IT'S HERE...just downloaded the latest release.

Thanks David and those that helped to test!

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.

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.

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.

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 

[quote user="tigershark"]

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

[/quote]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 [Y]

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....

[quote user="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.

[quote user="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...
[/quote]

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.

[quote user="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.
[/quote]

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 --

[quote user="ducky273"]

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!

[/quote]

In terms of new core functionality, an improved address book is the most obvious feature that is on the top of many people's wishlist.  There are many other good ideas over in the "Suggestions" forum of this website (some of these are suggestions to fine tune the existing GUI and others are suggestions for new functionality).

I'm with David, I really don't understand the meaning of the terms "modern interface" and "appropriate design".  I just hope they are not code for "looks like MS Outlook".  

[quote user="David Harris"]

I'm sorry, but this is just petty, and I deserve better. (...)

[/quote]

I admit that my last post was provocative, but I think it was necessary to evoke a reaction. This is not against you as a person and I fully understand that you are torn between two groups of users with different expectations.

[quote user="David Harris"]

Be specific (...)

[/quote]

OK, I'm trying to make it as short as possible.

The issues I would bring up are the following ones:

1. Problems with resizing/maximazing windows and unexpected positioning of windows

a) The message editor... (I'm glad to read that you have changed the positioning of the message editor in v. 4.5.).

b) After choosing options or internet options, the maximized preview-mode window (in the background) doesn't stay maximized

c) If you maximize the options window, Pmail will forget the setting for this window (plus the internet options window and the options window are not draggable if using a maximized preview-mode window, because Pmail obviously thinks that all windows are maximized while they are not).

2. The closing x bug (http://community.pmail.com/forums/thread/1609.aspx )

3. The multiple borders bug ( http://community.pmail.com/forums/thread/8910.aspx )

4. Double click doesn't open messages with large attachments (e.g. pictures) or pure html-messages (in preview mode)

5. Tabs at bottom: no right-click menu, no closing x

6. Default font size too small (if you change the font size to a higher unit the folder icons are too small.)

7. IMAP profiles window: strange margins between the entries (if you have several profiles)

8. Spamhalter, clean-up window: closing x not working

9. Deleted messages folder: a little button/link to delete all messages in this folder with a single click would be nice

10. Some windows have a closing x button, some not (e.g. identities or options have no closing x)

11. Some windows have a cancel button, some not (e.g. the global whitelist window). 

12. Font size changing from default to bigger sizes: fonts display looks strange (not sure if Pmail is the problem here)

13. Margin/line-height problem: e.g. there should be a greater distance between the folder icons (this would make scaling fonts easier)

14. Missing possibility to change the sorting of folders (e.g. important folders could be positioned at the very top regardless of what their name is)

15. Customizable tool bars: the possibility to remove or add icons if (not) needed. (I know that there is an option to change parts of one of the tool bars)

As everybody can see: nothing special, no Aero Glass.

I admit that my last post was provocative, but I think it was necessary

to evoke a reaction. This is not against you as a person and I fully

understand that you are torn between two groups of users with different

expectations.

No matter what you say it was against the program developer as a person directly.  You said he did not not how to design a good program. 

And you are also correct that there are a lot of users that do not want a design interface that is "look pretty" that gets in the way of functionality.   FWIW, many of the things on your list are a direct result of the way that the Windows OS operates and is not under the complete control of the developer.

When I read this discussion about the interface of Pegasusmail I would say that if you show 10 people 10 different interfaces of the same program you can hear 7 different answers for what they would prefer.

I am using pegasus mail since 9 years ( very successful ) and for me is the interface absolutly fine.

This will say that I think the look of the interface is not the first, the program features, updates if there is a bug, and functions are at first. Nobody would use a program which looks great but it will not work fine. I think that the developers works hard and fine, users should not only say whats wrong, they even should say when an program is fine or helpfuly. This is a motivation for a program autor for future releases.

Thanks to David Harris and his team for is work and a succsesful future.