Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Begins "Gmail 2.0" Rollout

Posted by kdawson on Wed Oct 31, 2007 07:02 AM
from the still-the-same-primary-colors dept.
Stony Stevenson writes "Google on Tuesday confirmed it is giving Gmail a new look. This blog post has screenshots of a new Gmail interface that has been made available to a limited number of users. They are calling it "Gmail 2.0" even if Google isn't. Google confirmed the update is underway at its new San Francisco office, just prior to a briefing on an unrelated upcoming Google announcement. A Google spokesperson said that the new look has been made available to about one percent of all Gmail users and is being rolled out the rest on an ongoing basis."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sporkinum (655143) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:07AM (#21181923)
    I guess I didn't realize that gmail was past 1.0 yet. I thought it was still a beta.
    • Re:2.0? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:34AM (#21183621) Homepage

      I guess I didn't realize that gmail was past 1.0 yet. I thought it was still a beta.
      I'd call the new version even more beta-ish than the older.

      On the plus side:

      a) Clicking a message opens it almost instantly. This is a HUGE improvement.

      On the bad side, two very annoying problems:

      b) Scrolling up or down in the message list is much slower than the older version, either with the scroll bar or with the mouse wheel.

      c) The label-applying drop-down being now an HTML element makes scrolling it with the mouse wheel painful. The moment the I hit the end of the list, it start scrolling the whole page down. Previously, it'd hit the end of the labels list stop there.

      For me, 'a' isn't worth dealing with 'b' and 'c', so now I have a bookmark that opens https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1 [google.com] directly. UI 2 isn't polished enough yet. But things are probably going to improve. It's just a matter of time.
      • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Informative)

        by nschubach (922175) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:44AM (#21182257) Journal
        I'm guessing they are calling it 2.0 because of the URL: http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2 [google.com] instead of http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1 [google.com]

        But they should be calling it Gmail UI2 instead of 2.0.
        • by johnjones (14274) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:09AM (#21183271) Homepage Journal
          first of all lets me get this straight I think Gmail is good client and the IMAP access has gone a long way to make it even better BUT

          gmail does NOT SYNC with anything e.g. my contacts in my phone

          solution = syncML !

          contacts, calendar etc lots of others e.g. plaxo (annoying interface) and ZYB have this sorted and here I am fumbling around with CSV files

          I hate it I try and sync with many differant devices and just wish there was a nice way
          hell there is a thunderbird plugin there is a outlook plugin and MOST phones support it....

          please please google gmail 2 should focus on contacts and introduce syncML !

          regards

          John Jones
      • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:57AM (#21182415) Homepage Journal
        I'm afraid google use the term 'beta' correctly. They just have higher standards than you.
          • Re:2.0? (Score:4, Funny)

            by Spokehedz (599285) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @08:32AM (#21182857)
            Wow... 110% you say? that explains the email from 'unbornfetus33421@gmail.com' I keep getting.
            • Re:2.0? (Score:4, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:39AM (#21183685)
              Dear Spokehedz,

              GET ME OUT OF HEEEERE!!!!!!!

              Yours,

              unbornfetus33421
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Why not? If everybody on earth would suddenly start using some Linux distro that is currently in beta, it would still be in beta. Granted, it would likely get out of beta pretty quickly thanks to all the Linux devs coming from other projects, but for a time, it would still be a beta.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's getting regular users to expect "Beta" to mean "1.0" and when Beta turns out to actually mean Beta, they get all pissy.

        You prefer that users expect 1.0 to mean 'beta'?
        • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:13AM (#21183323) Homepage

          You prefer that users expect 1.0 to mean 'beta'?
          Thanks to Microsoft, I think most already do. Isn't it common nowadays for users in general, and those in TI in particular, to expect any new OS developed by them to only work correctly after its first service pack? I know I do. 2000 wasn't good. 2000 SP-1 (or more, I don't remember) made it good. XP wasn't good. XP SP-1 was. Vista isn't good. Vista SP-1 probably will be. And so on and so forth.

          Actually, even back in the days Microsoft used numbers to differentiate product versions, it was common sense that "x.0" versions weren't worth it. Those who knew advised users to prefer a previous version with a higher number after the dot, as by then it would be stable and actually working as expected...

          In short: whenever Google decides to remove the "beta" tag from Gmail, I doubt they're going to call it "Gmail 1.0". It wouldn't be good for business.
      • Re:2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chelloveck (14643) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @08:19AM (#21182715) Homepage

        The whole "Beta" thing that google and company do is really starting to piss me off. It's getting regular users to expect "Beta" to mean "1.0" and when Beta turns out to actually mean Beta, they get all pissy.

        I lay the blame at the feet of open source developers who started this nonsense. Far too many open source utilities have had years of stable versions numbered <1.0. These apps are in permanent "beta" simply because the developers don't want take responsibility for a finished product. It ate your hard drive? Ooh, sorry. You gotta expect some bugs in a beta. We expect it to be finalized sometime before the heat death of the universe. But don't quote us on that.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It ate your hard drive? Ooh, sorry. You gotta expect some bugs in a beta.

          Uhh... No. If it ate my hard drive, it's alpha.

          I expect "beta" to work somewhat, though without the full functionality that the developer wants it to have. Sure, it may have bugs that cause it to crash sometimes (or often), but I the more violent, destructive sorts of repercussions, I relegate to alpha-level software.

          If you happen to be talking about disk defragmenting software on the other hand, that's something else entirely.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        They're using the Microsoft numbering system. It's not out of beta until version 3.0 or 4.0. (Some of us could argue it never leaves beta...)
  • JavaScript back-end? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jeks (68) * on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:09AM (#21181939)

    ...thanks to a JavaScript back-end rewrite...

    I highly doubt that GMail uses JavaScript on the back-end. In fact, it is pretty well known that GMail is written in Java and only uses JavaScript on the front-end.

  • by bwintx (813768) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:16AM (#21181995)
    From TFA (first link):

    If there's a downside to Google's upgrade, it's that third-party extensions to Gmail may stop working.
    So now I know why my GMail notifier add-on to Firefox died in the last couple of days. Went with Google's own notifier applet as a substitute in the meantime, but would prefer the old way. We'll see how soon that becomes possible.
  • by jbarr (2233) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:17AM (#21182003) Homepage
    Apparently, one of Google's goal in releasing this new version is to provide a new code framework that will help them to speed up Gmail's response time in a number of areas. One feature of note is that Gmail now pre-fetches and caches messages in the current view, so when you click on a message, it loads almost instantly. On my broadband connection, I see much improved response--clicking a message now displays it almost instantly--no lags or delays.

    -Jim
    http://gmailtips.com/ [gmailtips.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I can confirm that it is definitely a lot faster. It's really snappy now, besides that initial opening which still seems a little slow compared to most websites, though I don't use any webmail besides Gmail so I'm not sure if this is typical.

      The new version was turned on automatically for me, I had a link to the Older Version at top.
  • by willith (218835) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:19AM (#21182015) Homepage
    My wife, of all people, ended up getting this--she called me in yesterday and wanted to know "What the hell is wrong with [my] Gmail?" Among other things, it looks like they've further integrated the IM features (which we both hate) and made them far more difficult to disable. She's one of those computer users that gets absolutely terrified and unnerved if anything about her computing experience changes, so this is not at all a positive thing. Fortunately, there is an "Older version" link in the upper right corner that reverts back.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      She's one of those computer users that gets absolutely terrified and unnerved if anything about her computing experience changes, so this is not at all a positive thing.
      Perhaps she should not be using a beta version then.
      • by nschubach (922175) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @08:16AM (#21182679) Journal
        Unfortunately, Beta is the new "hip". (or the new Black if you prefer) Somewhere along the line it was decided that you are edgy and groundbreaking if you "get into beta." I actually had one of my friends tell me I wasn't a real gamer because I didn't get into a beta test. (Coincidentally, I am/was not a FilePlanet subscriber and these were the only people "accepted", so I didn't feel a huge loss by it since I didn't have to pay to bug test.)
  • [whine]... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnanimousCoward (9841) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:24AM (#21182055) Homepage
    ...how 'bout first enabling that promised IMAP interface so I can ditch the unreliable POP on my iPhone?[end-o-whine]
    • Re:[whine]... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gleng (537516) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:33AM (#21182147)
      IMAP seem to be only rolled out to people with English(US) language settings at the moment. To enable IMAP, I had to:

      1) Change the language setting from English(UK) to English(US).
      2) Go back to settings, and then into the newly available "Forwarding and POP/IMAP" tab.
      3) Enable IMAP.
      4) Configure my client (Thunderbird) and make a successful connection.
      5) Go back into the settings, and change the language back to English(UK). The "Forwarding and POP/IMAP" tab changes back to just "Forwarding and POP".
      6) Continue using my sweet, sweet, IMAP.

      This method is hit and miss it seems. But hopefully some people might be lucky.
      • Re:[whine]... (Score:4, Informative)

        by anticypher (48312) <anticypher&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @12:33PM (#21186109) Homepage
        Gmail's IMAP is broken for any messages in a non-american 7-bit character set, which is why they only enable it for people who declare their default language as EN_US.

        I just tried one of my IMAP enabled accounts again, and accented characters (ISO-8859-1 and -14) either show up as a ?, are replaced by the 7 bit equivalent (é becomes i), or are missing. There is a lot of work to shoehorn real-world language support into the IMAP protocol. It's an area I've actively avoided, but could be why the rollout is only for people likely to receive only US-ASCII or CodePage=437.

        the AC
  • by MrZeebo (331403) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:43AM (#21182247) Homepage
    It's great that they're improving the interface, and being able to access mail stored on Google's servers via IMAP is a nice addition. But what I REALLY want is to be able to store my mail on MY server, and access it via Google's awesome interface. Really, just use Google as an IMAP client to my mail server.

    I know they offer to do that via POP, but I want the "live" copy of my mail to remain on my server, and for Google to access it via IMAP. I don't like the idea of all my mail being stored on someone else's server, especially when I'm not paying anything for it and therefore should have no real expectation of it still being there tomorrow.

    Google for domains seems at first glance to do this, but your mail is actually still stored on Google's servers.

    Has anyone ever heard of this sort of feature coming in the future?
  • But (Score:5, Funny)

    by witte (681163) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:44AM (#21182263)
    is it compatible with Comcast ?
  • by astrokid (779104) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @07:53AM (#21182351)
    Ie: Can I stop changing the URL to "https" after logging into my account?
  • Just start there (Score:5, Informative)

    by chphilli (885315) <chphilli+slashdo ... m ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @08:10AM (#21182595) Homepage Journal
    Just set your bookmark to https://mail.google.com/ [google.com] - you'll start & stay in SSL. I've been doing this for a really long time ( I can't remember when I even created the bookmarks I have in all my browsers to do exactly this. )
  • by sjonke (457707) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @08:38AM (#21182927) Journal
    It works much better on my iPod touch. For one I automatically get mobile view instead of defaulting to (an extremely slow to load) full html view, and now there is a "basic html" option, which works a lot faster than how the full html view worked before. The full html view is no longer available, though.
  • by bgarland (10594) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:27AM (#21184305) Homepage
    Well, first of all, my initial thought was "WTF happened to my Gmail?" because this change occurred the same day that I installed OS X 10.5 (and the new Safari). Now that I know the changes were made on Gmail's end, it makes more sense.

    1) For a while yesterday, the new titlebar/tab of the main Gmail window said: Gmail - Inbox - username@gmail.com (where username is my account name). Now it just says "Gmail". That's right, it doesn't update anymore to say "Inbox (1)" when I get a new mail.

    2) Hovering over names in your message list gives a new style pop-up that shows the person's name, email address, and picture. Across the top of the pop-up are styled gradient buttons that say "Email", "Invite to Chat", and "More...". Clicking More will show options for "Recent Conversations" and "Show in Contact List: Auto, Always Show, Never Show, Blocked". Previously, hovering over names in the message list just showed you their email address. The new functionality seems similar to what the old version did when you hovered over your contact / chat list in the sidebar.

    3) Chat now works in Safari. There are new (?) options for the chat list, including "Size of chat list: tiny, small, medium, large" and "Show in chat list: Most popular, all". (This may not be new, I never used G Chat in a browser because it didn't work on Safari before).

    4) There are new actions to apply to messages. One is "Filter messages like these" the other is "mute". I'm not sure what mute does.

    5) As the linked article says, Contacts management is now vastly different. It actually still looks a bit unfinished (or maybe it's just Safari's rendering, but I doubt it).
  • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @11:23AM (#21185093) Journal
    And I still can't click on a column heading to sort by sender, date, size, etc. Search and labels are great, but they don't fulfill EVERY need. Why does gmail still lack such basic functionality that every other binary and web email client of the past decade has had?

    For example: say I've got a few hundred messages and I want to find the few that have large attachments--ZIP files, a bunch of pictures, whatever. How do I do this with Gmail? Should I tag message with large attachments in a special way? If that's your suggestion, I'd like to point out that that is STUPID for two reasons:
    1) the data is ALREADY THERE. Why should I manually tag messages? Aren't computers supposed to DO WORK FOR US?
    2) that requires me to know ahead of time what ALL my needs will EVER be. What if I've been collecting this mail for years and then suddenly think "I'd like to find all these messages." But oops, I don't have my TIME MACHINE, so I can't go back and tag them all.

    With anything else, it's just a click or two.
    • Just give me bigger attachments.
      Sheesh, when will people understand that EMAIL was *not* concieved for large binary attachements... and that UUENCODE is just a hack allowing that... if you want to send a big file just upload it to an FTP and mail the ftp:// [ftp] link... or use teh usenet!

      In a more on-topic comment, when will people at google fix their broken javascript so that gmail can work properly with Konqueror web browsers?, sure they are all for open source and summer of coding, but can't they just pay o
      • by sjbe (173966) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @11:14AM (#21184975)

        Sheesh, when will people understand that EMAIL was *not* concieved for large binary attachements...


        They won't. Not trying to be snide but that battle was lost long ago. It does not matter that FTP is technically more efficient and better designed for file transfer. Attaching a file is simple and, like it or not, using an ftp server involves more steps, additional software, additional security, and additional training. FTP fails the mom test. It's harder than attaching a file for NO additional benefit to the user in 99.999999% of cases. Furthermore, most people do not have or know about ftp servers, they have email accounts. So they use the tool they have and know how to use.

        Does this cause problems for the network admins? Sure. Doesn't matter though. Ease of use/learning for the user wins here. If you want ftp to be used, make it easier to use than attaching a file and people will flock to it. Until then, it's going to be used only by nerds like me in the few special cases where ftp is the only alternative.
      • by MonoSynth (323007) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @12:55PM (#21186397) Homepage
        ...and how are binaries on usenet less hackish than binaries in e-mail??
    • Re:Trust? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Ticklemonster (736987) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:00AM (#21183945) Journal
      I trust it enough to use it for email. Anybody who would email stuff that was sensitive is kinda nutty. I mean come on, it's the internet, crackerland, insecurenet, etc. So what if you use super encryption and all that jazz? If you send something sensitive, somebody can get hold of it one way or another. I guess there's some thrill involved in all of that, but when I contact the mothership, it's always face to face. No reason letting you humans in on the secret.

      Oops.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Maybe in the same way Microsoft managed to forget 1902 versions between Windows 98 and 2000?