I have thought over this again, and I still think that network options should be part of Options in the menu.

Presently an "Internet options" separate from "Options" in the menu is a difficulty for the new user.

Could we just merge the Internet options and main options settings windows? Just to make something simpler.

[quote user="arnaudherve"]Could we just merge the Internet options and main options settings windows? Just to make something simpler.
[/quote]

Actually it would not be simpler for many, it was that way in the past though.  Many people do not need the internet options at all when there are working with Mercury as a complete mail system.   Other use these only to setup SMTP when running as a IMAP4 user.

Like so many answers on this PM forum, I don't understand how it refers logically to my previous message. Working with Mercury or Imap, you still have to create an account in your client, as far as I know.

I was just saying that the average user shouldn't have to guess in which direction, Options or Internet Options, he will find what is necessary. The phrase "Internet Options" is really not explicit, in the case of an application that will do nothing but use the Internet. Using a simple Options -> Accounts or Options -> Servers menu would reduce the gap between PM interface and other widespread mail software, which seems a good idea, when the gap is unnecessary.

[quote user="arnaudherve"] Working with Mercury or Imap, you still have to create an account in your client, as far as I know.[/quote]

When I have Pegasus Mail and Mercury closely integrated, I never alter or access any of the settings in Internet Options.  All the account settings are handled in Mercury.

I suspect the close integration of PM and Mercury is not statistically relevant, and its mention doesn't help clarifying the subject here.

[quote user="arnaudherve"]

Like so many answers on this PM forum, I don't understand how it refers logically to my previous message. Working with Mercury or Imap, you still have to create an account in your client, as far as I know.

I was just saying that the average user shouldn't have to guess in which direction, Options or Internet Options, he will find what is necessary. The phrase "Internet Options" is really not explicit, in the case of an application that will do nothing but use the Internet. Using a simple Options -> Accounts or Options -> Servers menu would reduce the gap between PM interface and other widespread mail software, which seems a good idea, when the gap is unnecessary.

[/quote]

No you do not with Pegasus Mail.  Pegasus Mail can access the mailboxes directly with no winsock running at all.   Pegasus Mail is pointed at the server volume containing the mail directories and that is all that is required.  It's sends the mail by placing it into a Mercury/32 queue. 

Now if you had said you would like the IMAP and POP3 type setups more closely integrated then I could see your point.  It may be done in the future but if you look at the two they are very dissimilar right now.  There would be a lot of work required.

[quote user="arnaudherve"]I suspect the close integration of PM and Mercury is not statistically relevant, and its mention doesn't help clarifying the subject here.
[/quote]

It's been a couple of years since the last look but the last survey of the members of the PM-in list says that the number of users with an integrated system is very significant. I also clarifies why the POP3 and IMAP4 setting are separate. 

Frankly, I don't think the members of the PM-in list are statistically relevant, compared to the potential userbase of those who will download PM from the Internet, because they are told it is an interesting client.

I could argue for days that the average user will like to find all options in Options, but I prefer to give up in this forum. Communication is not fluid enough here.

I wish success to everybody. I'll keep waiting for next release. 

I agree with you, I think also that it would be easier that Options and Internet options would be merged (and also that File/Network configuration should be removed) but you can also understand that some other people don't have the same opinion.

Pegasus Mail is what it is, I like it even if I would like some changes but Pegasus Mail is not only for me, I'm just one user amongst thousands. You have also to remember that Pegasus Mail is the result of the work of one single guy (Hi David!), that's a fact and you can't change it.

If you leave an organization each time everybody doesn't fully agree with you, you must be "a poor lonesome cow-boy" as it's said in a famous  French cartoon.

 So long
 

Bonjour Philippe!

Content de te voir la binette! :)

(Je suis revenu à Pegasus, pour ton info.) 

I agree the actual setup is actual confusing.

I have an Internet Options menu under Tools, and a Network Configuration menu under File

Both show the same thing. (possibly because I'm only using POP3?)

In that case, one of these menus could be disabled, as it's redundant.

Could it make sense if David was making two varieties of PM available: one for Mercury users, and one for POP3 users, which is the widest audience on the Net.

Maybe with simple compilation switches he could make these variants.

I've been using PM for years, back from the 2.x series, but have used other clients too, like The Bat!, Thunderbird.

PM is a great program, but somewhat ackward to configure and use for a novice.

It's folder architecture is a bit strange too.

People are looking for a specific folder for the outgoing message queue, and the sent ones.

Actually, PM puts the message in the sent folder, even if it has not been actually sent.

It's design is not the most intuitive for POP3 users.

The ability to re-order the folders and the columns would be great too.

The truncation of the From and Subject fields in the message list is strange too.

With the power of the average desktop nowadays, the reasons behind many "features" need to be reconsidered to make PM more attractive and modern.

Just my $0.02!.

Best regards,

François

I see the logic and reasoning behind both sides, and I think both have strong cases for and against.

Personally, however, I like it as it is. I often only need to modify one set of configuration options, or the other. I would rather see a couple menu entries to quickly select which set I want to modify rather than have some huge control panel with a thousand doodads, buttons, checkmarks, flashing lights and a bewildering array of options to sift through before I find the one I want. For simple apps, a single "Settings" (or "Options") menu choice is enough; But the sheer amount of options and reconfigurability in PMail would make a single unified config option way too complex, and be more confusing and daunting to the "average" user. (Imagine a tech support call.. "Ok, select options.. now select the X tab, go down and press the Y button, highlight the Z choice in the config tree, now choose the third property sheet under the ABC heading, go down about halfway and you'll find the option to do what you want. See, simple, wasn't it?")

I do think, however, that the arrangement and location of some optioins might be fine-tuned to make them easier to find, more intuitive, and yes, in some cases, even redundant and appearing in more than one place or menu. Think toolbars; Most toolbars are just duplicate "quick click" buttons that do commonly needed tasks which are also just as available under the various menus, keyboard shortcuts, etc. But people don't want to hunt for what they want, they want to just see it right in front of them, click it, and be done.

Regards,

C. M.