PocoMail Future?

[ente]

I feel that I have gotten my money's worth (and still am) with Poco (not Barca as I use a different tool for that sort of thing). I still log on here and still look for solutions to some of the issues that plaque me. The support of Eric, Tomas, Robin and others has been great. Gord

That is how I feel to! Of course, it would be nice to have a new version of Pocomail, with a better html support, but up to now this program still does all I need to get done. And in a way no other mail client I know knows to do. Thanks to this forum, thanks to Eric, Tomas, Robin, and also thanks to MarkB, with all the macros he has written for me! Actually there are just two things which ought to be fixed (for me as a w7, 64 bit user):

1) The date format
1) Ther cursor in the subject field

...and what is also is needed, is a fix for the registry, so that W7 recognizes Pocomail (but since for this there is here in the forum a fix present, even that is not absolutly a must.
Ente
P.S. Me to, I do not use Barca, but a "different toool for that sort of thing" - In my case it's a 32 bit program, which has not been updated since 1997 (actually, the new owner of the company has dropped it) and which has capabilities no other PIM offers up to now. It now even runs perfectly under W7 64bit: Since there is a very active user community, some one wrote a fix for the installation (I'm writing about Ecco).

[pairofhearts]

"different toool for that sort of thing"

..........and what tool would that be?

[Gleason Pace]

http://www.compusol.org/ecco/

For something a little more recent but with a long development history look at

http://www.studio-v5.com/redbox/index.htm

[jaxgtr]

This thread was very interesting to read. I have been a user since 2004 and have really enjoyed the program and have had several other people I know move from Outlook or other mail client to Pocomail or Barca. I am a purchaser of both Barca and Poco, my wife and I use Barca on our PC and my kids have Poco on theirs. While I still have the client installed on my PC, I find myself using my phone or using the online client my domain provides and honestly, the domain client is pretty sweet and I can access and use it from my phone. I love the fact that Poco\Barca does not process MS scripts which was the main reason I started using it and having my kids on Poco gave me extra security knowing they were not going to download and run some crap code via email.

While I would love to see a new product, unless it's web based or possibly has a option for Android\iPhone based, I really don't think I would put another stand alone email client on my PC, just don't see the need. I am starting to think that email is going the way of snail mail as more people are texting, tweeting and whatever else they are doing. I occasionally check in to see what is happening and its the same answer, nothing, not that it is a bad thing, again for me, it not a huge concern.

Brian

oh, yea, I love the new forum software you're using. Very nice layout. And Eric, I was so looking to making it to the Tour of Flanders today, but my travel got delayed, but unless something drastic happens, I will be making it for Paris–Roubaix this year. Can't wait.

[Gleason Pace]

It is true that most people don't need a high performance email client. Never did, still don't, and tweeting/texting in the modern age is quite sufficient for them. In my case, I seem to have this instinctive dislike for webmail interfaces, like the one I am looking at. And I need a lot more from an email client than most people do. At one time there was hope that Poco would fill my need with verve and style. I suspect that in your use of Poco you never came across the problems it has, like with Imap (as opposed to Pop) for instance.

[jaxgtr]

I have had some issues, but I just dealt with them and moved on. I wrote several scripts to deal with things as well. Don't get me wrong, really like the program, and I can understand the need for a strong client, but I can also understand why users want an ease of having email on the fly. Being able to access my email on the road without having to drag around a pc is a plus. If I could get poco usability and functionality on my phone, I'd really almost have no need for a pc, except for that pesky programming job thing I do .

Brian

[Gleason Pace]

Right, I keep doing that too.

Move on? Well, sure, I haven't used Poco for years, crippled as it is. Just recently, it is starting to look like there might be someplace else to go. Postbox is looking really good. And, who knows, The Bat might actually get out of beta with a decent offering too in the next little while.

I mostly don't hang around failed email client forums. But Poco was such a prodigy. There does remain a market for a really well done high performance email client, if somebody might accidentally do one. I once offered to pay Slaven double his going price if he would. That market is not likely to fade away into twitter either.

[davidg80]

I have taken the plunge and gone for The Bat. Takes a bit of getting used to but once you are in and accept its idiosyncrasies you realise the scope. Much prefer Poco's interface though.

I really changed to it because I need email stationery and is quite simple to do in TB. I looked at all the alternatives before changing.

Like Poco it has its own html engine - not sure how they compare yet.

[blakelyg]

I have taken the plunge and gone for The Bat. Takes a bit of getting used to but once you are in and accept its idiosyncrasies you realise the scope. Much prefer Poco's interface though.

I really changed to it because I need email stationery and is quite simple to do in TB. I looked at all the alternatives before changing.

Like Poco it has its own html engine - not sure how they compare yet.

Be careful with the Bat - the new version (5.0.x) they have released it without correcting many of the reported bugs being corrected - reported during the alpha and beta test periods. I had to revert back to my earlier released version 4.2.x (I am a registered user of that software as well) because of some of these issues.

Reason I am commenting is just to point out there is no "perfect" email client (or indeed any piece of software) and just because there is "active" ongoing development does not mean that the product in question is any better or worse than what you have now. This is not a forum for discussing the merits of the Bat - or any other email client. IMHO

On a side note I was browsing one of the many file sites that I go to and on one of them there was an indication that there was an update to Pocomail (4. with a date of April 9th, 2011. I am bringing this up in case there is some activity that we are not aware of and this is in prep for a new release?

With attachments and images being disabled (at least I cannot see where I can add attachments and thus images), I cannot post an screenshot. If the Admins can either PM me or provide an update I can provide screenshots or links to the site in question.

--
Gord

[davidg80]

Thanks for the heads up but I to have reverted to the earlier version.

Having been involved with beta testing security s/w for several years I am aware it is difficult to release perfect programs. Most often bugs appear that were not evident in testing.

Would love to know if there was a further release of Poco - it is by far my preferred email client

[Gleason Pace]

On a side note I was browsing one of the many file sites that I go to and on one of them there was an indication that there was an update to Pocomail (4. with a date of April 9th, 2011.

That was the 2009 release, I fear. There has been no traffic in the beta test forum for a hear and a half. If there were some hint of an update rumbling on the horizon, Rose City Software would be shouting it all over the place, I bet.

[blakelyg]

On a side note I was browsing one of the many file sites that I go to and on one of them there was an indication that there was an update to Pocomail (4. with a date of April 9th, 2011.

That was the 2009 release, I fear. There has been no traffic in the beta test forum for a hear and a half. If there were some hint of an update rumbling on the horizon, Rose City Software would be shouting it all over the place, I bet.

Yes I realize that there has been no activity - beta or otherwise. My point was a file site seemed to indicate that there was a new version (it even picks up build numbers) so was just wondering how it was notified of a new release on April 9, 2011 (yes I am sure of the date as I said I made a screen capture - just cannot post it here) and by whom?

Gord

[chrisretusn]

Can't post it here? Why?

A quick search, lead me to Major Geeks, regardless of what the date says (2011-04-09), it's the current version of PocoMail.

[blakelyg]

Can't post it here? Why?

A quick search, lead me to Major Geeks, regardless of what the date says (2011-04-09), it's the current version of PocoMail.

As I indicated I realize that it is the current version, my understanding of how the file sites work is that they receive a feed from the software vendor when there is a change (in something) or if it has been submitted by someone (in the software company). My question is not what version it is - because we all know that - but why has something appeared on several files sites - including Major Geeks and others - indicating some sort of activity. I have know idea if it is PocoSystems or Rose City - except the link for the software download link directs you to Pocosystems. As has been indicated here in many postings Pocomail/and Barca are dead products (not a position I necessarily agree with) so why would this type of promotion be made?

It is know big deal I suppose, mainly trying to find out if it is good news or not so good news.

Wish there was PM here as some of these issues would best be addressed in a more private mode.

[tonnelier]

[quote][/quote]On a side note I was browsing one of the many file sites that I go to and on one of them there was an indication that there was an update to Pocomail (4. with a date of April 9th, 2011. I am bringing this up in case there is some activity that we are not aware of and this is in prep for a new release?

I'm using version 4.5.0.3910, preferring it to 4.8. In the past if I clicked Check for Update, 4.8 was offered. Now if I click CforU, the message is "No Update available". Curiouser and curiouser... Or not?