Re: [Evolution] evo 2

["Frank Burough" <fburough elixirpharm com>]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:08 -0400, jack wallen wrote:
> so i was reading up a bit on evo two on the footnotes site. from what
> i've read i might be glad i've not upgraded. sounds like there were some
> pretty major UI changes that, from the descriptions i've read, don't
> sound too enticing. 
Well, until I had seen the new UI I didn't think I would be overly pleased either. But I am. The text descriptions just don't do justice to the real thing.
> i think what surprises me the most is that evolution stands a good
> chance at getting a toe-hold in the corporate environment. this is
> partially because it has the element of familiarity (due to it's
> similarities to outlook). but now that is changing i can imagine people
> decided to NOT migrate because it's "different" again.
I just had my Windows box upgraded to Outlook 2003 and what did I see? A new GUI. The new Evolution GUI bears more similarity to the new Outlook than the old Evo does. So from that perspective, Evolution may garner more converts because its new interface is similar to the new Outlook one. 

So you have a choice. If you want an Evolution similar to the older Outlook, run the Evo 1.4 series. If you want your Evolution to look more like Outlook 2003 then run Evo 2.0. Seems like the best of all worlds to me.
> not only that but the debate about making it 4 separate components?
> hello!!!! that would be a serious step backwards i would think.
>  
>
> just my .02
And my $.01 in return

Frank

--
Frank Burough <fburough elixirpharm com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part