Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Thunderbird Reaches 1.0

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the spam-clients dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 is now available for download on Mozilla's FTP server." Here is the press release announcing the release. Virtual folders and RSS integration, coupled with the recent hype surrounding Firefox, might give this sucker some serious momentum.

27 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Memory Footprint by TrollBridge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's just my own perception, but Thunderbird seems to be a bit bulky, judging by how long it takes to open. Am I totally out of my league here, or is Thunderbird a little chunky?

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    1. Re:Memory Footprint by at2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agree. When I was running it on PIII 700 + 128MB RAM, it is really a lot slower than Outlook Express. But on P4 1.4G + 256MB RAM it rocks! Even better on faster machines.

    2. Re:Memory Footprint by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is a little sluggish, however, it's still an order of magnitude (literally) faster than Outlook when both have a large message store.

      Outlook was taking 30 seconds or more to open a folder, which was one of the reasons I dropped it for Thunderbird several months ago.

      Ironically, Outlook Express never had this kind of problem.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    3. Re:Memory Footprint by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It also doesn't lose data once your store gets to about a gig or gig-and-a-half in size, so I guess "Express" also means "doesn't suck".

      (Frickin' two minute thingy completely infuriates me. Hey, Slashbots, some of us can think fast enough to write more than once good comment every two minutes. I suggest one minute (and 15 seconds for writing a comment, because quick witty responses don't always take 20 seconds. I'm really sick of "Slow down, cowboy." Wake up, CowboyNeal, et al, I'm not the usual mouth-breathing frost-pister type, I just type fast. Quit penalizing me for having a working brain!)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Any other choice? by at2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I don't want Outlook Express, Mozilla Mail&News and Mozilla Thunderbird, what else *Open Source* e-mail clients can I choose in Windows?

    1. Re:Any other choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://sylpheed-claws.sourceforge.net/win32/

  3. But will it let me backup my mail store? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or do I have to wander the maze of twisty little directories in Microsoft's "Documents and Settings" directory to find where it stores mail.

    Remember, it's in "Application Data" and not "Local Settings\Application Data", and also please note all these directories for hidden for some stupid reason.

    I'd be happy if I could just specify where the data is stored like most apps (even Microsoft ones).

    Don't get me wrong, I love using Thunderbird and switched from Outlook shortly after I realized how deeply flawed it was (despite having a good UI and spam filtering), around version 0.5.

    Anyhow, congrats to the Mozilla team for another excellent release. But please, give us some data store management.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  4. MOOX optimized versions? by zippity8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has anyone tried these? I was googling for a torrent and came across this win32 optimized version (depending on your processor).

    MOOX optimized versions
    NOTE: This is a third party / unofficial build.

    1. Re:MOOX optimized versions? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure any difference is completely unnoticeable, because like most apps, e-mail would be highly I/O bound.

      Just how much horsepower could an e-mail app need?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  5. CCK please by lopingrhondo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm still waiting for a Firefox/Thunderbird CCK that will let me customize them in a way that would make distribution worthwhile here at work. NS through 7.1 gave us the ability to make custom accounts and mail settings before install. Yes, we use Netscape as the default browser/mail suite here. We do exist!

  6. extensions by alatesystems · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wish the moz foundation would implore the popular extension makers to update their version string. If I upgrade when it comes out, I'm screwed on all my extensions. If I wait, I'm going "when can i upgrade, when can i upgrade?"

    I lose either way. This time I'm going to wait instead of upgrading from .9 for a while until the extensions are ready.

  7. I prefere the Mozilla Suite by krudler · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Both browsing and email are integrated which is nice, because they are two very common applications. I don't understand the huge gains people get by using firefox and thunderbird separately.

    Mozilla suite is stable and all I need, I never had a problem with it using too much memory like some people claim. I also have this bitchin faux wood theme that makes it look like its 1975.

    Don't get me wrong, I like that there's more products to choose from and more competition for ms and crew, but I just don't get why mozilla suite was ignored and firefox and thunderbird are so highly regarded.

  8. T-Bird is missing "Combine and Decode" by way2slo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have been using T-Bird 0.8 for a while and am generally pleased. However, I still have to fire up Outlook Express once in a while to do one thing. Usenet Newsgroups. Why? T-Bird has no "Combine and Decode" feature.

    Most Newsgroups require that a posted message be no larger than a certain size so to post large files, like mp3's, you must split them appart into several seperate posts. Without the Combine and Decode functionality you cannot put the pieces back together again.

    Granted, Usenet Newsgorups have not gained as much popularity as the rest of the internet but it would still be nice to have. And until this feature is added to T-Bird, then Usenet users like myself will still be forced to use OE. Basically, why run two e-mail clients? It's not a good idea for the average user, so they are going to stick with OE.

  9. "Find" is painful to use by Sandor+at+the+Zoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I read a number of mailing list digests, and Thunderbird's "Find" is sooooo painful to use. Here's the scenario: the digest has a list of Subjects from individual emails in the digest. I see one of interest.

    I select the subject of interest. Instead of having a "enter selection for find" command, I have to copy and paste. Fine. However, if the Find dialog is already up, when I hit ctrl-F, the text in the Find dialog isn't selected; I have to select the text, then paste my subject into the box.

    Then I click the Find button. It finds the text and shows it to me at the very bottom of the window. This is so annoying that it's nearly beyond belief. I have to scroll down a bunch to see any context whatsoever.

    So, my request for two enhancements:

    • When you hit ctrl-F, select the frickin' text in the Find dialog.
    • When you scroll the message window to show found text, scroll the found area to the vertical center of the window, not the very bottom.

    OK, so go ahead and flame me for a) not just fixing the application myself, and b) not trying to figure out how to file my own bugs.

    In my own defense, a) I have a day job and a life at night, and b) I started to file some bugs and direction number 1 was "download Mozilla and see if the same bug appears there". I don't use Mozilla, have no interest in it, and don't feel like jumping through hoops to file bugs.

    OK, call me cranky. :-)

    Happy Holidays!

  10. Someone help me out by alta · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ok, Firefox appears to tbe just the web browser. I have that installed.

    Now, is thunderbird just the email/newsreader, or is it the email/news/web browser all together, like netscape communicator.

    And then there's Mozilla, which is at version 1.7 or so. What's up with that? Where does it stand in relation to Firefox?

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    1. Re:Someone help me out by Single+GNU+Theory · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Then, the Netscape team opened up much of its code, and Mozilla was born (I could be wrong; Mozilla might always have eben a codename for Netscape source, even before the OSS release).

      Mozilla has, as far as I know, always been the codename for Netscape Navigator. Marc Andreessen worked on a web browser called NCSA Mosaic, and later, Netscape Navigator. Navigator was more powerful/featureful than Mosaic, so it was called Mozilla.

      --
      Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
  11. Looking to switch by dfj225 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Recently my parents got an email in outlook express that will cause the program to lock up simply by clicking on the message (even with preview off). So, I'm looking to switch them to Thunderbird for a more stable and secure system. I would like to get their mail from OE into Thunderbird, but I think the mail database that OE creates might be corrupt. I'll give 1.0 a shot tonight and see how things fair.

    --
    SIGFAULT
  12. Palm sync? by D'Arque+Bishop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First off, congrats to the Mozilla Thunderbird team; I switched to Thunderbird months ago and have been EXTREMELY happy with it, with one exception. Kudos on reaching 1.0.

    Now, the exception I just mentioned happens to be Palm sync capabilities. I managed to get an extension downloaded and installed a version or two ago, but the data would only sync once (changes I made later to the Visor's address book wouldn't sync to Thunderbird), and I couldn't get the extension to install properly in later versions. I can't imagine that I'm the only one who wants to sync a PalmOS-based device to Thunderbird, or that I'm the only one who's had this problem. Checking Google has been little help, either...

    Again, except for this one problem, Thunderbird works great for me. Is there any idea when I can expect this one annoyance to be fixed? (Or get some confirmation I'm the only one having this issue...)

  13. Hmm, yes. by dep01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like Thunderbird, but lets face it, it's not the Firefox of email clients. If you look at the improvements of Firefox over IE, there are monumental leaps as far as features and functionality go. When you compare Thunderbird to Outlook, however, sure, it's a bit more streamlined and clean, but doesn't really offer a whole lot extra in terms of features/functionalities.

    Where are the new bells and whistles that will revolutionize email clients the way Firefox did to web browsers?

    --
    "hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
  14. Re:Icons by gclef · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, one of the things I'd love to see in Thunderbird, but may take a while, is tabbed accounts similar to the tabbed browsing for Mozilla. In other words, each email account would appear in Thunderbird as a tab. (You could put a little email icon in the tab if that account has new mail.)

    That would (I think) clear up some valuable window real-estate for those of us with multiple email accounts.

  15. RSS integration? by Suppafly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I never understood the idea of RSS integration into a mail client.. RSS is generally used to keep up with web data, so why wouldn't you have RSS built into the browser, not the mail client. RSS integration in a mail client is just bloat.

    1. Re:RSS integration? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It really depends on your perception of RSS. If you think of it as a way to get mini web-pages, then it would make sense to view a feed in a browser. On the other hand, if you think of RSS as a customizable message delivery system or a read-only mailing list, then it makes sense to view a feed from the same client you use to view your other incoming messages.

      Personally, see it as the latter. For me, it seems perfectly reasonable for RSS feeds to appear as folders in my mail client where I already use common actions like "view unread messages", "delete this message", "search for this subject", and so on.

      I don't see a substantial difference between downloading an XML file of news story summaries from Slashdot and subscribing to the "Daily Headlines" email (under your "Messages" preferences). It's the same content either way, so why shouldn't I want to view it in the same client?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  16. Still no call-out to a browser? by devphil · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Coincidentally, I decided to switch to firefox+thunderbird (or, failing that, firefox+mozillamail) just last night. And they seem nice and all, but it's infuriatingly stupid that

    • clicking on a mailto link in firefox doesn't bring up thunderbird, or anything else
    • clicking on links in thunderbird -- whether in a message, or in a thunderbird dialog bix -- doesn't bring up a browser

    I understand and appreciate that, unlike Windows, there's no standard *nix API for these sorts of things. But it looks like they didn't even try. (It Would Be Nice[tm] if the Debian builds of these programs taught them about /etc/alternatives; then there would be a semi-standard API.)

    Yah, yah, I know, go get one of the zillion third-party extensions... Tried that. "Get extensions" is one of those links in thunderbird that did nothing.

    (Other peeves: transitioning from Mozilla would be easier if they'd left the same keyboard shortcuts. And remembered window sizes.)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:Still no call-out to a browser? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it makes you feel any better, thunderbird on my windows xp system won't launch firefox, which IS set as my default browser. I have to copy and paste links.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Still no call-out to a browser? by devphil · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Um, no. It's not BS.

      I don't know what Gecko is. I don't care. I shouldn't have to.

      What I do know is that Mozilla takes 10+ seconds to start up on my Linux box, and has fewer extensions and whatnot that I can find. For some of our debug-mode product builds, I have to quit Mozilla to free up enough swap space.

      Firefox loads in a blink, and never needs to go away.

      I'm not asking for complete integration. I know that there's going to be some duplication, e.g., now I have to enter my master password twice, once for FF and once for TBird. That's fine. But it's not too much to ask that Thunderbird be able to find a fscking browser when I click on shiny blue links.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  17. Re:Why ADD a calendar?? by Savet+Hegar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I implemented a web based calender running on php and mysql for my entire office. My employees can check and update their calendar from anywhere.

    You're right. My schedule isn't sophisticated enough to need someone else to build additional bloat into my e-mail program.

    --
    Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
  18. Redirect (was Re:Icons by frisket · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Tabbed accounts would be cool. I'm downloading it as I write, so I haven't seen it yet, but The One Thing missing last time was a Redirect feature (like Evolution's Redirect, or Elm's "B" button) which lets me forward mail to the right person without making it look like I sent it -- it preserves the original From and Sender and Reply-To so that the recipient can work as if the mail was originally sent to them.

    This is utterly essential for anyone working in support, as you constantly get mail which needs to be handled by someone else, but when you send it to them, you don't want them hitting Reply and having the reply come back to you (as it will with Forward) -- you want it to reply to the original sender by default. Until then I'm stuck with sucky old Evolution...

    (I did suggest this feature for Moz on bugzilla once: four years later they're still arguing about it because I used the Elm "b" [bounce] key as an example and some prat hijacked the discussion into thinking I was proposing Moz should act as a spam auto-bouncer -- sheesh :-)