Slashdot Mirror


The Case Against Gmail

stry_cat writes "Ed Bot makes the case against Gmail: 'Gmail was a breath of fresh air when it debuted. But this onetime alternative is showing signs that it's past its prime, especially if you want to use the service with a third-party client. That's the way Google wants it, which is why I've given up on Gmail after almost a decade.' Personally, I've always thought it odd that no other email provider ever adopted Gmails "search not sort" mentality. I've been a Gmail user since you needed an invitation to get an account. However Gmail has been steadily moving towards a more traditional email experience. Plus there's the iGoogle disaster that got me looking into alternatives to everything Google."

52 of 435 comments (clear)

  1. iGoogle Disaster by stewsters · · Score: 5, Funny

    The iGoogleocolypse?

    1. Re:iGoogle Disaster by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      My 70 year old mother lamented iGoogle going away too. Take that for whatever it's worth.

    2. Re:iGoogle Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      stry_cat knows hyperbole. "Disaster"? Seriously? I used iGoogle for years. Then Google said "it'll be going away in year." So, I found an alternative. Disaster averted.

    3. Re:iGoogle Disaster by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

      The iGoogleocolypse?

      It's Ed Bott - what else did you expect? I don't even have to RTFA, and I can tell you that he's likely pimping Outlook.com in that same article as hard as he friggin' can. It's not so much a critical review of GMail, as it is a webvertisement for Outlook.com disguised as a critical review.

      GMail isn't exactly sliced bread (I use it POP3-style mostly), but it isn't as horrid as he makes it out to be, either. Think about this for a moment: MSFT's lead professional knob-slobberer badmouths a MSFT product's biggest competitor - so why is this even news?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:iGoogle Disaster by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's totally bullshit that you would want to have a single page with all your email, news, weather, and everything else, launching from the start of your browser session. It's idiocy only pursued by the elderly to want to look at one page to get instantly up to date on everything.

      I'm sorry that iGoogle was your singularity.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:iGoogle Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check out http://www.ighome.com/
      I'm not affiliated with them at all. It's the closest thing to an actual substitute that I've seen so far.
      They even let you import your old settings from iGoogle.

      Just a thought.

    6. Re:iGoogle Disaster by kav2k · · Score: 5, Funny

      Very relevant: http://xkcd.com/1172/

    7. Re:iGoogle Disaster by crunchygranola · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google is being helpful in training/educating us not to rely on their free products for anything important.

      Google DeskTop search? Downloads were disabled with only a days warning. No really adequate replacement has really come forward since (I would guess Recoll is the best of the lot). The "rationale" offered seems to be white-wash for a decision to "encourage" us to store our data in their cloud.

      Then iGoogle. Is so expensive for Google to run iGoogle servers? Really?

      All the other services they have turned off are perhaps less significant due to smaller user bases, but they teach their lessons to users also.

      Before becoming dependent on a Google service, you need to keep a back-out strategy in your pocket.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    8. Re:iGoogle Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What alternative? All the similar ones I don't really trust with my account information.

    9. Re:iGoogle Disaster by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe, but also a bit fallacious. There's a trend today towards removing long running 'advanced' functionality in order to give the appearance of simplicity.

    10. Re:iGoogle Disaster by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's Ed Bott - what else did you expect? I don't even have to RTFA, and I can tell you that he's likely pimping Outlook.com in that same article as hard as he friggin' can. It's not so much a critical review of GMail, as it is a webvertisement for Outlook.com disguised as a critical review.

      Exactly. His slant can easily be determined from his comments about using calendars in Outlook: he complains that Outlook can only open gmail calendars in read-only mode. But this appears to be a limitation of Outlook -- my Thunderbird client (with the appropriate calendar plugins) can update gmail's calendar, so why can't Outlook?

      He then parrots the "scroogled" talking points.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:iGoogle Disaster by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a domain on ms's hosting and it works okay.. I actually like the outlook style interface a little more than gmail.. though I use my gmail account a lot more via web than I do my personal account (mostly use that through the generic mail app on my phone). That said, I really don't trust google, microsoft or apple all that much, they've all done things counter to their user's interests. I have my own email server for my other domains, but getting tired of maintaining it, so a freely hosted solution is the best option for me as long as I can use a regular mail client. MS is the best of those options currently. I have another year on my business connection, and my plan is to have it all on hosted services by the end of the year. I'll still play around with my own stuff, it's just more than I have the time and interest to do these days.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  2. So why *don't* other mail readers use labels? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And why hasn't IMAP been extended to support them properly?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:So why *don't* other mail readers use labels? by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better question is why Google is using IMAP folders as labels instead of using IMAP labels as labels.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. What? by lesincompetent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!

    1. Re:What? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In the summary? Because TFA was.

      Despite Google's lofty rhetoric about open standards, the Gmail protocols are undocumented and not available for licensing. Apps can perform a limited set of interactions with Gmail via its API, but if you want to build a communications app that connects directly to Gmail, you have to use either IMAP or (shudder) POP. Either way, you get a severely compromised experience. And neither configuration gives you access to calendars and contacts.

      I've never tried to build yet another e-mail program using Gmail, but there are at least dozens out there for iOS and android, the ones I've used seem to work just great, so I'm inclined to think this is an overstatement.

      Also

      The biggest problem with getting Gmail to work with third-party clients is that it doesn't use the same filing system they do.

      I'm guessing you can actually configure gmail to work that way. I'm also skeptical that there aren't clients out there that work with one of the most popular e-mail services out there. Specifically because I use some of them and they do actually work fine.

      He tries to generalize it, but it seems like he's talking about outlook specifically not working with gmail. Maybe he should try not using outlook? I dunno. Maybe that's just me. I hate outlook, but my work seems to love it. I have to forward my work e-mail to a gmail account to use it on anything besides outlook.

    2. Re:What? by hobarrera · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand the problem either. Gmail works fine with any IMAP client I care to configure. IMAP itself has some weirdness around how clients interact with various folders, but that's not Gmail's fault.

      Yes they are, they decided to implement their IMAP support in a non-standard way.
      Also, plenty of other issues ARE their fault.

    3. Re:What? by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand the problem either. Gmail works fine with any IMAP client I care to configure. IMAP itself has some weirdness around how clients interact with various folders, but that's not Gmail's fault.

      Well, yes, it is Gmail's fault.

      Gmail doesn't really have Folders, because its just a mail heap with pointers (labels) to simulate folders.
      So if Gmail has a non-standard implementation, its up to them to go the extra mile to make it work with Imap.

      Their current implementation is needlessly complex, to the point that anyone actually using much more than the default Inbox (a shifting target of late) has to have a pretty good understanding of both the folder concept AND the label concept to get things to work right.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:What? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gmail has a 15 imap connection limit. Some clients use multiple imap connections. I know someone with an iphone, ipad, and laptop (mac using Apple Mail), and they run into the limit all the time.

      Worse, apple mail doesn't merely just quietly 'fail' to sync until the connetions become available, it gives a general error message and prompts for username/password.

      Re-Entering it doesn't help of course, because that's not the problem at all.

      You have to quit apple mail, and wait a while.

  4. one more thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you forgot the US Government spying. until our IT giants tell the US government that they are leaving the united states if they don't stop, there is no reason to continue to freely use their service when an alternative is available.

    1. Re:one more thing.. by 0racle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The writer likes Outlook.com, clearly government spying is not a problem to them.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  5. meh... MS advert... by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So his main issue with gmail....

    "It doesn't work with Exchange Active Sync"

    And that's google's fault? My guess is that MS stopped allowing it easy access HOPING people would move over to outlook.com (as he did, because he was "getting scroogled" cause we ALL know MS has NEVER used target advertising. etc etc)

    he complains that you should be able to easily access it from a browser, or a native app... Ermmmm... Works just fine for me from a browser and from apps on iOS and Android devices for me... (I don't believe in WinMo.. they sucked, they annoyed me, i'll never trust them again...)
    Even works fine on Blackberry....

    Soooo... "MOVE TO OUTLOOK.COM Don't get Scroogled...." thanks for the look MS... oh yea, use bing.com, it's AWESOME..

    --
    I am 31337 or something.
  6. MS shill does not like anything Google, news at 11 by silviuc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ed Bott has been sucking the Microsoft tit for years and he loves it. But don't believe me, go check his articles up on ZDnet and see just how many of them cover all things Microsoft.

    In one of his articles he tells us just how much he loves Outlook.com. Link provided for convenience:
    http://www.zdnet.com/why-i-use-outlook-com-for-my-custom-email-accounts-and-how-you-can-too-7000015546/

  7. Search is Google's answer to everything. by plover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's a failing of Google. They're the kings of search, so everything should be searchable, right? So they extended that to everything should be searched - always. Want to know who batted third in the fourth game of the World Series? Search for it. Want to know who sent you that email? Search for them. Want to run a program? Search for it.

    What they don't acknowledge is that people grow habits. Once we've learned a thing, we can repeat the thing pretty easily. I don't have to "search" for Excel on my PC, I know that if I click down here, then up and over here, I see the little [X~] icon. I don't open the search bar and type Excel. And I never open the search bar and type Excel.

    Microsoft, in their traditionally incompetent fashion of misunderstanding their users, decided to mimic Google's unacknowledged mistakes when they came out with Windows 8. (Unity, of course, had beaten them to the punch in incompetence, as they so often do.) Apple figured it out better when they tied search to the home screen on the iPhones, but wisely kept it out of sight. Most people drag their two-dozen useful icons to the first few pages of their iPhone, and use search only when they've forgotten which folder they hid their AnimeTube player in.

    Perhaps the reason GMail (beta) remained beta for so long was that they were running experiments on people. Maybe they wanted to see if people would ever adapt to their notions of "search". And maybe they finally tallied up the results, and recognized how stupid they were to believe it in the first place.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Search is Google's answer to everything. by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I don't have to "search" for Excel on my PC, I know that if I click down here, then up and over here, I see the little [X~] icon. I don't open the search bar and type Excel. And I never open the search bar and type Excel.

      I rarely use Excel, definitely not enough to commit its location in menus to memory. But I can type winkey+e+x+enter in a fraction of the time it takes for you to "click down here, then up and over here" through menus. I'd say using search to launch applications is the right way to do it -- one of the few additions I think they nailed in Vista.

  8. Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ed Bott has been sucking the Microsoft tit for years and he loves it.

    I've been using Gmail since the old days when you had to have an invitation, and I've always used a third party email client because Gmail's web-based interface is stupid and pointless. Ed Bott is an idiot and I don't understand how he ever got a job writing for any computer/tech related magazine or website.

  9. iGoogle Disaster was overblown by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I knew exactly one person who used it, it simply wasn't a popular feature, even if it was the homepage on some Gateway PCs.

    Sadly, many people don't realize that just because a web feature exists and works now, doesn't mean that it can be considered permanent. Auditing for security, proper functioning in the latest browsers, and other general maintenance still cost money. Google at least gives some notice, not all providers can do so.

    1. Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But as you pointed out, it was nothing but a web page, feeding on a bunch of parameters held somewhere.
      Seriously, how expensive is that to maintain?

      Write Once, it should work for ever, or until significant portions of the html spec are deprecated.
      But web standards are typically expanded and enhanced without dropping completely what existed before.

      I suspect it was so shoddily written, by a summer intern who has moved on, and no one can figure out
      how it works, and it wasn't worth the time to make it monetize-able.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used it. I switched to ustart.org which imported the whole thing flawlessly.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect more people used it than you think but it's a person thing. People don't talk about it much. iGoogle clearly conflicted with G+ which means Google wasn't going to let it live even if everyone used it. Just like Google reader, if it's not going to help Google take on FB then it goes. There's a whole market now of apps and sites that act as a feed manager. It's certainly popular enough for people to invest their money into entering the market.

    4. Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect it was so shoddily written, by a summer intern who has moved on, and no one can figure out
      how it works, and it wasn't worth the time to make it monetize-able.

      Nonsense. If the people at ighome.com and netvibes.com and protopage.com igoogleportal.com can figure it out, I'm pretty sure someone at Google can figure out how iGoogle works.

      Unfortunately, none of those alternatives are nearly as well-designed or refined. I'm gonna miss it. I had my RSS reader, my inbox, my weather, calendar, phases of the moon, task list and XKCD, plus a bunch of bookmarks all on one portal page. It was what I saw when I started a browser and it has worked perfectly for me for years. I'm pissed enough about Google dropping it that I've changed my search engine and rooted my Nexus 7.

      I really don't care if I'm just one of a very few who rely on iGoogle. I'm just not gonna support a company that takes away a product I like a lot and would have happily paid a few bucks a month for. Fuck Google.

      But at least it's a reminder that you can't get too dependent on these big corporations, because it gives them the power to fuck with you if they so desire.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      t wasn't worth the time to make it monetize-able.

      I think they are making a fundemental mistake here.

      There a quite a lot of services brutlly cut because they weren't profitable enough. Sounds sensible.

      Big problem though is that it raises huge doubts about whether it's ever worth investing time in a new service. Since they are so keen on cutting, I'm not going to expand my usage of services beyond what I currently use, because basically I don't trust them to keep it up and running.

      Cutting niche services hampers the abilitiy to make non-niche ones.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The insistence on using real names was what turned me completely off on G+

      It was an obvious attempt to monetize my information to the point that they were getting more out of it than I would. Heck, Facebook while basically a cesspool at least uses "enticement" to get the information instead of "forced". While they gather what they can, they don't force me to participate. (I have massive ad-block capabilities so I don't worry about Facebook much.

      That, and Google hooked it up with Youtube, forever linking what you watch and what you post with your real name, you CANNOT dissasociate them once Google has done that. And now you've got a company handing over your real name to the company that decides to have a copyright shit fit over the background music that happened to be playing on the radio while I filmed my cat getting it's head stuck in a watermelon and uploaded it to Youtube. G+ is downright DANGEROUS to privacy if you care about that.

      I don't need that shit in my life, and if Google insists on it, I don't need Google in my life either.

  10. Why Is This News? by snookerdoodle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am serious. Why does /. consider an article by a Microsoft shill bashing Google and recommending Microsoft's product to be worthy of our time?

    Thank you in advance for any serious answers.

  11. Thunderbird reads Gmail just fine . . . by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . and what's wrong with IMAP and POP? They're called "standards" because they're "standard" and consistent and don't change every day like some people's menu bars and web interfaces. My wife can read her Gmail from her iPhone, too. Neither of us is confused by their interface . . . In fact I don't know what this article is complaining about other than "MICROSOFT IS NONSTANDARD" which is not exactly a shock, but he's saying it as if everyone else in the world is supposed to conform to Microsoft's standards. Um m m m m , no.

    If you're worried about privacy: I pay for Verizon FIOS. That includes email. I *pay* for this, it's *mine*, they're not supposed to be making money off it . . . except I know from other evidence that they are scanning the email just like Google does, especially when I'm looking at it with the webmail interface rather than Thunderbird. So I don't think you can trust paid services either. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you run your own server, someone is scanning things to the SMTP port. If you don't control the wires end-to-end, then you don't have control, period.

    For the ultra-cool folks who ask "who uses a client" and "who uses email anymore" . . . what are you doing reading such an ancient site as Slashdot? Go read something that nobody else knows about yet, and let us dinosaurs roam in peace.

    1. Re:Thunderbird reads Gmail just fine . . . by hobarrera · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, they're standard, and it's cool if gmail implemented them compeltely

  12. Re:Ed Bott is a clueless dolt by slaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I keep every single message I've gotten since 1993 in the same inbox with perhaps a half dozen total messages segregated into a different folder. That's around 300,000 emails. I have a very good memory so I seldom need to search, but when I do, I've never found a weakness in the search component of any mail client I care to name, even going back to elm or pine.
    The greatest degree of flexibility comes with having all my messages in the same directory; over the last 20 years I've treated it as a quasi-journal and usually if I go back to read a message or two for a given date I can give a pretty accurate summation of everything else I did on that day, so as an organizational structure I'd say it works just fine.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
  13. Re:who cares? by slaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People still use email for anything other than verifying forum accounts and retrieving forgotten passwords? There are so many faster and easier ways to communicate

    That's possibly generational. I don't like to send SMSes because of the character limit and the idea that it's at least nominally tied to one device. I don't use any social networking services because I've actually read their terms of service. I think phone conversations are intrusive and damaging to my concentration, so I prefer not to talk on the phone, and many slow typists I know dislike any sort of realtime IM system.

    Most of the people I know who dislike E-mail don't like the "formality" of having to write complete sentences or are paranoid about the possibility of some kind of record being kept of the exchange, but to me it's clearly the best general-purpose communication tool available most of the time. The haters tend to be young and want to conduct as much communication as possible through either Facebook or SMS.

    I don't know if that's you or not, but I will say that E-mail isn't going away any time soon regardless of your wishes to the contrary.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
  14. Re:Ed Bott is a clueless dolt by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's stupid. If you have to constantly search for things it means you are a lazy disorganized slob. The number of times I've had to search for an email can be counted on one hand because I have things organized so that I know where they are.

    Why should I waste time manually organizing my e-mails when I can just search for them when I want to read them later? Computers exist to do menial work for me, so I don't have to do it myself.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  15. Re:Other good paid email providers? by Gunnut1124 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My company (~750 email users) bought in to the Office 365 hype while negotiating our MS licensing. We got it super cheap and thought "What the hell, 'free' DR and a cloud service to offer the end users? Why not?"... That was a year ago. In the year since that decision and 8 months in to using the product, I can say without a doubt that Office 365 is the worst email system I've ever used. Hands down, the absolute worst. Spam filtering problems? Yep, had those. Mail delivery problems? Yep, about 3 times a month (on average). Client connectivity issues? Oh yeah. Management site unavailable? It's happened more than once. 4-hour hold for "free" support? Yep, been through that too.

    It's bad enough that we're spending the money to move all of our cloud mailboxes back on-prem. I can't expect that ANYONE with an expectation for highly available mail systems would use Office 365. I'll offer further details in a PM if anyone needs it.

    --
    America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
  16. He did, he did! by hackshack · · Score: 4, Informative

    Penguinisto, he mentioned Outlook 11 times in his last 3 paragraphs.

  17. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    To summarize the fine article:

    Ed Bott
    I write stuff. Mostly about Windows. Sometimes I get paid for it,

    http://www.edbott.com/

  18. Full Disclosure by drakaan · · Score: 5, Informative
    (From the "full disclosure" link at the bottom of TFA):

    Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books have been distributed under several imprints: Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education); Microsoft Press (with production and distribution by O'Reilly), and Fair Trade Digital Exchange, where he was briefly a partner. On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate. Ed sometimes receive fees and/or travel expenses for live speeches and webinars from companies and organizations. Acceptance of these fees does not constitute an endorsement of the company's products. Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than seven years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth. Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    1. Re:Full Disclosure by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact he is a paid contractor for the "enemy" of an opinion piece, indicates it might not even be worth the attention required to refute it.

      It's an opinion piece, not full of fact and research. There's nothing to refute, unless you have a mind reading machine to see if he's expressing his true opinions.

    2. Re:Full Disclosure by drakaan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not attacking anyone. I am only pointing out that an article pointing out things about Google not having APIs that work for him, that pushing him to switch to outlook.com (and explaining to everyone else how and why they should) might not be completely unbiased.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  19. Re:Past it? Long past it. by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone acting like Lotus is better than any other email client at anything is just incorrect. We actually have people switching to Linux and the running a Windows VM to do their actual work just so that they can use a Thunderbird or similar for email versus Lotus Notes. It's that bad. Earlier today I waited 35 minutes for my Inbox view to refresh so that I could actually see my inbox with only ~100 emails in it. We have a STOPNOTES.exe put on everyone's desktop by IT and that's the first thing they ask us to run if we call with a Lotus Notes problem. If by flexible you mean broke into a million pieces so technically you can make it any shape you want, then you would be correct.

  20. Re:Add Mail Recall as a feature by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately that functionality requires support from the recipient's systems. My mail server doesn't understand the concept of a recall notice, it's just another message in my mailbox. My client doesn't understand them either, so I just see a strange message that does nothing. And frankly I like it that way. I don't want someone else pulling things out of my mailbox, I want a nice clear unaltered record of what was sent to me when. I don't ever want to be in a situation where someone can show me a copy of a message that was clearly sent to me that I had no clue about because I never saw it in my inbox and I have no record of it and no way to prove I didn't receive it.

  21. "more traditional email experience" by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hardly. Every time they change the UI it feels less like email, and more like a strange conglomeration of email, social media, and instant messaging, where email always loses importance. I personally find the whack-a-mole buttons annoying as hell, especially since the one I use second most ("mark as read") is buried under "More".

    And I'm sure anyone here who has tried to deal with Gmail as an IMAP server has yanked out at least one fistful of their own hair.

  22. The interface F*CKING SUCKS: no news here by vinn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been a Gmail user since about June 21, 2004 (that's when my first sent message shows). For personal use I always thought Gmail was just sufficient. The labels were a bit annoying and I have found the tabs a big improvement. The storage is great and I haven't deleted an email since I started using it. I'm primarily a searcher not a sorter, so in many ways that's a good fit for my personal use.

    BUT....

    A month ago I started my own consulting business. While it's getting off the ground, I've been using the Gmail account for work related reasons. Coming from the standard Outlook world (as well as Thunderbird and other clients), I find Gmail SUCKS GIANT F*CKING DONKEY BALLS to get work done. It's impossible to manage any kind of sane workflow with it. As of this morning, I think I've officially given up.

    The new tabs idea would almost work for me - to manage my workflow I figure I need 8 tabs total. In their infinite wisdom, they've limited the new tabs idea to 5. Why 5? I have no idea. I do enjoy the fact that it's reasonably intelligent, so it does figure out automatically how to filter things. However, I really need the ability to add my own tab for work reasons. You know, the one that's labeled "EVERY EMAIL FROM KEVIN BECAUSE THIS IS THE GUY THAT'S PAYING ME AND I DAMN WELL BETTER NOT MISS A MESSAGE FROM HIM".

    Like I mentioned, I'm primarily a searcher, however some stuff is so important that you really need to be able to sort it. When you get hundreds of messages a day, the last thing you want is something scrolling off the first page of the browser window. Oh, and why the hell can't I have that first page show 1000 different threads rather than just, say, the 100 it has?

    I hate to admit it, but I see a hosted Exchange account in my future.

    --
    ----- obSig
  23. Best decision i took in my online life.. by shadowmas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. Is to buy my own domain to host email off of. I'm not dependent on any providers whims or fancies. I still don't understand why people don't do it. Host your email anywhere you wish but get your own domain. It means you never have to worry about changing providers since all your contacts and services can still use the same address.

  24. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've still got lots of invites left. Post your email here and I'll send you a gmail invite.

  25. Calendar access: Yes you can by helixcode123 · · Score: 3, Funny

    TFA's statement "And neither configuration gives you access to calendars and contacts." is just wrong, or at least misleading. While it's true that you can't access calendar info through IMAP, there is an entire Google calendar API for event manipulation (I use in my Sig webapp).

    --

    In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.