On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:12:07PM -0700 or thereabouts, Paul Scott wrote: > S.D.A. wrote: > > > >I can however understand the argument that a GUI client is prettier, and > >easier to operate for the less-skilled term user, or that someone simply > >prefers Thunderbird to Mutt. It is a personal preference -- I'm just > >suspicious of any claim that a GUI e-mail app is faster or more efficient. > >;) > > > > > I agree with and do a most of what you and others say. The *only* place I > think T-bird is more efficient is for my case of a large number of mail > folders with three levels of structure visible simultaneously on the screen. > After I choose the folder with the mouse I could easily use a mutt style > interface. Hi Paul: Well, I have thousands of e-mails in a directory structure, and Mutt has no issues with that. I personally believe that having subdirectories, is largely irrelevant, in terms of mutt. Sub directories or more common is GUIs as that metaphor is easier viewed in a visual sense. Using mutt, one hardly uses the pager, and simply cycles through the folders with '.' and 'c' and space bar. One doesn't need the "Visual Sense" of subdirectories, IMHO. There are some cool tools available for archiving, that (as far as I know) won't work with Thunderbird mail. I can search my '*.tar.gz' archives, at the same time as searching the active ones, via mboxgrep. So yes, Mutt is definitely the superior tool, as far as I'm concerned. > Faster as far as processor time, etc. is not relevant *if the machine is > fast enough* since the machine still has to wait for the user to do > something. Well I would think it is, when parsing a directory full of thousands of e-mails. > When GUI means point and click there may only be a very few places this > is useful for experienced geeks. OTOH having X serve up multiple XTerms > at a much higher resolution is certainly an improvement over seeing one > text-mode screen at a time in many situations You mean as opposed to the console? That I would agree. I don't use X, my Debian box is a server, and I run my Mutt from Windows through PuTTy. Seems to work faster, than using T-Bird on my Windows box, accessing the same box via POP. Ah well, I can't drop Mutt, it's just too damn efficient to read thousands of e-mails with. <grin> I thought the same as you, until I was forced to use Mutt daily. I think this is an issue of comfort level. You're far more comfortable with Thunderbird, therefore Mutt isn't going to sell you, until you use it more, and regularly. I think, one would find Thunderbird painful afterwards, much as I did. Someone once told me, that to give a new e-mail client a fair shakeout, one has to use it daily for a couple of months. Otherwise one can't get the feel for the new, without thinking of the old, causing the "test" to be tainted. Apologies, if you've been a "real" mutt user. ;) -- Steve +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saturday Jun 12 2004 07:26:01 PM EDT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
Attachment:
pgpP7RXh9xbKJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature