Friday, November 23, 2007

Gmail 2.0 thumbs down, Really?

I not exactly sure what they think is wrong with the latest version of GMail, to me it seems noticeable faster, and I haven't experienced any of the problems that some users are complaining about. Here is a post summarizing Gmail 2.0's perceived short comings, via TechRepublic.com:Gmail 2.0 gets the thumbs down:

Google’s Gmail upgrade is being ridiculed in an increasing number of forums due to various problems. According to users whose accounts have been upgraded to Gmail 2.0, the new Gmail downloads e-mail slowly, fails to load pages, and also crashes browsers.

According to Network World:

Ironically, Gmail 2.0, which features an upgraded contacts manager, is designed to be faster and more stable. Gmail 2.0 is based on what a Google spokesman calls “a major structural code change” upon which new features will be launched in coming months.

Spokesman Jason Freidenfelds wrote via e-mail:

Most users should see a marked improvement in performance. We recommend using IE7 and Firefox 2 to take full advantage of Gmail’s speedier interface.

Google is progressively moving people to Gmail 2.0, so some users will have it while others don’t.

Additional reading:

If you are experiencing problems take a good look at what other changes have been made to your system or network, because unless the perceived problems are limited to specific Google servers, I don't believe that this revision of Gmail application is responsible for your problems.

Perhaps the problems lies in add ons, such as Grease Monkey that are designed to work with Gmail. If you use such add ons, I suggest disabling the add on and trying Gmail in the "raw" so to speak, to see if the problems continues. If the problems clear up then, try and find a version of the add on that works with Gmail 2.0.

Since this revision was supposed to pave the way for additional improvements I look forward to seeing them and Google once again claiming their place at the top of web based mail services.

Sphere: Related Content

0 comments: