Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
The Bat: Great program, terrible documentation and support
Armando:
I understand too the need to have all data locally. I do exactly the same.
But what do you need to do with your email, apart from classifying, sorting, filtering, searching and finding info in it?
-Armando (February 26, 2011, 12:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
Classify, sort, filter, search and find info in it - all the way back to 1995. I don't use Outlook, and if I only want to search my email, I find Thunderbird's searching ideal. I would not be happy having all of my email archive anywhere but on my local drive. It's over 4gb.
-timns (February 26, 2011, 01:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
Hi timns. My last post was actually speaking to superboyac... :)
What I meant was : "what more than these functions do you need ?" (i.e. : Is the bat really necessary ?)
superboyac:
Yo! Armando...sorry, didn't respond...
I see your point. No, I don't use all the features of the Bat, but I use enough of them where gmail just doesn't even come close to meeting my needs. But it is extreme, my reasons are often making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm a person who has a very difficult time just "accepting" something. I'd rather deal with the headache, than give up the one little thing I'm obsessed about. Anyway, some of the features I use in the Bat that are not possible with other email solutions:
--managing multiple email accounts in just the right way
--locally stored files. easily shared between applications. Even Outlook is not as easy to share as people seem to think, but I don't want to get into those details
--quick templates; they let me automate a lot of things.
--layout control. most other programs don't allow you to modify the layout as much as the Bat.
--powerful filtering. gmail doesn't have it, nor does outlook. Gmail's is way too simple. Outlook is just odd and stupid.
Darwin:
Sort of OT here, but just wanted to chime in: I have a license for the Bat! 4.x but haven't had it installed, let alone used it, in over a year. Hell, maybe even two or three years (as I get older the time compression thing is getting much more problematic for me*). Anyway, I started out with PINE in grad school (1993) and used Eudora for several years at home, then Outlook Express and then Outlook 2000 (around 1999). I haven't really looked back. I've tried Netscape Messenger, Thunderbird, and others along the way as well. I'm currently using K9 on my Android devices. It's fair - bettter than the built in client. The iOS 4.3 email client is alright as well. WP7's email client, though it lacks an integrated inbox, is MUCH better than either, though, IMNSHO. Have used MacMail on my OSX Snow Leapord system but am now using Outlook 2011. Much better (for me!), though I concede superboyac and vizaac's points about Mac's mail client. There is a lot to like about it.
My main e-mail client is Outlook 2010, and I have no significant complaints about it. Actually, I can't think of any.
*Wrinting cogent, topical, and interesting posts is also a challenge :-[ Too lazy to do much about it, though (also age-related: can't be asked!).
Armando:
--managing multiple email accounts in just the right way
--locally stored files. easily shared between applications. Even Outlook is not as easy to share as people seem to think, but I don't want to get into those details
--quick templates; they let me automate a lot of things.
--layout control. most other programs don't allow you to modify the layout as much as the Bat.
--powerful filtering. gmail doesn't have it, nor does outlook. Gmail's is way too simple. Outlook is just odd and stupid.
-superboyac (February 27, 2011, 01:07 AM)
--- End quote ---
Of course, I understand your obsessions. I'm pretty obsessive myself. However, I find that all the above can be done in Outlook well enough. Not to mention that it's much easier to find devices and services syncing with Outlook than with any other software. Yes, Gmail is way too simple for my needs also. That's why I don't manage my e-mail with it... I use Outlook to do so.
But... We obviously have different needs. And so I'd be curious to know what important action -- very specifically -- can be done in the bat which can't be done with Outlook...?
(Darwin : Hi ! :) )
superboyac:
It's not really a matter of what can the Bat do that Outlook can't do. Outlook can't do all the things I described in the particular way that I prefer. And to get it to do so is a huge pain in the butt. So whatever my complaints are with the Bat, I have WAAAY more with Outlook. Outlook's filtering rules are very annoying to me. It's almost impossible to do certain things. Most things I'd like to do with Outlook would be much harder than with the Bat.
I don't think it's really a matter of different needs or anything. I know you are pretty obsessive also! I think the difference is that I make a bigger deal out of minor things, and most others would just let it go.
But to be specific, Outlook's filtering rules are really annoying to me. In the Bat, you create filters from scratch. So you set up the scenario, pick some actions, and you're done. It's very powerfula nd flexible. With Outlook, they sort of have these pre-made filter templates which work for 90% of the time, but not for me because I'm always trying to do something a little differently than the expectation. So I try to somehow get Outlook to do it, but it's always a big pain because it's just not as flexible. It drives me nuts. I use Outlook at work, and the Bat at home.
And I'm not willing to get my fingers into the VB scripts to customize it. I also hesitate to get plugins and third party tools for Outlook which tend to be bloated and overpriced. Outlook is also just generally slower, bloatier, and not as tweakable as the Bat.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version