George M. Menegakis wrote:
If a company forgets that updates to their products are actually worth
money and then suddenly charge each and every user the same... ungh, how
many times did I repeat this, enough...
If I understand correctly you prefer to pay, even if it is a reduced
amount for e
Monday, September 8, 2003, 6:50:12 PM, Alexander wrote:
> Can you for just a *moment* think of how you would feel if you registered
> TB 1.x about 2.01 months ago (like "danger h"), please? Can you answer me,
> then, if it "maybe seems unfair", or if you feel ripped off? Come n...
I was hir
Hi Brook,
@8-Sep-2003, 18:15 -0800 (03:15 UK time) Brook Humphrey said:
>>I use both Foxmail and the BAT! Both have their strengths and
> yes this was why Iooked around also. I get about 600 emails a day
> 200 of which are spam.
All I'll say here is that FoxMail may look good from your end but
>
>Hello, Brook Humphrey,
>
>I use both Foxmail and the BAT! Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
>Comprehensive HTML function and a great Bayesian spam filter >are available with
>Foxmail 5.0 beta 1 and customizable macro templates are better with the BAT!
yes this was why Iooked around
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, you wrote
> A Scheduler.
> If you think you will or may have interest in these features then I
> strongly suggest upgrading since the current functionality from v1.62 is
> preserved and improved upon in some instances. Of course there'll be a
> few having problems as
Hello Brook,
> I've used the bat under windows for years now. As for multiple
> accounts I dont care anymore since even if it does do it I already have a clinet
> I have been using jsut as long that does do it.
Am I reading correctly? Do you mean you have been using The Bat for
years and you di
>>Anyway, I figure Brook hangs around because either A) he can't figure
>>out how to unsubscribe and is too embarrassed to ask or B) he's hoping
>>that someday *somebody* will pipe up with how to get multiple accounts
>>working on TB.
>>
>nope you would do better to be a shrink for somevbody else
>Bill-
>
>Wait - I'm right, too. Me. Me.
>
>Anyway, I figure Brook hangs around because either A) he can't figure
>out how to unsubscribe and is too embarrassed to ask or B) he's hoping
>that someday *somebody* will pipe up with how to get multiple accounts
>working on TB.
>
nope you would do bett
Bill-
Wait - I'm right, too. Me. Me.
Anyway, I figure Brook hangs around because either A) he can't figure
out how to unsubscribe and is too embarrassed to ask or B) he's hoping
that someday *somebody* will pipe up with how to get multiple accounts
working on TB.
--
-Mark Wieder
Using The Bat
>08-Sep-2003 18:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The only area it may still have an edge is in security but still at best
>> it is only as secure as my linux solution and still cant do multiple
>> accounts and many other features I have in every other email client I
>> use.
>
>...like breaking Thr
08-Sep-2003 18:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The only area it may still have an edge is in security but still at best
> it is only as secure as my linux solution and still cant do multiple
> accounts and many other features I have in every other email client I
> use.
...like breaking Threads whe
Hello Brook,
Monday, September 8, 2003, 5:25:33 PM, you wrote:
BH> now use foxmail. it does not do quite as much in some areas
BH> but more in areas that I need and want
Apart from being able to wrap lines properly and remove sigs.
--
Jamie Dainton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leaders of the world's r
Hello Brook,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:25:33 -0700 GMT (08/09/2003, 23:25 +0700 GMT),
Brook Humphrey wrote:
> The only area it may still have an edge is in security but still at
> best it is only as secure as my linux solution and still cant do
> multiple accounts and many other features I have in ev
08-Sep-2003 17:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Grin! I was fascinated with the telecommunications facet of computers
> from the instant I was exposed to it. I think the first modem I used
> was home-made. :-)
What I find fascinating until this very day is the fact that the data one
wishes to trans
>On Monday, September 8, 2003, 4:50:12 PM, Alexander wrote:
>
>> If that is so then what, in the name of everything that doesn't suck,
>> would've been the problem to say "registered before 1.50 release = high
>> update fee" while "registered before 1.60 release = moderate upgrade fee"
>> and "regi
Hello Alexander,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:47:07 +0200 GMT (08/09/2003, 22:47 +0700 GMT),
Alexander wrote:
>> Can you point me to a mid saying that anybody got a free key
>> because he registered within two months from the release of v2?
> I read it in various mails, I didn't dig very, I remembered
Hello Pixie,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:42:08 -0400 GMT (08/09/2003, 22:42 +0700 GMT),
Pixie wrote:
DK>> Many years ago, about 1985, I was an active Compu$erve user.
[...]
DK>> I was so proud of that 1200 baud modem when I got it! :)
> I have a few of those still. My word, I think the going rate on a
08-Sep-2003 18:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Cost, I should imagine. TB is not a high cost product, and the costs
> of providing an upgrade procedure based on this, which would probably
> require considerable manual checking
There's something like a database, I assume. I have no knowledge about
On Monday, September 8, 2003, 4:50:12 PM, Alexander wrote:
> If that is so then what, in the name of everything that doesn't suck,
> would've been the problem to say "registered before 1.50 release = high
> update fee" while "registered before 1.60 release = moderate upgrade fee"
> and "registered
08-Sep-2003 11:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A>> And seriously... displays with less than 60 columns? How oldskool-ish.
A>> :)
> There _are_ those who have bad vision yet still feel compelled to use
> their eyes...
Sure, if you look hard enough you can find an exception to about anything
you want
08-Sep-2003 09:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Superb. This is a company that has continually enhanced and upgraded a
>> product to extreme levels without charging existing users a penny for
>> five years!
> Although it maybe seem unfair for "new" users I totally agree with you.
Can you for jus
08-Sep-2003 06:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Haven't you read that people on this very list are getting free updates
>> since they registered two months from the release of v2? Where is that
>> written down? Nowhere? Aha...
> I also haven't read this. Or I must be getting old - let me find my
>
Sunday, September 7, 2003, Julian Beach (Lists) wrote:
> You don't have to want TB v2.x now, but if you think you will after
> October 2003, then it is still worth paying the $17.50 now.
Paying now for a "might" in two months doesn't make sense to me. Putting
those money away, following the discu
Hello Roelof,
> Maybe because of the possibility to add headers or to manipulate
> existing headers with respectively the %AddHeader and the %SetHeader
> macros?
I haven't felt the need to use any of these header macros so far. I am
personally not concerned about the cost of the upgrade, it is th
Hello Pixie,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:13:26 -0400 GMT (08/09/2003, 17:13 +0700 GMT),
Pixie wrote:
> However, I hate to say it, a couple of the problems I am having with
> 2.xx have not been isolated/fixed and I would be using 1.62r if I had
> a registration code for it.
Are you saying you are exper
Hallo MAU,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:49:51 +0200GMT (8-9-03, 0:49 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
>> There are more I guess. My set of reply templates needs to be
>> overhauled seriously.
M> Then that is enough for me to not upgrade. I don't care about IMAP,
M> PGP/MIME or HTML, why should I "upgra
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 2:10:08 PM, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:
> Superb. This is a company that has continually enhanced and upgraded
> a product to extreme levels without charging existing users a penny
> for five years!
Although it maybe seem unfair for "new" users I totally agree with you
Hello Alexander,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:54:54 +0200 GMT (08/09/2003, 11:54 +0700 GMT),
Alexander wrote:
>> I think the policy's clear. Registered users of v1 will get a 50%
>> discount on the cost of v2, until the end of October. Very simple.
> Haven't you read that people on this very list are g
08-Sep-2003 04:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dh>> I think the issue I am objecting to is there is no clear policy
dh>> stated and others have received free updates,
> I think the policy's clear. Registered users of v1 will get a 50%
> discount on the cost of v2, until the end of October. Very simp
08-Sep-2003 03:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am afraid I must point out that I registered exactly two months - one day
> from the release of V2.00 and I contacted the author I was told that
> The update cost was "Obligatory" This is documented in this forum under
> the title of thread of "Amnes
08-Sep-2003 00:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AM>> You will never please everyone. How can you expect to please someone
AM>> whose viewer will not display more than 60 characters per line??
> If you don't wrap your text (except for paragraphs): The client's display
> will then wrap it correctly. Re
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 10:52:58 PM, danger h wrote:
dh> I think the issue I am objecting to is there is no clear policy
dh> stated and others have received free updates,
I think the policy's clear. Registered users of v1 will get a 50%
discount on the cost of v2, until the end of October.
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 5:22:22 PM, ETM wrote:
ESoV> I have neither the patience nor the skill to work with a program
ESoV> that is not totally refined, or perhaps even a beta. However, I
ESoV> am on limited income and the half price is certainly much more
ESoV> reachable than the full price.
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 9:47:39 PM, danger h wrote:
dh> I am afraid I must point out that I registered exactly two months -
dh> one day from the release of V2.00 and I contacted the author I was
dh> told that The update cost was "Obligatory" This is documented in
dh> this forum under the tit
Carsten Guthardt-Schulz, [CGS] wrote:
CGS> I didn't say either one. What I made were much more general statements.
CGS> That's why it doesn't help that you pick on the details: Even if the
CGS> two-editor solution was a good one (what we could argue about) - that was
CGS> just an example, not my s
Hello Roelof,
> There are more I guess. My set of reply templates needs to be
> overhauled seriously.
Then that is enough for me to not upgrade. I don't care about IMAP,
PGP/MIME or HTML, why should I "upgrade" if I may have to overhaul (as
you say) my QTs and templates?
--
Best regards,
Migue
AM> You said there's little difference between v1.62 and v2. I disagreed
AM> You said MicroEd is buggy. I disagreed
I didn't say either one. What I made were much more general statements.
That's why it doesn't help that you pick on the details: Even if the
two-editor solution was a good one (what
Hallo MAU,
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 23:16:05 +0200GMT (7-9-03, 23:16 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
>> Some will need to be changed. One of the popular ones that needs
>> changing is the boxquoting macro.
M> If boxquoting was the only one... I use a lot of QTs (40+), I wonder how
M> many will need t
Carsten Guthardt-Schulz, [CGS] wrote:
CGS> Or you could say they both have a problem. They point is that they
CGS> could have either made the editor customizable enough or allow an
CGS> external editor, instead of adding a second one.
They looked at the customisation of MicroEd, found it to be to
Hello Allie,
> Some will need to be changed. One of the popular ones that needs
> changing is the boxquoting macro.
If boxquoting was the only one... I use a lot of QTs (40+), I wonder how
many will need tweaking.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i
_
AM> Neither editor has a problem where this is concerned. One works
AM> differently from the other.
Or you could say they both have a problem.
They point is that they could have either made the editor customizable
enough or allow an external editor, instead of adding a second one.
Now you're prob
Mau, [M] wrote:
M> Do you know if all macros and QTs used in 1.62 will work just the
M> same in 2.0 or some may need to be "adapted"?
Some will need to be changed. One of the popular ones that needs
changing is the boxquoting macro.
--
-= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://www.ac-mart
Hello Allie,
> ...since the current functionality from v1.62 is preserved and
> improved upon in some instances.
Do you know if all macros and QTs used in 1.62 will work just the same
in 2.0 or some may need to be "adapted"?
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat!
Carsten Guthardt-Schulz, [CGS] wrote:
CGS> Almost forgot one more on that subject: In the editor (even the new
CGS> one!) the View/Original Text option is still completely useless in
CGS> most cases, because the windows doesn't momorize the size of the
CGS> window part with the original text.
Thi
Carsten Guthardt-Schulz, [CGS] wrote:
AM>> What line wrap bug? Are you speaking of MicroEd here?
CGS> Yes, I was. Would make sense to fix it, especially as the
CGS> alternative editor doesn't have this problem,
Neither editor has a problem where this is concerned. One works
differently from the
CGS>> Some same stupid bugs persist (like the line-wrap
AM> What line wrap bug?
Almost forgot one more on that subject:
In the editor (even the new one!) the View/Original Text option is still
completely useless in most cases, because the windows doesn't momorize the
size of the window part with
AM> Stop there. 1.63beta was not a release version. It's unfair to compare
AM> v2 to it when speaking of upgrades.
That's why I wrote it in brackets.
AM> What line wrap bug?
AM> Are you speaking of MicroEd here?
Yes, I was. Would make sense to fix it, especially as the alternative editor
doesn'
07-Sep-2003 19:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps the people who have upgraded to v2 and paid the reduced price
> registration fee are getting a discount for beta-testing the full v2
> release?
So, you're implying that the current v2 release in reality is yet another
beta version? Else I didn
Hello Julian,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 6:14:14 PM, you wrote:
JBL> Perhaps the people who have upgraded to v2 and paid the reduced price
JBL> registration fee are getting a discount for beta-testing the full v2
JBL> release?
That seems an extremely sensible suggestion
--
Jamie Dainton
[EMAI
Carsten Guthardt-Schulz, [CGS] wrote:
CGS> - The differences between 1.62 (especially 1.63beta)
Stop there. 1.63beta was not a release version. It's unfair to compare
v2 to it when speaking of upgrades.
CGS> and 2.0 are not that huge after all.
There are many differences. If you aren't interest
07-Sep-2003 18:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> buy-now, use-later
That sounds like socialist central planned economy to me...
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)
Questions are never indiscreet. Answers sometimes are. -- Oscar Wilde
___
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 5:49:37 PM, Carsten Guthardt-Schulz wrote:
> I can't believe that there are people who take it for a fair option to buy the
> upgrade now and only start using it in a couple of months. Think about it,
> how ridiculous is that?
If you believe that Ritlabs are a privat
> I can't believe that there are people who take it for a fair option to buy the
> upgrade now and only start using it in a couple of months. Think about it,
> how ridiculous is that?
BIG-TIME ridiculous, but I am so accustomed to being squeezed by
producers of almost-anything that I react as I us
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 18:22:22, ETM (State of Virginia) wrote:
> Do people recommend that I obtain the download, pay for the upgrade, and
> remain with 1.62 until those who know far more than me have worked out the
> kinks?
What about paying for the upgrade now, but wait with actual upgra
Etm, [E] wrote:
E> Sorry, folks, have now read today's thread, realize I freaked and
E> panicked, that some here are considering what I am considering, a
E> buy-now, use-later. How flakey is the new release?
I wouldn't describe the new release as flakey if all you use are POP3
accounts. It's just
A> The Ritlabs site says:
You're right, it appears as if the update offer will be completely gone and
that is just ridiculous for a couple of reasons:
- The differences between 1.62 (especially 1.63beta) and 2.0 are not that
huge after all. Of course a lot changed since 1.0, but that doesn't help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Alexander,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 4:43:58 PM, you wrote:
A> 07-Sep-2003 17:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I wholeheartedly agree. I started using The Bat! last November and
>> purchased a licence soon afterwards. I paid the licence fee b
Sorry, folks, have now read today's thread, realize I freaked and
panicked, that some here are considering what I am considering, a
buy-now, use-later. How flakey is the new release?
Elaine
Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
ht
Hi Alexander,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 5:27:07 PM, you wrote:
A> Maybe thats my problem (dunno;) - what *is* the "full" price for the
A> upgrade? That information is missing. If the current update price of EUR
A> 17.50 is 50% off, then the full upgrade price is EUR 35 - which is the
A> price of
07-Sep-2003 17:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Lets get ripped off over & over again, we really don't deserve any
>> better.
> I don't think that there will be any winners to this argument.
That was a very sarcastic comment rather than a valuable argument and I
regret writing it already.
> I se
> If the current upgrade price of $17.50 goes to, for example, $25.00
> (Personal/Private) while the full The Bat! v2 Personal/Private cost is
> $35.00, I would probably pay the $17.50 now rather than $25.00 later.
Precisely. Not only would I, I would have to, because I will not
be able to affor
> It may seem a bit rough on newer users, but it's not a major problem
> IMHO. The price could hardly be said to be "extortionate".
I have neither the patience nor the skill to work with a program
that is not totally refined, or perhaps even a beta. However, I
am on limited income and the half pr
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 4:21:31 PM, Alexander wrote:
> And, I beg your pardon, I'm trying to raise something like a conscience
> when you call it whining. Lets get ripped off over & over again, we really
> don't deserve any better.
I don't think that there will be any winners to this argume
07-Sep-2003 17:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree. I started using The Bat! last November and
> purchased a licence soon afterwards. I paid the licence fee based on
> its merits at that time.
If you registered in Nov-2002 you'll get a free v2 license - at least
according to bat
07-Sep-2003 17:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The 50% discount until the 31st October seems to be on the upgrade
> charge, is it not? Or am I mistaken? I hope that I'm not.
> IOW's, my interpretation is that until the 31st October, you can upgrade
> at 50% the upgrade charge. Afterwards, you pay
Martin Webster, [MW] wrote:
MW> The opportunity to upgrade at a discounted price is great. Moreover,
MW> I'm supporting further development of my preferred mail client. So
MW> $17.50 seems a rather small investment considering the likely number
MW> of updates and improvements yet to come.
There's
Hello Allie,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 4:01:14 PM, you wrote:
JD>> I will agree with you on that point. The short time limit to upgrade
JD>> does seem a little unfair. However, RITLabs are under no obligation
JD>> to give a discount for an upgrade, so in reality they are actually
JD>> being fair
07-Sep-2003 16:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A>> And what a lot of people are overseeing is that the v2 license is not
A>> "one person" but "one computer". So, if you're using TB on your
A>> laptop and your home computer, you need another full license AFAIK.
> I just ran the install-files for both
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Marck,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 12:10:08 PM, you wrote:
N>> Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service,
N>> isn't it!
MDP> Superb. This is a company that has continually enhanced and upgraded
MDP> a product to extreme leve
07-Sep-2003 16:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The OfficeXP upgrade will not upgrade Office97 to OfficeXP as
> Microsoft consider that too large an upgrade to be considered an
> upgrade. You are forced to buy OfficeXP outright, AFAIK Microsoft
> upgrades will only upgrade the pr
Jamie Dainton, [JD] wrote:
JD> I will agree with you on that point. The short time limit to upgrade
JD> does seem a little unfair. However, RITLabs are under no obligation
JD> to give a discount for an upgrade, so in reality they are actually
JD> being fairer than they have to be.
The 50% discoun
07-Sep-2003 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A>> You're paying $17.50 update fee for four *years* of usage, I'd
A>> be asked to pay the same amount after only six *months*! Its a rather
A>> unfair treatment of new vs. long time users, and I'm not buying it.
> Good grief! You're comparing a $17.50
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 10:01:58 AM, Alexander wrote:
A> If I want to upgrade from Office97 today I get a discount price on
A> Office XP, same goes for Windows v.whatever and whatnot. After
A> *years* and not within 2 months only.
And you pay a *lot* more for Microsoft products than you do
Hello Alexander,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 3:01:58 PM, you wrote:
A> If I want to upgrade from Office97 today I get a discount price on Office
A> XP, same goes for Windows v.whatever and whatnot. After *years* and not
A> within 2 months only.
The OfficeXP upgrade will not upgrade Office
Hello Alexander,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 7:01:58 AM, you wrote:
A> You're paying $17.50 update fee for four *years* of usage, I'd
A> be asked to pay the same amount after only six *months*! Its a rather
A> unfair treatment of new vs. long time users, and I'm not buying it.
Good grief! You'r
07-Sep-2003 13:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Full price instead of 50% discount?
A>> Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service, isn't it!
> It's no different to the way Microsoft, Lotus and many other software
> companies work.
If I want to upgrade from Office97 today I
Hi Alexander,
on Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:27:21 +0200GMT (07.09.03, 10:27 +0200GMT here),
you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
M>>> What will be the The Bat v2 Upgrade price after 10/31/2003?
>> Full price instead of 50% discount?
A> Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service, isn't
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 9:41:38 AM, you wrote:
> On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 2:14:05 PM, Mark wrote:
>> If the current upgrade price of $17.50 goes to, for example, $25.00
>> (Personal/Private) while the full The Bat! v2 Personal/Private cost is
>> $35.00, I would probably pay the $17.50 n
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 2:14:05 PM, Mark wrote:
> If the current upgrade price of $17.50 goes to, for example, $25.00
> (Personal/Private) while the full The Bat! v2 Personal/Private cost is
> $35.00, I would probably pay the $17.50 now rather than $25.00 later.
You don't have to actually i
On Sunday, September 7, 2003, 7:37:19 AM, you wrote:
> Sunday, September 7, 2003, 9:27:21 AM, you wrote:
>>> Full price instead of 50% discount?
A>> Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service, isn't it!
> It's no different to the way Microsoft, Lotus and many other software
>
Hello Alexander,
Sunday, September 7, 2003, 9:27:21 AM, you wrote:
>> Full price instead of 50% discount?
A> Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service, isn't it!
It's no different to the way Microsoft, Lotus and many other software
companies work. Eventually a new major v
Hi Alexander,
@7-Sep-2003, 10:27 +0200 (09:27 UK time) Alexander [N] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Thomas:
M>>> What will be the The Bat v2 Upgrade price after 10/31/2003?
>> Full price instead of 50% discount?
N> Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service,
N> isn't it!
Su
07-Sep-2003 03:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M>> What will be the The Bat v2 Upgrade price after 10/31/2003?
> Full price instead of 50% discount?
Its a "buy or die" update policy. Wonderful customer service, isn't it!
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)
And there's a dreadfu
Hello Mark,
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 20:49:29 -0400 GMT (07/09/2003, 07:49 +0700 GMT),
Mark wrote:
M> The Bat! Upgrade from 1.xx (Private) $17.50
M> until 10/31/2003.
M> What will be the The Bat v2 Upgrade price after 10/31/2003?
Full price instead of 50% discount?
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Moderato
84 matches
Mail list logo
