[pmmail-list] Any thought of developing....

[Simon Bowring]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:27:28 +1000, Rod... Whitworth wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:02:36 +0100 (BST), Simon Bowring wrote:
>
>>If the existing address book integration
>>can be kept without too much inconveninece some of us at least would
>>like to keep it. 
What problem do you have with that request? i.e That integration 
be preserved in not too inconvenient>? I mean that PMMail is 
able to update it's current address book format files (after all,
the code is done)?

>The existing address books are an abomination which condemn the product
>to either:
>A> solo users
>or
>B> corporate users where the One and Only Address Book (tm) is
>propagated to everybody's machine thereby wiping out any personal
>entries.

Well that's a lot of user's it's condemned to! I do agree there
are problems with the address book, but that doesn't mean a new
version can't support the existing address book file format 
(as well as any new address book functionality)

>This has cost me clients who moved to realistic solutions which allowed
>personal address books as well as a shared corporate book.
Pmmail supports exactly that via LDAP 

>Keeping a few OS/2 users (I am one) happy that they can still use a
>defunct unsupported newsreader is a recipe for failure.
If you say so it must be. The same argument could be used to drop the
OS/2 version altogether.

>If BSW wants to stay alive TPTB needs to keep the potentially larger
>market happy = not clinging to old dead weights to satisfy all four of
>you.
That's a well reasoned non-offensive rational argument then?

The "larger market" what is that? Most PC users run Windows (sadly) 
and use Outlook or Outlook express, and have a num,ber of third party
clients to choose ftom. OS/2 users are one of the niches that PMM has
captured, and it's about to make that niche smaller. Another niche
is those who want a simple clinet - not a massive over-extended
beast like outlook (or euroda or the bat etc)

>The problem is there is NOT a PMM product for small business where 
>sharing is VERY important.
Huh? Just use an LDAP based central address book (or set of books).

>BSW can not afford to listen only to the die-hards who are happy to
>have lots of betas and a new version (maybe).
What? Sorry, was that supposed to make a point or make sense?

>Without new sales you (we?) are all out in the cold and those new sales
>can only  come from beady eyed new potential customers with feature
>lists which need lots of tick marks on 'em.
Whatever.

Thanks for your "input"
Simon

- pmmail-list - The PMMail Discussion List ---------------------------
To POST to the list, send your message to:
pmmail-list@blueprintsoftwareworks.com

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to mdaemon@bmtmicro.com 
with the first line of the message body being...
UNSUBSCRIBE pmmail-list@blueprintsoftwareworks.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------