Mikael, I understand that feature request of 'having everything in window' very well and I support it. Imho it doesn't mean breaking the GUI of PM. The approch everything in one Window is anyway supported by PM and was broken by the RMW. Smart Folders would be an alternative to bring the old GUI Approach back and make PM much more powerful.
But the GUI would be broken, if we'd get folders in the Filters-window and then those filters wouldn't work hierarchically. So I'd like to see in an upcoming version of PM with smart folders and a much better (more stable) IMAP support. All the best Matthias ----------------------------------------------- Admilon Consulting GmbH http://www.admilon.com iChat/AIM: MatKoyasan Tel. +81-736-56-3905 ----------------------------------------------- Am/On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 04:17:37 +0100 schrieb/wrote Mikael Byström: >Marlyse Comte said: > >>First off, I realize that you are absolutely on the "other side" of our >>viewpoint and I will not try to convince you in any manner. >There are no two sides in this issue. I don't take "sides" anyway. I >think and reflect. > >>Rick's posting made it clear why one window is - for us - way more >>appealing than having to deal constantly with 2 windows overlapping on >>the same screen. >It most certainly didn't make anything clear on what problems were solved >with his suggestion. See my reply to him. You say "overlapping" is the >problem? So getting one window out of sight, limiting the view to one >folder at a time is the solution? > >> If it doesn't "demonstrate" to you or you don't have a >>problem with this, that's just as fine, >"this" being what? If "smart" folders is the solution, what is the problem? >One can usually forward the case by demonstrating *the problem* in a >clear language. Again, what is the problem? > >>Also, if you check out what Smart Folders ARE, you'll >>find that you will find "all with the singer = XXX" and such stuff which >>is just as good as using a filter telling to put all mails coming from >>XXX into so-and-so folder. >That is all you can do with filters, is it? I both use them for and can >think of so much more. > >>Thus Smart Folders are VERY much like using filters >"Smart" folders are not one fixed thing that always works the same way in >the different contexts of different applications . They are programmable >functions connected semantically to (usually) clickable objects in the >graphical interface, that's all. > >You say "if I can assign these criteria to each folder instead within >*the filter window*, this will leave me with less clutter in *the filter >window*". Read that sentence again. Is it correct? If so, what did you >actually mean? It's incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you could detail it a >little? > >>You might need to try a bit and try not to be resistant to the idea >>itself, just try and look at it - this doesn't mean you need to agree >>with it either, but it might help you to understand where we are coming >>from - and >It seems to me you're suggesting that something you call "smart folders", >unclear exactly what you mean by that, should replace not only the Recent >Mail Window, but the somehow the filter window as well. It's also even >more unclear what you think should be achieved by this or what issues you >have with how it's working now. >At the moment I'm not even sure I fully grasp what it is you're actually >suggesting. Could you please elaborate in numbered points so an outsider >can follow your thought here? What you say seem more wide in scope than >what Rick said. > >>as usual, having a preference setting which enables a user to >>turn something on or off is always useful in divided camps. >No, in this case what you *seem to suggest* is a fundamental change in >the GUI and with how things work. If that perception is true simple >Preference changes won't cut it. > > > > >
