Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[William Moore]

Hello tbudl

Thank you for your email dated Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 5:31:08 PM,
in which you wrote:

M> In software development it is normal
M> that in some special circumstances the software may fail.

Ain't that the truth. And with some software the circumstances don't
have to all that special either.

-- 

Regards
William

http://www.residues.info 

Flying with The Bat!  www.ritlabs.com/the_bat
Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 4







Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Martin Schneider]

Hello ken,

on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 1:26:48 AM, ken green wrote:

> Come on, this isn't about my needs changing beyond what The Bat has to
> offer.  This is about The Bat promising on functionality and hitting
> 90% - and I'm complaining about that 10%

Yes, and that is good. If noone would complain Stefan would say
everyone is happy and wouldn't continue developing "The Bat" - and
what else he could do in his time! ;)

> Note that I don't ignore that 90% either. I have repeatedly stated
> that I like TB. But it doesn't stop me from wanting it to be better.
> What's wrong with asking for 95% or 97%?

Nothing. The opposite is the case: we must ask for 110%. So that means
additional features. But the first 100% should have as less errors as
possible.

> But consider your experiences with IMAP.  Then go to RitLabs site:
> "Fully functional IMAP4rev1 support for on-line, off-line and combined
> use"
> That's not about addressing Allie's IMAP problems.  IMAP is *NOT*
> fully functional.  And it's supposed to be.

Well, that may be. However which software "fully" implements the IMAP
standard? In one of the last "c't" (a german computer magazine) tests
about mail clients only a few had an IMAP support. And from these few
I think only the Mozilla suite (or Thunderbird) got best grades. All
others were lacking some IMAP features.

> If IMAP isn't fully imlemented, then the product should state this.
> It's a principle called truth in advertising.

You are right. But in the today world noone wants to hear the truth in
advertisemnts else the people wouldn't buy it. It is sad but true.
Anyway the IMAP support of The Bat is more less okay. At least you can
use it (which not always was the case). However every improvement that
is done there really would help to increase the 90%.

> Viva The Bat!

Si! :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Martin

Using The Bat 2.04.4 on Windows XP



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Martin Schneider]

Hello ken,

on Monday, February 23, 2004, 10:23:53 PM, ken green wrote:

> I am in no way saying that The Bat is all bad or that Stefan or
> RitLabs are terrible or anything like that.  In fact, I continue to
> complain about TB's performance because I do plan on using TheBat well
> into the future.  If I didn't, I wouldn't bother.

Yes, you are right doing that. But I think anyway what you see are
some users who report problems. In software development it is normal
that in some special circumstances the software may fail. For the
person where it happens this is a pity and it MUST be fixed but this
is not easily to find out by beta testers or the porgrammer before the
error occurs.

Look, one of a described problem was that the progress circle of
connection center was displayed in another color than the rest of the
box. In my eyes this is a pity because it doesn't look as nice as it
should. But it has no influence in receiving mails and stuff like
that. So you can work well with the program if it has this bug inside
or not. And beta-team plus Stefan tried to find out why this display
problem appeared for some few users until they found out that
WindowsBlinds (a windows desktop enhancer utility was the reason for
that). So in my eyes there you can't blame Stefan if something like
that happened. Anyway he tried to fix it. If it still appears, no idea
as I don't have Windows Blinds installed.

> Go check the PocoMail forum. I tried it out, complained a bit about
> things I felt were important, then let it go and will likely not look
> back for some time.  I honestly felt like Poco was too far removed
> from what I wanted (features and stability) to wait around.

Yes, of course. Stability and needed features is the most important
thing. I also checked some years ago (before using The Bat) several
other e-mail clients. And it really is a shame how some clients are
done (by stability, functionality and usability). Only "The Bat"
offered enough for me to say, yes, this will be my email client for
the future. And when you can say this then it's time to go to the
"registration page" for ordering your key. And believe me I never
regreted this until now as Ritlabs really try to fix the problems
which occur.

> I think TB is really close.  Probably as close to perfect (for me)
> that a software app could be.

Very good. So don't panic if you see a error posting. Be more in
sorrow in case a error posting wouldn't be answered or read by the
developers. But they do so and if it really is an urgent matter they
will fix it quite fast (as in this case done by version 2.04.7).

> I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work.  Really bad... :)

That is your right and I also want it work. If the Bat wouldn't work I
even couldn't complain with Stefan by mail... ;)

> I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT
> SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain
> about the latest version? Look through the archives You will read
> some variation of that response over and over again following critical
> posts.

Well, there I must say that the problem only was caused when upgrading
from some special preversions. As I used mostly all betas except the
very last RC and the very first test release for me it didn't occur.
It mostly happened for people with a old installation which the beta
testers normally never have.

Maybe this could be a job for Ritlabs to have some installations of
old "The Bat" versions to see if the upgrade is working fine. But I
only would test the Release versions - not the Beta ones as they are
not for all the people.

> I think it's fair to hold RitLabs and The Bat to high standards. It's
> a great product. But it should work as advertised. And as long as new
> versions are getting released, I expect TB to continue getting
> greater.

Well, yes I also hope so. Many things could be improved (Feature
Requests). You may have seen my mails
 and
. But that are requests which
I could imagine as very good for the Bat. I think no other mail client
offers these features.

So if you ask me I am very happy about "The Bat" and as you said - let
we get it greater! :)


-- 
Best regards,
 Martin

Using The Bat 2.04.4 on Windows XP



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Urban]

Tuesday, February 24, 2004, Doug Weller wrote:

> I can't get it to kick in.

Do you get any error message, such as the /very/ helpful "It seems like
something is present in your registry, but it's not enough or corrupted"
that it gives me at startup.
Not a big problem to me, but it would be nice if it at least indicated
what key it was that it's got problems with.

-- 
Urban

A closed mind is a good thing to lose.





Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)

[Andre Wichartz]

Hello Peter,

On 24 Feb 2004 at 21:41:25 +0100 GMT [21:41 CET] you wrote:

PO> Hello Andre Wichartz,

PO> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:44:26 +0100 (2004-02-24 18:44:26 in .nl) in the
PO> message with reference
PO>  you
PO> [AW] wrote (at least in part):

DW>>> This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't
DW>>> Bayesit start to filter out spam by itself? When does it start
DW>>> doing that?

AW>> Yes, but in my experience it needs a lot of spam before. At least a few
AW>> hundred messages, the more the better. Another thing you could try is
AW>> to lower the score needed to move a spam to the junk folder as set in
AW>> preferences. You can set it very low, I've set it to 1, the absolute
AW>> minimum, and still get no false positives.

PO> Up to the 2.04.04 release BayesIt 0.4gm worked quite fine here, with a
PO> score level of 40.

PO> Starting with 2.04.04, BayesIt 0.4gm SE hardly catches spam anymore.

I'm still using the old gm. I upgraded to 2.04 and because I had bayesit
already installed wasn't asked to install the SE. I understand that you
loose the training with the SE and that is has other problems. Therefore
I didn't really wanted to update my bayesit.

-- 
Cheers,
 Andre

"It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance.
 It is the dream afraid of waking that never takes the chance.
 It is the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give.
 And the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live."  



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)

[MikeD (3)]

Hello Peter,

Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 3:41:25 PM, you wrote:

PO> Up to the 2.04.04 release BayesIt 0.4gm worked quite fine here, with a
PO> score level of 40.

PO> Starting with 2.04.04, BayesIt 0.4gm SE hardly catches spam anymore. It
PO> has been trained with something like 3000 spam messages, which should be
PO> enough I think. I lowered the score level to 20, without improvement so
PO> far. I'll try your suggested level of 1 for a while.

I have mine set to 10 at the moment and it seems to be doing pretty
well.  The big problem is that the spammers are changing tactics so
often now that there are new things every couple of days 

-- 
Best regards,
 MikeDmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows ME 4.90 Build  3000
 



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)

[Peter Ouwehand]

Hello Andre Wichartz,

on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:44:26 +0100 (2004-02-24 18:44:26 in .nl) in the
message with reference  you
[AW] wrote (at least in part):

DW>> This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't
DW>> Bayesit start to filter out spam by itself? When does it start
DW>> doing that?

AW> Yes, but in my experience it needs a lot of spam before. At least a few
AW> hundred messages, the more the better. Another thing you could try is
AW> to lower the score needed to move a spam to the junk folder as set in
AW> preferences. You can set it very low, I've set it to 1, the absolute
AW> minimum, and still get no false positives.

Up to the 2.04.04 release BayesIt 0.4gm worked quite fine here, with a
score level of 40.

Starting with 2.04.04, BayesIt 0.4gm SE hardly catches spam anymore. It
has been trained with something like 3000 spam messages, which should be
enough I think. I lowered the score level to 20, without improvement so
far. I'll try your suggested level of 1 for a while.

Also, since 2.04.04, BayesIt is creating files in %SystemDrive%\ (here
D:\) and %Homedrive%%HomePath% (here Z:\), not in any temp-directory.

Was it wise to pack BayesIt 0.4gm SE with TB! on such short notice?
Well, there have been discussions on TBBETA . . .


-- 
Kind regards,
Peter Ouwehand
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - -
Created the above using
A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.04.7
An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Bayesit (was: Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?)

[Andre Wichartz]

Hello Doug,

On 24 Feb 2004 at 13:58:38 + GMT [14:58 CET] you wrote:

DW> This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't Bayesit start
DW> to filter out spam by itself? When does it start doing that?

Yes, but in my experience it needs a lot of spam before. At least a few
hundred messages, the more the better. Another thing you could try is
to lower the score needed to move a spam to the junk folder as set in
preferences. You can set it very low, I've set it to 1, the absolute
minimum, and still get no false positives.

-- 
Cheers,
 Andre

"Have you ever noticed?
 Everyone going slower
 than you is an idiot
 and everyone going faster a maniac."  



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Doug Weller]

Quoting dAniel hAhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Hello Doug,
> 
> on Tue, 24. Feb 2004 at 06:10:24 + you wrote:
> 
> >> No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the
> >> Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution.
> D> I can't get it to kick in. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, tried to
> D> follow the instructions.
> 
> When it's active in Options - Preferences - Anti-Spam you should be
> able to mark Spam with Specials - Mark as Junk.
> Look at the Anti-Spam options (in Preferences), what TB should do with
> spams and you should have it working.

This is what I've been doing, marking spam as Junk, but shouldn't Bayesit start 
to filter out spam by itself? When does it start doing that?

> 
> If a non-spam should be put into your set spam/junk folder you have to
> use Specials - Mark as NOT Junk to redefine Bayesit's base.

I've also been marking some non-spam as Not Junk in accordance with the 
instructions.

Thanks.

Doug

-- 
Doug & Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site http://www.ramtops.co.uk



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[dAniel hAhler]

Hello Doug,

on Tue, 24. Feb 2004 at 06:10:24 + you wrote:

>> No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the
>> Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution.
D> I can't get it to kick in. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, tried to
D> follow the instructions.

When it's active in Options - Preferences - Anti-Spam you should be
able to mark Spam with Specials - Mark as Junk.
Look at the Anti-Spam options (in Preferences), what TB should do with
spams and you should have it working.

If a non-spam should be put into your set spam/junk folder you have to
use Specials - Mark as NOT Junk to redefine Bayesit's base.

HTH.


-- 
shinE!
http://www.thequod.de ICQ#152282665
GnuPG/PGP key: http://thequod.de/danielhahler.asc

Using The Bat! v2.04.4 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
with POPFile 0.20.1 and avast Jan2004 (4.1.342).



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[ken green]

quoting Allie Martin:
KG>> Allie... I think you are too nice! ;)

A> I don't.

That was mostly in jest, but after reading your points about
complaining vs. indicating where a problem is, I feel we may be at
risk of sinking in semantics.



KG>> But that does not mean I (or anyone else) should not complain when
KG>> something doesn't work as advertised.

A> Indicate that something doesn't work vs complaining? :) There is a
A> difference, and I guess this is where we're having our disagreement
A> which is OK. I'm just sharing how I personally feel.

I know MANY people that would define pointing out that something
doesn't work *IS* complaining.  Where you draw the line is very
subjective.  Personally, I think pointing out problems, indicating
there are things that don't work, reporting bugs, etc. are all forms
of complaining.

That may be arguing semantics, but I think its important to realize
that reading over my post that you responded to, I didn't get the
feeling it was from someone who wanted to "bad-mouth" The Bat or see
RitLabs besmirched.




A> I'm not sure what you mean by writing 'performing as promised'.
A> What promises were made? No software developer will promise that bugs
A> will not exist in their software.

KG>> Let's keep perspective here.

A> Right. :)

Well, then don't make silly/unnecessary statements.  :)

Do you really think it was necessary to write "No software developer
will promise that bugs will not exist in their software"  ??

I made it very clear that I know software isn't going to be bug-free.
When I talk about "working as promised" I am talking about release
notes that claim things have been fixed, features listed on the
website, etc. The Bat is purported to be an IMAP-capable e-mail
client. Your posts alone challenge that one quite a bit.


KG>> I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work.  Really bad... :)

A> Same here. Things are being ironed out nicely. I'm patiently waiting.
A> :) Of course, patiently waiting doesn't mean that I'll not continue to
A> post my experiences with buggy behaviour as well as limitations in
A> current functionality.

You mean complain?!?

Six of one, half dozen of the other.



KG>> I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT
KG>> SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain
KG>> about the latest version?

A> Perhaps because they don't agree that there are grounds to be
A> *complaining* in general or *complaining* about a particular
A> feature/point. :) As I wrote above, I think there's a difference
A> between reporting odd/buggy behaviour as opposed to complaining.

I don't think there's a difference, really. Yes, I can see that
expressing my unhappiness and/or frustration without listing specifics
might be dismissed as unnecessary complaining, but I think it's valid.
RitLabs needs to know if its user base is unhappy (my opinion, of
course).

I also think it's a little weird how this sense of loyalty seems to
surface on lists when something is criticized. I've always felt that
something that is truly good (and I think TB is) will stand on its own
merit and not need defending.

My recent (complaining) messages were prompted mostly from reading
other people's experiences. I continue to use 1.62r on my main
computer and have not had time to keep beta-testing on my laptop (and
I think after reading about the issues recently posted, installing
2.04.4 is more beta-testing).

I got Access Violations almost immediately after installing 2.04.4.
That wasn't a big deal at first - again I know apps cannot be perfect.
Frustrating, yes. But I figured it might be my particular
configuration. Then I started reading about a lot more people
experiencing AVs. This was a release version. And I read about some of
the other problems people are experiencing - people who are not
beta-testers. And I didn't want to just be quiet about it.

I don't need to prove my intentions, but I know that I want RitLabs
and The Bat to succeed. I know that my motivation to complain is
partly based in this desire. (The other part is that I'm a selfish,
curmudgeon loud-mouth bastard. ;)




A> Complaining usually implies frustration and losing ones patience. It
A> implies that the other party is unreasonable or hasn't been keeping up
A> their side of an agreement.

That is how you are interpreting the meaning of the word you used.*
I'm really not upset at all. I posted my criticisms while very
clear-headed and without any anger or malice whatsoever. I thought
that was pretty clear in my post.

* just as a side note, the two common definitions for the verb
"complain" are as follows:

1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.

I don't think #2 is really that far from submitting a bug report... ;)



A> OTOH, though this release has its share of
A> problems and bugs, I do feel that it's the end result of great work
A> from the Ritlabs development t

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Doug Weller]

Hi Martin,


Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 12:08:24 AM, you wrote:


> No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the
> Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution.

I can't get it to kick in. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, tried to
follow the instructions.

Doug

-- 
Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doug and Helen's Dogs: http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Allie Martin]

Ken Green, [KG] wrote:

KG> Allie... I think you are too nice! ;)

I don't.

KG> I belong to a number of lists and/or forums directly related to
KG> the software solutions I use, and it is true that users experience
KG> problems on all of them.

Exactly.

KG> But that does not mean I (or anyone else) should not complain when
KG> something doesn't work as advertised.

Indicate that something doesn't work vs complaining? :) There is a
difference, and I guess this is where we're having our disagreement
which is OK. I'm just sharing how I personally feel.

KG> Feature requests are one thing. Not performing as promised
KG> (including Access Violations) is quite another.

I'm not sure what you mean by writing 'performing as promised'.
What promises were made? No software developer will promise that bugs
will not exist in their software.

KG> Let's keep perspective here.

Right. :)

KG> I am in no way saying that The Bat is all bad or that Stefan or
KG> RitLabs are terrible or anything like that.

I never really thought so. :)

KG> In fact, I continue to complain about TB's performance because I
KG> do plan on using TheBat well into the future. If I didn't, I
KG> wouldn't bother.

KG> Go check the PocoMail forum.

No thanks. :) I'll take your word on what you have to say about it. :)

KG> I think TB is really close.  Probably as close to perfect (for me)
KG> that a software app could be.

KG> I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work.  Really bad... :)

Same here. Things are being ironed out nicely. I'm patiently waiting.
:) Of course, patiently waiting doesn't mean that I'll not continue to
post my experiences with buggy behaviour as well as limitations in
current functionality.

KG> I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT
KG> SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain
KG> about the latest version?

Perhaps because they don't agree that there are grounds to be
*complaining* in general or *complaining* about a particular
feature/point. :) As I wrote above, I think there's a difference
between reporting odd/buggy behaviour as opposed to complaining.

Complaining usually implies frustration and losing ones patience. It
implies that the other party is unreasonable or hasn't been keeping up
their side of an agreement. OTOH, though this release has its share of
problems and bugs, I do feel that it's the end result of great work
from the Ritlabs development team. They listened to their beta testers
and dealt with many problems/bugs. They have promised to add more
features and solve more issues with upcoming releases. Though I'm
still far from completely comfortable with TB!'s current status,
especially since I use an IMAP account to manage mail, I am satisfied
with the current progress and that there are indeed efforts being made
to improve current IMAP functionality. It's already far better than
when I first started using it.

Folder compression solved.

Non-functioning Maintenance Centre solved

Badly functioning server side outbox solved.

Problematic message deleting solved

Moving/copying messages across IMAP accounts solved

There are other fixes.

Again, I repeat that there are still problems and lacking features but
things have been progressing so I don't feel like complaining. :)

KG> Look through the archives You will read some variation of that
KG> response over and over again following critical posts.

KG> At what point does that not matter?

I guess my last couple paragraphs answer that. Of course, what
triggers complaining is all subjective. I see no reason for
complaining, while you do. However, I do see that there's a problem
with the search function with some configurations and this should be
reported and hopefully sorted out soon.

Maybe I should stick in my disclaimer here: The fact that I don't
personally see grounds for complaining doesn't mean that I'm asking
you or others not to complain if *you* so desire. Just be prepared to
read the dittos or disagreements like mine. :)

KG> If I purchase a software app that suddenly deletes all the
KG> contents from my hard drive when I run it, should I be happy that
KG> the new version only deletes directories with an L in their name?
KG> (silly extreme example, I know...)

Yeah, so it's difficult to answer what doesn't really exist now.

KG> Seriously, I'm quite happy that TheBat is improving. But this
KG> isn't freeware. I bought and paid for an e-mail client that I am
KG> currently unable to use. And I am unable to use it because it does
KG> not deliver on what it is *supposed* to do. It's not working.

I'm not, and will unlikely ever be, sympathetic to this line of
argument. No one forced you to purchase TB! and you really should
ensure that it works for you before doing so (I'm sure it originally
worked for you). The fact that you purchased it doesn't mean that it
now *has to* or should always be made to work for you.

Our needs often change and we need new functionality to the point
where what us

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[ken green]

Allie Martin wrote:
> While I do agree, in general, with what you're saying, and my past
> messages on TBBETA will reflect this, there are not many applications
> where you'll not read users having problems with applications, and
> great ones at that.

Allie... I think you are too nice! ;) True, there appears to be few
mail clients that can properly handle IMAP, and I am well aware that
no software can be 100% bug-free. I belong to a number of lists and/or
forums directly related to the software solutions I use, and it is
true that users experience problems on all of them.

But that does not mean I (or anyone else) should not complain when
something doesn't work as advertised. Feature requests are one thing.
Not performing as promised (including Access Violations) is quite
another.

Let's keep perspective here.

I am in no way saying that The Bat is all bad or that Stefan or
RitLabs are terrible or anything like that.  In fact, I continue to
complain about TB's performance because I do plan on using TheBat well
into the future.  If I didn't, I wouldn't bother.

Go check the PocoMail forum. I tried it out, complained a bit about
things I felt were important, then let it go and will likely not look
back for some time.  I honestly felt like Poco was too far removed
from what I wanted (features and stability) to wait around.

I think TB is really close.  Probably as close to perfect (for me)
that a software app could be.

I stick with TheBat because I *WANT* it work.  Really bad... :)



> This release is far better than its predecessor which had glaring
> problems that not only a few experienced, but that everyone could
> reproduce.

I don't doubt that this release in better than its predecessor. IT
SHOULD BE!!! Why is that thrown out so often when people complain
about the latest version? Look through the archives You will read
some variation of that response over and over again following critical
posts.

At what point does that not matter?

If I purchase a software app that suddenly deletes all the contents
from my hard drive when I run it, should I be happy that the new
version only deletes directories with an L in their name? (silly
extreme example, I know...)  But what is the measuring stick?

Seriously, I'm quite happy that TheBat is improving. But this isn't
freeware. I bought and paid for an e-mail client that I am currently
unable to use. And I am unable to use it because it does not deliver
on what it is *supposed* to do.  It's not working.

As I've stated, I'm willing to wait.  But not quietly... ;)

I think it's important to remember that updated software is supposed
to improve. Later releases are supposed to be better-tested than their
predecessors. I know that this isn't always the case (and some apps
have been ruined by a "new" version) but I think it's fair to expect
it.

I think it's fair to hold RitLabs and The Bat to high standards. It's
a great product. But it should work as advertised. And as long as new
versions are getting released, I expect TB to continue getting
greater.

-- 
 Ken Green
 Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Allie Martin]

Ken Green, [KG] wrote:

KG> Frankly, I'm a bit baffled at the problems *regular* users (not
KG> beta testers) are experiencing with the upgrade.

KG> I hope someday I can actually experience The Bat! v2 with an
KG> acceptable level of problems/glitches...

While I do agree, in general, with what you're saying, and my past
messages on TBBETA will reflect this, there are not many applications
where you'll not read users having problems with applications, and
great ones at that.

It should be interesting to see if users who tried none of the
pre-release versions experience.

This release is far better than its predecessor which had glaring
problems that not only a few experienced, but that everyone could
reproduce.

-- 
 -= allie_M =- | List Moderator
   PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com

Using TB! v2.04.4 on WinXP Pro (SP1) 

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[ken green]

Martin Schneider wrote:
>>>From the confirmed problems I've been reading about, it seems 2.04.4
>> isn't any more stable (across multiple users) than the recent betas.

> No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine 


I wouldn't expect you could confirm that if you are not having
problems. But I also don't expect that *everyone* is having problems.

However, I do think something is seriously wrong when at least 8
different people can reproduce Access Violations with the View Mode
problem that has existed for awhile.

It's one thing for a beta to do this.  Quite another for something
billed as an official release - especially considering the fiasco with
the Christmas Edition.


> I must say thanks to Stefan and his team for the good work.

I don't deny that Stefan and his team are doing good work.  But
perhaps they should be doing great work?  At least great/better
testing, IMO.

I know it's easy to fawn over such a great program and be hesitant to
criticize. But I think we should maintain high expectations for such a
great product, and respect the developers enough to be unyieldingly
critical.

Frankly, I'm a bit baffled at the problems *regular* users (not beta
testers) are experiencing with the upgrade.

I hope someday I can actually experience The Bat! v2 with an
acceptable level of problems/glitches...

-- 
 Ken Green
 Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Is 2.04.4 an official release or another beta?

[Martin Schneider]

Hello ken,

on Monday, February 23, 2004, 5:53:50 PM, ken green wrote:

>>From the confirmed problems I've been reading about, it seems 2.04.4
> isn't any more stable (across multiple users) than the recent betas.

No, I can't confirm that. For me the 2.04.4 works very fine (also the
Spamfilter BayesIt which is included in that distribution.

I must say thanks to Stefan and his team for the good work. And please
have a look on my suggestions and what you think about that. (I posted
them in TBBeta and in the normal TBudl).

-- 
Best regards,
 Martin

Using The Bat 2.04.4 on Windows XP



Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html