[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       twig
Subject:    Re: [twig] IMP -> TWIG (Not so great)
From:       Graham Strang <graham () parasun ! com>
Date:       2001-05-22 20:49:48
[Download RAW message or body]

This is in fact more than a design issue, it goes down to compatibility of 
the entire system. Unfortunately IMP relies heavily on JavaScript which does 
reduce page loads, however this leads to it barfing on various browsers. As 
it stands TWIG in fact will work with almost any browser even lynx. So when 
looking at a package for simply mail, you need to realize that IMP is some 
what less friendly from a user prospective. Also TWIG just has SOOOO many 
more features that can be added to it. That is my 2cents on TWIG vs IMP.

On May 22, 2001 01:31 pm, you wrote:
> One possible reason that IMP might seem somewhat faster in certain
> situations is that it uses JavaScript to perform certain actions.  For
> instance, selecting all messages in TWIG requires another pageload,
> while it is a JavaScript function in IMP.  Merely a design difference.
>
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 09:32 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > What options did you set in the twig config?  I've used both imp and
> > twig,
> > but not on the same system and haven't seen an appreciable difference
> > speed
> > wise handling mail (which is all imp does).  Some things are certainly
> > simpler
> > in imp, like creating a mailfolder and having it automatically
> > subscribed (why
> > would anyone create a new mailfolder without subscribing to it right
> > away?).
> > But there are a lot more nice features in twig...its really a different
> > kind
> > of program.
>
> --
> /chris/

-- 
Cheers,

Graham Strang
graham@parasun.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]