Pegasus Mail & Mercury

Will there be a new version with a user interface that is a little more up to date any time soon? Or is Pegasus Mail finally dead (which would be very sad!). I have read announcements for an updated version for over a year now...

It is expected that v4.51 will be out in a couple of weeks baring any major problems.  There are a number of small fixes to be completed and the normal release candidate hassles we saw with Mercury/32 v4.61 but it should be relatively soon.

 FWIW, I've been using this version in production so it's pretty much ready to go.

---

Thomas R. Stephenson
Member of Pegasus Mail Support Team

Well, I would be very happy about that. But this sort of information has already been communicated in the past and nothing happened. I just hope that there will be some significant modernizations anytime soon. Otherwise it will be hard to stay with pegasus.

AFAIK are changes regarding the UI not implemented until version 5.

 

---

kind regards

What in your view is "an user interface that is a little more up to date"? I (and I think some more users) like pmail pretty much as it looks like a tool (what it is) and not like a toy (what it isn't).

I'd be interested to hear exactly what you think is wrong with the current interface. OK, it's not Aero Glass, and isn't especially glamorous, but do you want a mail program that looks glamorous, or one that handles mail?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being petty here: I appreciate that glossy user interfaces are compelling attractions for new users, but I believe that that's all they are - glossy looks quickly wear off and a huge amount comes down to how usable the program is *after* you've stopped being wowed by the fancy graphics.

I could certainly devote my entire effort to giving Pegasus Mail a Vista-like user interface, but that's what it would take: the effort entailed in making the program look glossy and flashy would quite literally consume my entire efforts for the next several months, and, in my opinion, would add nothing at all to the actual usability of the program (this is, in fact, my opinion of Vista, so far: apart from the glossy user interface, I have yet to find a *single* new feature that would draw me to the system).

I would sooner work on the things that are clumsy or difficult, and on adding features that people really want, rather than simply adding a gratuitous user interface: if from doing this I lose some users for whom form is more important than function, then unfortunately, I suspect that's just the way it's going to be.

Pegasus Mail v4.5 is actually very stable: there's no technical reason why I couldn't have released it any time in the last few months: the reasons I haven't done a release are primarily because v4.51 doesn't add much from a user's perspective, and because a huge amount of my time and effort has been focused on major sideline issues that have longer-term significance (in particular, a new internal interface that will be common to both Pegasus Mail and Mercury).

That said, I really do hope to have v4.5 released in the next two to three weeks (there - I've actually put a time frame on it) - but don't get your hopes up too much: aside from a small number of improvements in the editor and in replying, and a Vista-compatible help system, there's not a lot that will look new there, even though every module in the program has had to be changed more or less extensively during the migration to Microsoft Visual C++. It certainly doesn't have a glossy Vista user interface, nor has it visually changed that much at all.

Cheers!

-- David --

Hi David

>there's not a lot that will look new there, even though every module in the program has had to be changed
>more or less extensively during the migration to Microsoft Visual C++

I understand that, unfortunatelly, Borland family of C++ is dead, but may I ask respectfully why did you choose Visual C++ when you decide to upgrade you C++ IDE ?

I have red in one of your posts that you were not against the idea of migrating Pegasus toward Linux environment, but this choice of an IDE tighly bond to Wĩndows (and not respectfull of standards) won't obliterate for good this possibility ? (for ex, an IDE based on minGw, or maybe Eclipse, would have given more possibility to use the GTK lib under linux for the API's calls, or am I completely wrong ?)

Is there significant vantages of Visual C++ over the other C++ IDEs ?

PS. In the same post over linux migration, you've said that one of the problem was a legal issue about the external composer editor. Wouldn't an open source editor like Scite be a solution for such issue ?

Best regards
Sebas

Hi David,

is it possible for you to post a development roadmap for version 5, either in the forum or on your blog.

I don't expect any concrete release dates, but something like a list

of new features planned, improvements and so on.

I think that would be very interesting for all Pegasus users, especially for new

users, to see what they can expect in the future.

 

 

---

kind regards

I don't really understand what you don't like about the GUI / user interface now.  I think it's great.  David has a long history of paying painstaking attention to GUI details, and aside from a few small quirks, I think the GUI is great just the way it is.  I would much rather see efforts applied to new core functionality.

David:

Ignore that party I have always thought your product is simply fantastic and it serves the basic needs of many of us.

 

Having said this that party is simply in the minority to say the least 

 

Danny McGill

New York USA 

tigershark:

AFAIK are changes regarding the UI not implemented until version 5.

Source for this information? I venture to doubt that (and by the way: version 5 is probably light-years away from a release). 

Ducky is right.

The interface badly needs a modernization. And this is not only a question of new graphics. It's about consistent, logic behaviour, fixing bugs, improving the usability of PMail and much more...
The reply of David Harris seems to indicate that he doesn't care about potential new users. Well, Pegasus Mail is his program and he can do with it what he wants.

I'm using Pegasus for about 10 years now. I always thought that the interface is the weak point of the program and I am sure PMail lost a lot of users because of this weakness.
The simple truth is probably, that designing and developing interfaces is not Mr. Harris' field of interest.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to listen too much to the most loyal fans of Pegasus Mail. I think the target group of Pegasus should be expanded.

David,

thank you (and everybody else) for taking the time to respond. I have been using Pegasus mail for many years now and always stayed with it, even when I thought that some issues were better solved by other programs. I appreciate the level of control it gives to the user, while still being a managable and usable program.

What I wanted to raise attention to is that I have the feeling that the software has not been advanced over the last years. It may well be that the changes that have taken place are not visible to the average user. But does this help the average user then?

I do not want to advocate a glossy bubble gum interface, but rather a modern interface which combines functinality with appropriate design.

 @ scwallac: So what will the improvements in the core functions be? I personally think that the interface is at the very core of functionality!

@ Eshtaol: I thought the whole point of this community page was feed back. Whats the point of further development if the developer does not know what the users need / want?

 

I would rather have functionality and usability over eye candy that hog system resourses any day.

At present the UI isn't anything fancy but its not what I would call plain and boring either.... but what it is... is functional and usable. :)

Keep up the great work David

This brings up the issue of skinable interface and skins for UI so you can make your own skin. personally I think that would be a waste of time and effort as I said above, at present the UI is usable and looks similar to many other interfaces I use....

---

I can spell, I just can't type

ducky273:

What I wanted to raise attention to is that I have the feeling that the software has not been advanced over the last years. It may well be that the changes that have taken place are not visible to the average user. But does this help the average user then?

I do not want to advocate a glossy bubble gum interface, but rather a modern interface which combines functinality with appropriate design.

Look, this is easy to say, and I hear it a lot, but nobody ever gives me *specifics*. Instead of speaking in generalizations, TELL ME WHAT IT IS YOU ACTUALLY WANT ME TO DO.

Now, I'm sorry if I sound a bit ratty about this, but I *am*. I get really tired of people slagging off my work without ever actually being specific about what it is they don't like. The phrase "modern interface" simply means nothing at all, nor does the phrase "combines functionality with appropriate design".

If you want me to take your report and wishes on board, you MUST provide them in a form that actually gives me something to work on, not vague generalizations.

I am *more* than happy to consider any and all suggestions, provided they have substance.

Cheers!

-- David --

Marc:

Ducky is right.

The interface badly needs a modernization. And this is not only a question of new graphics. It's about consistent, logic behaviour, fixing bugs, improving the usability of PMail and much more...

See my reply to Ducky above. Be specific - instead of wafting general complaints, point to specific things you want fixed. If you give me things I can actually work on, I'll do so, or I'll give you detailed reasons why I can't.

Marc:

The reply of David Harris seems to indicate that he doesn't care about potential new users. Well, Pegasus Mail is his program and he can do with it what he wants.

I'm sorry, but this is just petty, and I deserve better. If it's not obvious after seventeen years of providing this program that I *do* care about my users and that I *do* want to make the program as good as I am capable of providing, then I don't know what more I have to do to prove it.

-- David --