Do you use gmail? (No ending time set) |
Yes |
|
74% |
[ 23 ] |
No |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
In my day we had tacos and we liked it that way! |
|
16% |
[ 5 ] |
|
Total Votes : 31 |
|
Author |
Message |
md
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: GMail gets better! |
|
|
Google has added IMAP support to gmail! Now that may not matter to many of you, but if you use more then one computer and don't want to use the webmail interface (let's be honest... there are bette mail clients out there) now you can! POP was pretty much limited to a single computer, and if you did anything locally it didn't make it back to gmail's web interface. With IMAP any changes you make are duplicated in the web interface, as well as any other clients you use.
slashdot coverage, 'cause /. has fun discussions too!. There is also a good article on Ars Technica, but I am too lazy to link to it.
Also, it would be really great if you could have multiple poll questions... |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Sponsor
|
|
|
Tony
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: RE:GMail get\'s better! |
|
|
Which local mail client(s) would you suggest over gmail's web interface? |
Tony's programming blog. DWITE - a programming contest. |
|
|
|
|
Mazer
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: RE:GMail get\'s better! |
|
|
THIS IS AWESOME
Constructive edit: the web interface is neat and all, but on campus I seem to be in an unending struggle for bandwidth against the hordes of youtube and facebook users. And the douchebags cap it really low, actually. It's nice to check mail through Thunderbird, which I couldn't do before due to the douchebags blocking POP. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tony
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: RE:GMail get\'s better! |
|
|
I think the single greatest feature of gmail's web interface are threaded emails. Until there's an offline app that will similarly group all of the replies into a single thread -- I'm sticking to the web. |
Tony's programming blog. DWITE - a programming contest. |
|
|
|
|
md
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: RE:GMail get\'s better! |
|
|
Thunderbird can thread your email in a different, but equally useful manner IIRC.
As for a particular recommendation of clients... I don't know. I've been forced to use the webmail interface for most of a year since I have more then one computer and regularly use them both. POP just didn't work...
Before that I used thunderbird a bit, and evolution; now I'm going to try a few more things before I choose something. I will however admit to liking Mail.app exceedingly... if only there was a linux version/clone. |
|
|
|
|
|
rdrake
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: RE:GMail get\'s better! |
|
|
Outlook! is the client real men used to check their e-mail. |
|
|
|
|
|
md
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: RE:GMail get\'s better! |
|
|
When I used windows I actually used outlook for email. I found it to be nicer to use then any other client I tried.
New mail notifications + collapsing to the notification bar == awesome. I wish there was a linux program that did the same.
**Note that anything prior to Outlook 2K is unknown to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mazer
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: RE:GMail gets better! |
|
|
I just used the mail-notification applet for Linux. I actually wish there were something as simple as that for Windows. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Sponsor
|
|
|
Sparky
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: RE:GMail gets better! |
|
|
I don't really have a use for an actual email client, the GMail interface looks good and is very functional, so it works for me.
I also like how we have 6225 megs of storage in there. It does wonders for GMail Drive as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
michaelp
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: RE:GMail gets better! |
|
|
I do use G-mail a bit for most of my online stuff. (Registering for forums, etc) The only other e-mail I have is a hotmail one, which some things that you register for don't accept it, or "might not work" with it. So I got a g-mail that is almost the exact same as my hotmail one. In terms of the name. |
|
|
|
|
|
|