Mike Nesmith
Downloads: 0
Posts: 10
Smile Score: -2
About Me
I am a Free member


Visit Stats
Last Visit: 1 years ago
Member Since: 09 Apr 2010
Profile Views: 513

Mike Nesmith's Posts
Average Rating from Mike:
(5)

sort: smiles | time
burypromote
-1

Mikenesmith reviewed on 17 Aug 2012
Crap software, and perhaps the most idiotic registration process every seen. Don't buy this. It's slow, it's registration process is uniquely poor, and it's nowhere near worth the money. It lives off one positive review from many years back. You've been warned.
[Version 4.1.0]



burypromote
+9

Mikenesmith reviewed on 15 Aug 2011
Not worth $180/year. Use Adobe AIR with Prezi. Useful alternative to PowerPoint, but every time you startup you have to wait for yet another Adobe AIR update (it's worse than WinXP updates in this respect). AIR is *slow*slow*slow, even on a high-end laptop with plenty of memory. So now Adobe wants to layer in Muse atop this slow code, and then charge $180 a year (min.) just to "subscribe". Then the default 'publish' is to Adobe's "Business Catalyst" service -- for another $9-$39/month (or $108-$468/year). Listen to Nancy and Just Say No. Learn some code and use Dreamweaver (even an old, cheap version). Or go visual with RapidWeaver -- much cheaper and quicker than Muse. This is a rip-off.
[Version 0.8.653]



burypromote
-7
Mikenesmith commented on 15 Jul 2010
Now the "developer" has opened the forums up for outside viewers again -- but he has taken to playing the latest Apple game and deleting posts he doesn't like, such as the one from "Tom in London" requesting a refund. This is the sort of operation that gives independent software developers a bad name, so don't download and waste your time with "mailfudge" and don't definitely don't pay for this.
[Version 1.4.8]



burypromote
-4
Mikenesmith commented on 15 Jul 2010
OK, first the "developer" has a comment posting removed that quotes from the dissatisfied users of Mailforge in the "forums" for this product (in which he is constantly promising updates that either never appear or never work), and now he's banned access to all the Mailforge forums without registering for doing so. What a crock!

This is classic vaporware, folks, and don't be fooled.
[Version 1.4.8]



burypromote
+4

Mikenesmith reviewed on 09 Jul 2010
In response to multiple users requests for SpamSieve integration (as the built-in spam filters in Postbox [and Thunderbird] are pretty useless, one of the Postbox developers passed along a wordy "screw you" [http://postbox.zendesk.com/entries/197286-support-for-spam-sieve].

Since most of the "billion users" noted don't appear to really care what email product they're using, the developers should be focusing on the minority of those who see email as a vitally important application for their workflow and are willing to pay for a premium product (instead of packaged Outlook/Entourage from MS, or freeware Thunderbird).

So Postbox developers -- you really ought to meet the needs of people willing to pay more for a viable product. Since you're making it even more difficult for plug-in developers than Mozilla, you ought to be more proactive at encouraging useful add-ons (rather than, for example, the extraordinarily useful "Hebrew date in status bar" or "world weather" ones).

But instead, the multiple users who have independently requested SpamSieve integration are told too bad for you:

SpamSieve requires AppleScript, so it would be a lot of work to get this up and running in Postbox.

When assigning priority to features, one of the things we look at is total addressable market (in addition to customer demand, engineering effort, risk, alternatives, etc.). For example:
- Features for both Windows and Mac users (billion users)
- Features for Mac users (50 million)
- Features for Mac users who are using a specific application (much, much less)
As we move down the funnel, the market gets smaller and smaller.
So the lack of SpamSieve support is due to a somewhat small addressable market, advancements in server-side spam filtering from ISPs, high engineering effort, and other features that appear to be higher in customer demand.

SpamSieve requires AppleScript, so it would be a lot of work to get this up and running in Postbox.

When assigning priority to features, one of the things we look at is total addressable market (in addition to customer demand, engineering effort, risk, alternatives, etc.). For example:

* Features for both Windows and Mac users (billion users)
* Features for Mac users (50 million)
* Features for Mac users who are using a specific application (much, much less)

As we move down the funnel, the market gets smaller and smaller.

So the lack of SpamSieve support to date is due to a somewhat smaller addressable market, advancements in server-side spam filtering from ISPs, high engineering effort, and other features that appear to be higher in customer demand.
Jul-08 2010 07:07.
[Version 1.1.5]


1 Reply

burypromote
+1

-2
Mikenesmith replied on 02 Aug 2010
Comment stands -- too many of the current add-ons to Postbox are pretty useless (but evidently easier to implement). One that numerous users keep asking for is ignored, and now the Postbox crew has prevented open access to their own message that says "buzz off" for asking. Clever. Not.
burypromote
-4
Mikenesmith commented on 30 Apr 2010
And all the promises about the MailForge v2 release -- April 26th -- still go unmet. Spending money on this application is pretty much a fool's game, unless you really like vaporware.
[Version 1.4.8]


1 Reply

burypromote
-2

-2
Mikenesmith replied on 30 Apr 2010
Please note how only the complaints to public forums (like those here MacUpdate) get addressed as other comments here note, but not emails for support sent to the developer.

Rather than worrying about the poor PR from users of the product reporting (thank you MacUpdate), the developer's time would be better spent working on his product and not releasing a poorly functioning application.

MailForge is just not there and ought to be removed from this site and from release until there is actually a truly functioning product. This is no more than an interesting beta (and not a "1.4.8" version, let alone a v2). It is no where near worth spending any money on at present.

Vague promises and lots of vapor, folks, and everyone's time is better spent with more stable and functioning alternatives (if not Apple Mail, than Thunderbird, or Postbox, or...[and again, no ties from here to developers of any of those]).
burypromote
+4

Mikenesmith reviewed on 18 Apr 2010
A useful alternative to Thunderbird for users with relatively simple needs. However, not a great client for people with multiple email accounts on various protocols (eg, gmails + pop accounts + exchange server accounts). Managed to get all but one account working, loaded in about 70,000+ messages in various folders, then evidently made the mistake of trying to add an IMAP Exchange account. Worked fine at first, but upon trying to reopen Postbox it kept crashing and wouldn't even provide a crash log.

So, after all the time spent having to click every mailbox transferred, right-click and say "mark all as read", and on and on with that process, it simply wasn't worth doing again. (Yes, there's a menu item for marking all emails within a folder as read, but it doesn't work -- as multiple users have documented on the developer support forums). And this, then, isn't worth $40 (or $65, if you're foolish enough to believe "lifetime" upgrades will last for your lifetime in connection with this application).

While Search in Postbox is better than standard Thunderbird, it's not faster than Apple MAIL with Rocketbox (which is far cheaper than Postbox at $15). So for OS X users, a better option for the same cost would be Rocketbox + Mail Act-On. (And no, I don't have any connection with any of these companies, nor do I know any of their developers or other staff.) Also, since Postbox is based on T-bird 3, there is no SpamSieve option available, and the built-in spam filter is less than great.

Anyway, Postbox is fine for those looking for an alternative to Thunderbird with better search and lower-level email requirements. And for Mac users, it's much better than Mailforge (as of 1.4.7, though it's developer continues to make grand promises for v2+).

But why is it that none of these current email applications provide the speed, search options (and speed), filter options (and speed), and general stability of the old Eudora (v6+ on Mac, v7+ on Windows)? Even odder is that some of the original Eudora developers continue to work on the Thunderbird variant (Penelope), but that app remains a fairly useless beta with darn few of Eudora's old features.

Why can't Qualcomm just release the application code for the original Eudoras and let someone tweak those for use on OS X 10.5+ and Win 7?
[Version 1.1.4]



burypromote
-2

Mikenesmith reviewed on 09 Apr 2010
Recreating Eudora is a fine goal. But MailForge doesn't do it.

This is a one-developer operation trying to seem like something bigger -- and always promising more than is delivered. Latest set of promises includes "a build of MailForge 2.0 on Monday, April 26th" with features "far beyond a simple .5 update" and including "an improved mailbox format that allows for unparalleled speed. In initial tests, mailboxes containing 100,000 emails open instantaneously" (yea, sure).

There will supposedly also be "a number of other features that will be included as well...features that we'll keep a surprise for now" (all this from the developer's own posting at as of Apr 9, 2010). Given past versions of the app, you can probably assume this to mean one or two other features that we're not sure if they work yet, so we won't release any details, as postings on the app forums show a growing awareness of promises unfilled and vaporware.

Save your money, perhaps for some add-ons to Apple Mail (which still isn't Eudora, but works better than MailForge).
[Version 1.4.7]



There are currently no troubleshooting comments by this member.

Displaying 1-8 of 8
Please login or create a new
MacUpdate Member account
to use this feature


- -