had slow searches. Maybe each and every one of the companies I worked for had really badly optimised configurations for Outlook searching, but it does say something that Evolution works just fine out of the box. Sorry, but I'm saying this impartially and with years of experience with both of them. Evolution has flaws next to Outlook (I don't think you can make an email client that will please everyone), but a key strength is the speed of its searches.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm assuming there are probably some really good* Android IMAP clients.
Have you tried K9 Mail? I use it as the stock email app on Android really sucks. It has some problems every now and again with the fetch process going into overtime and rinsing the battery, but that only happens about once every couple of months.
- Well, ad-laden and of acceptable quality, like all "good" Android apps.
-
@boomzilla said:
My emails generally have better spelling and fewer grammar errors, since I tend to proof read and edit them before sending, so maybe the people who get my email are just amazed at my use of outmoded things like proper punctuation and capitalization.
Oh I miss that. Seems like every other email I get these days has some kindof glaring error. Come on people, that squiggly red line under your words means something!
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
It also has, at the end, a little picture of a green frog and small green text saying "be green, read from the screen
Which sadly most people will ignore and it'll end up wasting more paper when they print out this lovely footer telling them that they shouldn't print it.
-
@Douglasac said:
@ASheridan said:
but it makes some stuff a hell of a lot easier, like viewing the headers on an email (something that still isn't simple in Outlook 2010).
The only time I've ever had to view headers on an email was to fire off a spam report to the ISP that the emails originated from. And even then, double click email, click File, click Properties, tada, headers are there. Not hard.The point isn't that "four clicks is hard", just that there used to be an option to "view full headers" in Outlook but now that's been removed in favour of these four clicks. In Thunderbird, it's simply CTRL+U - without having to open the email.
@Douglasac said:
Also doesn't need to be relatively easy because I can not imagine a position where you would need to view the headers so often that four clicks is hard.
So because you can't imagine that position, this functionality doesn't need to be relatively easy? I view headers of emails quite often when adjusting spam filters and reporting phish.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What is this nerdy obsession with obsolete, bare-bones user interfaces? HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications?
Because I want to read a message, rather than sit through an announcement. If someone wants to leave me a postit note, they don't dash off the content then add extraneous formatting bloat around the message.
I remember back in the early days when presentational aspects of HTML mail were used to hide iframe exploits, cause annoying javascript popups, leave tracking cookies and webbugs on client machines (spammer using an embedded image with a unique URL to verify a working mail address) etc. To me, HTML mail is an unnecessary evil and I can live without it quite well. Leave HTML to the browser, not the mail client.
/grumpy
-
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
What is this nerdy obsession with obsolete, bare-bones user interfaces? HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications?
I remember back in the early days when presentational aspects of HTML mail were used to hide iframe exploits, cause annoying javascript popups, leave tracking cookies and webbugs on client machines (spammer using an embedded image with a unique URL to verify a working mail address) etc. To me, HTML mail is an unnecessary evil and I can live without it quite well. Leave HTML to the browser, not the mail client.
/grumpy
If people could just agree on a suitable subset of HTML to use in email, I'd be quite happy with it. As it is every client seems to have a different idea of which tags are supported, or how to handle inline images, or what do to with CSS. In a long enough thread it's inevitable that one client in the chain will balls up all the formatting.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What is this nerdy obsession with obsolete, bare-bones user interfaces? HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications? It would be like me complaining about web sites that use CSS, instead of unstyled HTML. I'd prefer it if we could just get rid of plain text email altogether; it would make writing email software a little bit easier.
What's with this obsession over the way others like to work? Plain text has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using html for normal communications?
/sarcasmFor the rare occasion that I benefit from a table or inline images, I can use html. But to communicate a few sentences of prose, what does html give me, aside from the potential for annoying signatures? Speaking of which, the "don't print this email" sigs must be a conspiracy to reduce the number of trees on the planet. It's the only logical explanation.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What is this nerdy obsession with obsolete, bare-bones user interfaces? HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications?
Because plain text just works, whereas for HTML mail every mail client I've used offers some crappy WYSIWYG interface.
-
@Cassidy said:
Okay, let me rephrase. I cannot imagine a position where I would need to view the headers so often that four clicks is hard.And if you have Outlook 2010, you can take it down to one click (two if you have the ribbon minimized): right click a blank part of the ribbon, click Customize the Ribbon, create a new group on the Home tab, change the left list to All Commands, find Message Options in the list, drag it across to the new group on the home tab, and there you have it. This also enables the keyboard shortcut Alt, h, op. I don't have Outlook 2007 but I imagine you can do much the same thing but without needing to add the group, but I doubt you'd get the keyboard shortcut.@Douglasac said:
@ASheridan said:
but it makes some stuff a hell of a lot easier, like viewing the headers on an email (something that still isn't simple in Outlook 2010).
The only time I've ever had to view headers on an email was to fire off a spam report to the ISP that the emails originated from. And even then, double click email, click File, click Properties, tada, headers are there. Not hard.The point isn't that "four clicks is hard", just that there used to be
an option to "view full headers" in Outlook but now that's been removed
in favour of these four clicks. In Thunderbird, it's simply CTRL+U -
without having to open the email.@Douglasac said:
Also doesn't need to be relatively easy because I can not imagine a position where you would need to view the headers so often that four clicks is hard.
So because you can't imagine that position, this functionality doesn't need to be relatively easy? I view headers of emails quite often when adjusting spam filters and reporting phish.
-
@boomzilla said:
amazed at my use of outmoded things like proper punctuation and capitalization.
They don't even ask about the veal.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
I was forced to switch from plain text to HTML email at work, because HR insisted that we use a specific signature block format which includes images representing awards our company has won.
I made a tiny plaintext sig of my own that I select manually every time I send internal mail, because the startup script keeps setting the default tothat HTML monstrosity.
It's no biggie.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications?
I use a high contrast theme with dark background, as otherwise my eyes get tired really fast and start hurting. HTML e-mails often don't play well with that, since they either set the background to white, or text to black (but not both at the same time), resulting in barely visible text. Unfortunately my e-mail software doesn't let me impose my CSS on the messages like the browser does - but I can switch to plain-text view.
-
@ASheridan said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm assuming there are probably some really good* Android IMAP clients.
Have you tried K9 Mail? I use it as the stock email app on Android really sucks. It has some problems every now and again with the fetch process going into overtime and rinsing the battery, but that only happens about once every couple of months.
- Well, ad-laden and of acceptable quality, like all "good" Android apps.
I'll bookmark it for future reference. Thanks for the tip!
-
@boomzilla said:
What's with this obsession over the way others like to work? Plain text has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using html for normal communications?
There are cases where HTML is necessary (formatting and what-not). Why have two ways to display information (which, by the way, are very fucking hard to normalize)? I wouldn't hate plain text email so much if I hadn't spent years having to work with it. And HTML email isn't going anywhere, so we need to drop plain text. But it'll never happen--email specs change slower than supercooled liquid glass flows.
@boomzilla said:
Speaking of which, the "don't print this email" sigs must be a conspiracy to reduce the number of trees on the planet. It's the only logical explanation.
Since most paper comes from farmed trees, if the sig stops people from printing then it will reduce the number of trees. If it makes them print more, it will increase the number of trees. My new email sig is going to be: "Save a tree, print this email! You wouldn't guarantee a large population of iPods by boycotting Apple products, would you?"
-
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
HTML email has some flaws, but why would you ever prefer using plain text for normal communications?
I use a high contrast theme with dark background, as otherwise my eyes get tired really fast and start hurting. HTML e-mails often don't play well with that, since they either set the background to white, or text to black (but not both at the same time), resulting in barely visible text. Unfortunately my e-mail software doesn't let me impose my CSS on the messages like the browser does - but I can switch to plain-text view.That sounds like a problem with the client. And clients could still implement a plain text view which transformed the HTML into plain text. Instead we get this asinine system where you can send plain text and HTML in the same message and they can contain different content.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
Speaking of which, the "don't print this email" sigs must be a conspiracy to reduce the number of trees on the planet. It's the only logical explanation.
Since most paper comes from farmed trees, if the sig stops people from printing then it will reduce the number of trees. If it makes them print more, it will increase the number of trees. My new email sig is going to be: "Save a tree, print this email! You wouldn't guarantee a large population of iPods by boycotting Apple products, would you?"
Yes, thank you for explaining this for the slower students.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
Speaking of which, the "don't print this email" sigs must be a conspiracy to reduce the number of trees on the planet. It's the only logical explanation.
Since most paper comes from farmed trees, if the sig stops people from printing then it will reduce the number of trees. If it makes them print more, it will increase the number of trees. My new email sig is going to be: "Save a tree, print this email! You wouldn't guarantee a large population of iPods by boycotting Apple products, would you?"
Yes, thank you for explaining this for the slower students.
I was explaining it for the lone smart person out there who didn't know it. The slower students won't believe me anyway.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Instead we get this asinine system where you can send plain text and HTML in the same message and they can contain different content.
This.
Email is like vinyl in that people just won't let the fucking tech die in favour of something better.
-
@Douglasac said:
Okay, let me rephrase. I cannot imagine a position where I would need to view the headers so often that four clicks is hard.
As I stated, it's not paticularly difficult as such, just that comparably it's much quicker and easier in other clients I've used. I almost got the impression that it was being made intentionally tricky to find.
@Douglasac said:
And if you have Outlook 2010, you can take it down to one click (two if you have the ribbon minimized): right click a blank part of the ribbon, click Customize the Ribbon, create a new group on the Home tab, change the left list to All Commands, find Message Options in the list, drag it across to the new group on the home tab, and there you have it. This also enables the keyboard shortcut Alt, h, op.
Now that bit of advice I find useful and will endevour to try next time I'm remoting into work. Thankee kindly in advance, Sir.
-
@dhromed said:
Email is like vinyl in that people just won't let the fucking tech die in favour of something better.
Whoa whoa whoa.. now vinyl is obviously superior. What do you listen to, CDs? Ha! Vinyl has a much warmer sound.
-
@Douglasac said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Douglasac said:
I figured as much, I was mainly referring to gu3st's fanboyism re: obviousness.@morbiuswilters said:
@gu3st said:
Well, they should make it more obvious, because it isn't obvious that those keys do those things. Or, you know, do what every other OS does and offer cut, copy and paste functions for files?This behaviour can always be overriden by holding Option/Alt when dragging.
Intuitive!
I was being sarcastic.
Sorry, should I be sucking Microsofts dick, or spend the next 3 years figuring out how to compile a Linux distro from Scratch?
Sorry that I prefer a Unix-based OS that also has well designed applications so I can get stuff done.
The next time I feel like poking around aimlessly in menus to open a file, or to learn 10+ keycombo strings to save a file... I'll use Linux.
-
I will however agree that Email is the worst technology that everyone uses. It's amazing that emails even go from person to person. Hundreds of different mail servers and clients. There's no authentication that a message is actually from the sender, as it's effortless to masquerade as a different user on any domain. There are technologies now that try to validate that an email actually came from a person that actually exists at a domain, but not that the person actually sent the message.
Email is THE worst tech that people still use on a daily basis. Unfortunately nobody has tried to really come up with something that's better that anyone will use. Google had something that was cool with Wave, but it wasn't quite thought out entirely.
Maybe one day...
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Whoa whoa whoa.. now vinyl is obviously superior. What do you listen to, CDs? Ha! Vinyl has a much warmer sound.
I appreciate what you're doing, but it's okay.
-
@gu3st said:
Email is THE worst tech that people still use on a daily basis.
I'm sure that other things can be named as well, such as TN panels, or Catalyst drivers.
-
@gu3st said:
Sorry that I prefer a Unix-based OS that also has well designed applications so I can get stuff done.
But I thought you used OSX.
-
@gu3st said:
Sorry that I prefer a Unix-based OS that also has well designed applications so I can get stuff done.
Why do you even care if it's Unix-based? You literally don't have any idea what you area talking about, do you? You're just like "Oh, M$ is t3h evil but I heard someone use the word 'Unix' once so I need to use a Unix OS. That certainly requires I overpay for mediocre hardware and shitty software! Paying twice as much for something inferior because I like the ads: I love being a marketers' wet dream!!"
Enjoy the taste of Steve Jobs' rotting dick in your mouth, you mindless drone.
-
@gu3st said:
Hundreds of different mail servers and clients.
There are lots of different web servers and browsers, too. It's called a "standard" and email's may suck, but it's not shocking that it works, it's just shocking nothing has replaced it.
@gu3st said:
There's no authentication that a message is actually from the sender, as it's effortless to masquerade as a different user on any domain. There are technologies now that try to validate that an email actually came from a person that actually exists at a domain, but not that the person actually sent the message.
Well, you can use GPG to sign your messages, but more realistically you can just use DKIM and SPF. If the sending SMTP server uses authentication (and dear God, why wouldn't it?) you can be fairly confident the email came from who it says.
@gu3st said:
Google had something that was cool with Wave, but it wasn't quite thought out entirely.
I don't think Wave was really an email replacement.. I think what we need is a major overhaul to email. I like the core idea but the execution is lacking.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@gu3st said:
Sorry that I prefer a Unix-based OS that also has well designed applications so I can get stuff done.
Why do you even care if it's Unix-based? You literally don't have any idea what you area talking about, do you? You're just like "Oh, M$ is t3h evil but I heard someone use the word 'Unix' once so I need to use a Unix OS. That certainly requires I overpay for mediocre hardware and shitty software! Paying twice as much for something inferior because I like the ads: I love being a marketers' wet dream!!"
Enjoy the taste of Steve Jobs' rotting dick in your mouth, you mindless drone.
Unfortunately you're the one that doesn't have any idea about what you're talking about. I do depend on my OS having a decent command line rather than using the GUI to do a bunch of random shit. I'm sorry that you can't see that OS X is actually well designed, rather than the shit-tastic voyage that is Microsoft (Have you SEEN Windows 8)?!
And I'd rather not use Linux, as all the window managers look like they ate shit, then some poprocks and then vomited.
-
@gu3st said:
I'm sorry that you can't see that OS X is actually well designed
Oh, you! You crack me up!
All operating systems are poorly designed.@gu3st said:
Have you SEEN Windows 8?!
Apparently it's now a bad thing to trial new things before actually releasing them?
-
@gu3st said:
I'm sorry that you can't see that OS X is actually well designed
Then explain these away for me, dahling (from here)
@Douglasac said:
For some reason, one of my courses at uni requires that I do programming on a Mac for the practical. We do programming in Python (which is not only slower on an i3 Mac than it is on my 3 year old Core 2 Duo Windows 7 machine, it's WTFy in itself). Anyways, after using OS X for a few pracs, I figured out that it's a piece of crap.
- Command+Tab switches between apps, not windows and is therefore completely pointless because I generally want to Command+Tab into something that is minimized.
- One cannot press the Alt key to dive through menus (ie. in Word for Windows, you can hit Alt, F, A to do a Save As)
- As opposed to Windows, which won't let you login until it's good and ready, OS X will let you log in when it's not ready and communicates its readyness to you through a little light. Why not just say "Please wait while I connect to the network"? And if you login and it fails, as opposed to bringing up an intelligible error (e.g. cannot find domain, incorrect password, etc.), the window shakes. Useful!
- By default, the F keys act like hotkeys instead of F keys. This is a Very Bad Thing. Especially the Gadgets one. They were promptly disabled.
- The Genie animation is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. Ditto for the bouncing icons: flash if you want my attention. What is wrong with subtle animation that catches your eye in an unobnoxious fashion?
- As said before, the “Make Window Bigger” button never behaves the same between programs - it should make the window cover the entire screen and not just get slightly larger. Apparently there's an app that can fix this, but because it's a uni PC I can't do shit (more on that later)
- As also said, the menu bar up the top is annoying and requires that one have thw window that one wants to use the menu for to be in focus.
- Close all the windows of an app and the app will remain open most of the time. Uhhh… why? That behaviour was abandoned long ago on Windows because it fucking sucked, sometime around Works 4.5 in Windows 95 if I do recall correctly.
- The entire Control\Alt\Command nonsense. Every other OS uses Ctrl\Super\Alt, why not OS X?
- Open windows aren't represented anywhere. So if I have about five Python windows open, two Preview windows open and a couple of Chrome windows, and I want to go to a Chrome window, I have taken to just minimizing everything until I find the Chrome window that I want.
- The search doesn't do natural language control panel search (example: type "change association" into the Windows 7 search box, first option is to do so. OS X shows random irrelevant files).
- Ironically, I spend more time in the Window menu on a Mac than I have ever done in Windows.
It doesn't help that the uni have also locked them down in stupid ways. I can't unpin things from the dock, I can't pin things that I find useful to the dock, either changing file associations is verboten or I'm not doing it right or you can't change them on OS X and I can't create aliases (or whatever) to things in the Applications directory. So I have to put up with Firefox and other crap I don't use on the dock and when I want something that I actually use I have to go digging around for it in the Applications folder.
What amazes me is that people use this OS full time and don't feel like throwing their machine at a wall.
-
Some of those are a little misguided/down to unfamilliarity with the OS.
Icons bounce so if the dock is hidden they pop up out of the screen border without opening the dock in front of what you're doing.
Window switching is meant to be done via Exposé or whatever it's called now. It's not as good as start+1/2/3/4/5/6 on Windows, but it's not that bad. Their reveal desktop mode is far, far better than the Windows equivalent which seems to forget to bring the windows back when you hit it again if you open any windows. (thus making it useless for quick desktop access without interrupting your workflow)
But for the most part, not for me as an OS.
-
@Salamander said:
@gu3st said:
If you trial something, people say it sucks and you fix it, that's good.Have you SEEN Windows 8?!
Apparently it's now a bad thing to trial new things before actually releasing them?If you trial something, people point out all the reasons it sucks and you say (directly or implied) "Fuck you, this is the way it is, get used to it", that's not so good.
-
@El_Heffe said:
If you trial something, people point out all the reasons it sucks and you say (directly or implied) "Fuck you, this is the way it is, get used to it", that's not so good.
If you correct for the 80% of people who hate things BECAUSE they're different than before, but have no actual reason to hate it. There lies the rub.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@El_Heffe said:
The real problem is that the 80% are often right. Different isn't always better. Sometimes different is worse. And many times it's neither better or worse, just different. Which ends up being worse because it screws up the way you do things for no good reason. Complaining that something is different, simply because it's different, is (too often) a legitimate complaint. Too many changes made to products are of little or no benefit and are really just done make them different in order to sell people a "new version". The companies who make these products will deny it, but they're full of shit. That's not to say that there haven't been any improvements -- there certainly have been many. But for every legitimate improvement in a product, they also cram in a bunch of pointless changes just for the sake of making it different.If you trial something, people point out all the reasons it sucks and you say (directly or implied) "Fuck you, this is the way it is, get used to it", that's not so good.
If you correct for the 80% of people who hate things BECAUSE they're different than before, but have no actual reason to hate it. There lies the rub.
-
@El_Heffe said:
The real problem is that the 80% are often right.
No, they're never right. Ever.
@El_Heffe said:
Different isn't always better.
Duh. Nobody claimed otherwise.
The problem is that idiots complain about something being different with no consideration with whether it is actually better or worse.
-
If you actually think that Windows 8 Metro as a start menu is better for a KB+Mouse computing experience, I think you might be mentally handicapped.
For a Tablet experience, I think it's a good idea, but for a keyboard and mouse.. there's so much wasted space and needless mouse movement. Different != better.
-
Honestly, I don't understand why there is so much metrohate. It has applications, search, and the old-style windows 7 interface. The only thing I can see that is different is that it uses more screen space and looks a bit different.
Is it actually a better UI? Is it worse? Fuck if I know, every complaint I have seen about it is they changed it now it sucks.
-
@Salamander said:
Honestly, I don't understand why there is so much metrohate. It has applications, search, and the old-style windows 7 interface. The only thing I can see that is different is that it uses more screen space and looks a bit different.
Is it actually a better UI? Is it worse? Fuck if I know, every complaint I have seen about it is they changed it now it sucks.Same. From the previews I've seen it doesn't look like it'd really be bad, per se, it just might take a bit of time to get used to. But I can say the same about the windows 7 start menu and I can definitely say that the changes there were helpful to me (once it got used to it).
-
@Douglasac said:
And if you have Outlook 2010, you can take it down to one click (two if you have the ribbon minimized): right click a blank part of the ribbon, click Customize the Ribbon, create a new group on the Home tab, change the left list to All Commands, find Message Options in the list, drag it across to the new group on the home tab, and there you have it. This also enables the keyboard shortcut Alt, h, op. I don't have Outlook 2007 but I imagine you can do much the same thing but without needing to add the group, but I doubt you'd get the keyboard shortcut.
Not quite. 2007 has this weird setup where the main application isn't ribbonified, but the message window is. So you can open a message, then customise the ribbon there to add the "Message Options..." command (which, by the way, is a [i]really[/i] intuitive place to find the message headers, don't you think?), but you only get it in the message ribbon. So you still have to open the message to access your new shortcut, which makes it hardly worthwhile.
-
... really, it's much easier to right-click on the message and choose "Message Options..."...
-
@Salamander said:
Honestly, I don't understand why there is so much metrohate. It has applications, search, and the old-style windows 7 interface.
Try it on a machine that has two (or more) monitors, where the smallest of those monitors is 24". It's fine on a laptop or tablet, but it really doesn't work well on a multimonitor desktop (or even on a single monitor desktop when that monitor is large enough).
