tired of bulky mail clients?
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:30 pm
Am I the only one who's getting fed up with bulky email clients? I'm thinking especially of Netscape and Outlook here ... even on my 2.5GHz P4 w/256MB they manage to slow down the entire system.
Outlook: slow as hell, steals about 20 MB of memory just for loading it up - famed for it's vulnerability to email viruses.
Netscape: worse in every respect - even slow, steals 22 MB of memory at startup, takes almost a full 15-20 seconds just to LOAD, and is generally slow as hell...
Also, both of them tend to get slower and slower as your email archive grows, and the search functions are painfully slow in both programs as well, even with just a few hundred mails in your archive.
Okay then. I'm done complaining :)
Here's what I propose to do about it: write a mail client in PB ... some important points would be:
- Use of SQLite for mail storage - it's extremely fast, and could provide fast email searches... and the binary adds only about 200 KB to your distribution. Received attachments would be archived in a folder somewhere, to keep the database smaller and faster.
- No support for HTML mail! ... What's the point? Most people I know HATE getting HTML mails - I mean, they're usually tasteless and ugly, and the (Microsoft) HTML parser makes the mail client vulnerable to virus attacks. Of course there should be support for READING HTML mails in the client, since you can't avoid a few morons using it, but the composer would reply exclusively in plain text, and the reader would strip the HTML down to plain text before displaying it by default, with an option to read it in a browser window.
- Keeping the binary, and memory usage, to an absolute minimum. I'm sure you Amiga users remember the days when 20 MB was the size of your ENTIRE HARDDRIVE - we had mail clients back then, and they didn't use all your RAM or fill up your harddrive. What does today's mailers actually DO that's so fantastic and justifies using a thousand times more RAM? ... HTML mail is just about the only feature that comes to my mind, and in my opinion, that was a mistake in the first place. Microsoft and Netscape will tell you it "enables you to send creative email" or some jibberish - what it really does is slow things down, clutter the communication, waste your bandwidth, make you vulnerable to virus attacks, and generally ruin your mood because it's generally so incredibly ugly to look at ;)
- Open source and extensible: make the source code freely available, and make it easy to add functionality to the program.
...
Just take one, long, hard look at your mailer, and ask yourself what you really need all this garbage for? ... Strip it down to what you NEED: reading and sending mail, sorting mail info folders (with filters), an address book, support for sending and receiving binary attachments, support for multiple mail servers, and an import feature so you can migrate from Outlook or Netscape. That's about it. Everything else is just deadweight, if you ask me ;)
What I'm after, is a program that makes email communication SIMPLE, FAST and EFFECTIVE - again :)
...
So what do you think? Have I finally lost it? Or am I on to something?
Outlook: slow as hell, steals about 20 MB of memory just for loading it up - famed for it's vulnerability to email viruses.
Netscape: worse in every respect - even slow, steals 22 MB of memory at startup, takes almost a full 15-20 seconds just to LOAD, and is generally slow as hell...
Also, both of them tend to get slower and slower as your email archive grows, and the search functions are painfully slow in both programs as well, even with just a few hundred mails in your archive.
Okay then. I'm done complaining :)
Here's what I propose to do about it: write a mail client in PB ... some important points would be:
- Use of SQLite for mail storage - it's extremely fast, and could provide fast email searches... and the binary adds only about 200 KB to your distribution. Received attachments would be archived in a folder somewhere, to keep the database smaller and faster.
- No support for HTML mail! ... What's the point? Most people I know HATE getting HTML mails - I mean, they're usually tasteless and ugly, and the (Microsoft) HTML parser makes the mail client vulnerable to virus attacks. Of course there should be support for READING HTML mails in the client, since you can't avoid a few morons using it, but the composer would reply exclusively in plain text, and the reader would strip the HTML down to plain text before displaying it by default, with an option to read it in a browser window.
- Keeping the binary, and memory usage, to an absolute minimum. I'm sure you Amiga users remember the days when 20 MB was the size of your ENTIRE HARDDRIVE - we had mail clients back then, and they didn't use all your RAM or fill up your harddrive. What does today's mailers actually DO that's so fantastic and justifies using a thousand times more RAM? ... HTML mail is just about the only feature that comes to my mind, and in my opinion, that was a mistake in the first place. Microsoft and Netscape will tell you it "enables you to send creative email" or some jibberish - what it really does is slow things down, clutter the communication, waste your bandwidth, make you vulnerable to virus attacks, and generally ruin your mood because it's generally so incredibly ugly to look at ;)
- Open source and extensible: make the source code freely available, and make it easy to add functionality to the program.
...
Just take one, long, hard look at your mailer, and ask yourself what you really need all this garbage for? ... Strip it down to what you NEED: reading and sending mail, sorting mail info folders (with filters), an address book, support for sending and receiving binary attachments, support for multiple mail servers, and an import feature so you can migrate from Outlook or Netscape. That's about it. Everything else is just deadweight, if you ask me ;)
What I'm after, is a program that makes email communication SIMPLE, FAST and EFFECTIVE - again :)
...
So what do you think? Have I finally lost it? Or am I on to something?