News and Reviews > Best E-mail Client

E-mail client recommendations

<< < (3/10) > >>

Josh:
I have a rather bad taste for webmail interfaces. I often get told to just use gmail. Personally, and no this has nothing to do with Google as a company, I do not like gmail or the way it handles things. The way folders are handled, as tags, really bothers me and their imap implementation is sub-standard.

Mulberry would be nice if it were still in development. Pegasus is one I am trying out now. As much as I hate to say it, thunderbird is probably my best option at this point. I would like to find something else to migrate from that feels more complete and does not feel as "clunky" as t-bird. I still cannot download an attachment from thunderbird without it being corrupted (downloaded attachments are fine from webmail).

I will try each recommendation from this thread. I am very actively seeking something to move me away from t-bird and the mozilla cludge that I have suffered with for so long.

mwb1100:
Am I the only one who actually likes Outlook, even though I'm not using Exchange?  Is there a reason I shouldn't that I'm clueless about? (that's certainly a possibility) 

Or is the problem with Outlook because of the cost?

Josh:
I actually enjoy outlook but it has one thing missing that is a must for me. Folder layouts, when using imap, should remain expanded between software restarts. Right now, I have to expand every folder I usually have open every time I start outlook. If it weren't for that, I would gladly move to it because, let's face it, nothing beats Outlook in terms of speed and functionality.

Shades:
Outlook (2010) is a reasonable client...until you hook it up to Exchange.

If you use Outlook for automatizing email with encryption while connected to Exchange...welcome to a world of hurt! Completely unnecessary, overly complicated and poorly (read: contradicting) documented hurt...

Speed? Never impressed me much (with or without Exchange "life line").
Functionality? Sure, now Microsoft has to follow some KISS-principles and it might be better than reasonable (without Exchange).

My Exchange 2010 setup is an i7 with SATAII discs and 8GByte RAM...and it matches the speed of my old Exchange 2000 server on a Pentium 2 350MHz, 256MByte RAM, IDE disc. Both use default settings, but the overhead has increased dramatically for functionality that is better implemented in other 3rd party software.

The only reason that I use Outlook is because it is the only client that supports extended MAPI (and therefore CAPI).

Lets just say that I will never be or become an Outllook fan, especially after all these years and incarnations that archaic PST/OST structure (including its artificial limits) is still in use today.
[/end rant]

Renegade:
Lets just say that I will never be or become an Outllook fan, especially after all these years and incarnations that archaic PST/OST structure (including its artificial limits) is still in use today.
[/end rant]
-Shades (December 29, 2011, 05:04 AM)
--- End quote ---

+666 for the PST hatred...

I've heard that "enhanced interrogation techniques" involve forcing victims people to use Outlook and solve PST issues... But those are just rumors. I'm certain nobody is that evil to do anything like that...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page