iChat, one man's meat ...
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 8 Dec 2009 03:27 On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:59:00 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >> Did you say Trillian supports the speech bubble thing though? > >I am sure it did, yes. Hmm, can't see where. No matter. > >> And it's another client that puts the doohickey *under* where *you* >> type so not where their text will come in. > >I didn't read that whole doohickey business, so I have no idea what you >mean by it! Whatever it does, I didn't find it hard to use. It's just the nick coined by Pd for the prompt you get when the other person is typing. It started by me asking how to turn it on on McSkype. Turns out it was already on but miles away from where I would be looking for someone's reply. It's in the right place on WinSkype and MSN and possibly a couple of others. Now you know what it is you should find it *under* your text entry box on Trillian. > >> Also, do any of the multi IM clients also support Skype (for text chat >> at least)? > >I have never seen them doing so. I guess there is something about skype >that you are not allowed to connect to without the client, which is why >I can't use skype. Ah. And because of that I can't have a single IM client for all services, so I might as well have the best one for each of the services I use regularly and the one most compatible with the person on the other end (inevitably using the same client). >The skype client is just too horrible to use. If you haven't seen the latest version of Trillian is there a chance you haven't seen the latest version of Skype (so might hate is less)? > When I said the MSN client >on the PC was worse, I meant it was the worse one I was prepared to use, >skype is just too bad (on any platform). Hmm. Since playing with a few IM clients recently I've decided the MSN Live client is actually ok (for me). Not often you will hear praise > I have been asked to chat on it >and declined - if someone needs to chat to me they can use something >else. Shame, they could be trying to place a �1000 order. ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Woody on 8 Dec 2009 04:12 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:59:00 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) > wrote: > > > >> Did you say Trillian supports the speech bubble thing though? > > > >I am sure it did, yes. > > Hmm, can't see where. No matter. > > > >> And it's another client that puts the doohickey *under* where *you* > >> type so not where their text will come in. > > > >I didn't read that whole doohickey business, so I have no idea what you > >mean by it! Whatever it does, I didn't find it hard to use. > > It's just the nick coined by Pd for the prompt you get when the other > person is typing. It started by me asking how to turn it on on > McSkype. Turns out it was already on but miles away from where I would > be looking for someone's reply. It's in the right place on WinSkype > and MSN and possibly a couple of others. Now you know what it is you > should find it *under* your text entry box on Trillian. OK, as I said, I have never noticed an issue using trillian so not worried where it is if it hasn't caused me any problems in years! > >> Also, do any of the multi IM clients also support Skype (for text chat > >> at least)? > > > >I have never seen them doing so. I guess there is something about skype > >that you are not allowed to connect to without the client, which is why > >I can't use skype. > > Ah. And because of that I can't have a single IM client for all > services, so I might as well have the best one for each of the > services I use regularly and the one most compatible with the person > on the other end (inevitably using the same client). I have a single IM for all services, on the basis I don't use skype but I do use MSN, AIM and revendevous (or whatever it is called now) > >The skype client is just too horrible to use. > > If you haven't seen the latest version of Trillian is there a chance > you haven't seen the latest version of Skype (so might hate is less)? Nope, i saw the new one last week (unless there has been one since then). It is just as bad as before. If i had to use voice over a large distance I would use it, but I would never use it for chat. > > When I said the MSN client > >on the PC was worse, I meant it was the worse one I was prepared to use, > >skype is just too bad (on any platform). > > Hmm. Since playing with a few IM clients recently I've decided the MSN > Live client is actually ok (for me). Not often you will hear praise No. Well, as I said I use it sometimes but really don't like it. As a rule I don't like things that have to flash adverts at you, especially not as Microsoft already got their money > > I have been asked to chat on it > >and declined - if someone needs to chat to me they can use something > >else. > > Shame, they could be trying to place a �1000 order. ;-) I don't use any for of IM for work, as either a customer or supplier! -- Woody
From: T i m on 8 Dec 2009 04:48 On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:12:12 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >OK, as I said, I have never noticed an issue using trillian so not >worried where it is if it hasn't caused me any problems in years! But it's like suddenly realising you have been driving around with the sun visor down in your car since you got it. You probably would realise it's pertinence if you saw the better solution and by better it's not like the OSX / XP icon 'beauty' where it's down to a personal appreciation of such things but something that would make a difference (however small) to everyone using it (if they cared or not). It would be like a home phone that was comfortable to hold or fitted your head nicely etc. You would cope with 'any' phone but a nice one is nicer (but you may never consider it). > > >> If you haven't seen the latest version of Trillian is there a chance >> you haven't seen the latest version of Skype (so might hate is less)? > >Nope, i saw the new one last week (unless there has been one since >then). It is just as bad as before. Ok. ;-) > >If i had to use voice over a large distance I would use it, but I would >never use it for chat. I have two Sipgate VoIP phone here (through the FritZ! router) so have very convenient (std cordless phones) access to potentially free international calls. However I don't know anyone on Sipgate or a partner network so can't make full use of it. I do know loads of people who use Skype (only). > >> >> Hmm. Since playing with a few IM clients recently I've decided the MSN >> Live client is actually ok (for me). Not often you will hear praise > >No. Well, as I said I use it sometimes but really don't like it. As a >rule I don't like things that have to flash adverts at you, especially >not as Microsoft already got their money Me neither but my HOSTS file deals with them. ;-) > > >> Shame, they could be trying to place a �1000 order. ;-) > >I don't use any for of IM for work, as either a customer or supplier! I have, well, as a customer and I've seen quite a few Co's that do offer an IM interface. I thought you were all for not isolating any proportion of the market? ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Woody on 8 Dec 2009 05:00 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:12:12 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) > wrote: > > > >OK, as I said, I have never noticed an issue using trillian so not > >worried where it is if it hasn't caused me any problems in years! > > But it's like suddenly realising you have been driving around with the > sun visor down in your car since you got it. You probably would > realise it's pertinence if you saw the better solution and by better > it's not like the OSX / XP icon 'beauty' where it's down to a personal > appreciation of such things but something that would make a difference > (however small) to everyone using it (if they cared or not). Surely that is the same thing? As I said, I haven't ever had a problem knowing someone was typing to me on IM. Maybe there is a better way but as I have never noticed a difference I dont' see how it could help. It is certainly nothing I would actively seek out a solution to, as it has caused me exactly no problem! If MSN hasn't got the problem and trillian has, then it is less than no problem as I find trillian a much better client than MSN. > It would > be like a home phone that was comfortable to hold or fitted your head > nicely etc. You would cope with 'any' phone but a nice one is nicer > (but you may never consider it). Yes, I know what you mean. So for me it is like using windows when I could be using a mac, and for you probably the oposite. > >If i had to use voice over a large distance I would use it, but I would > >never use it for chat. > > I have two Sipgate VoIP phone here (through the FritZ! router) so have > very convenient (std cordless phones) access to potentially free > international calls. However I don't know anyone on Sipgate or a > partner network so can't make full use of it. I do know loads of > people who use Skype (only). to be honest, I just generally use the phone. Sab calls canada a lot, but they don't have the network at that end to use anything other than the phone so it is largely irrelivant. > >> Hmm. Since playing with a few IM clients recently I've decided the MSN > >> Live client is actually ok (for me). Not often you will hear praise > > > >No. Well, as I said I use it sometimes but really don't like it. As a > >rule I don't like things that have to flash adverts at you, especially > >not as Microsoft already got their money > > Me neither but my HOSTS file deals with them. ;-) Certainly couldn't be bothered with that much effort when I can just use a different client that I find better anyway. > >> Shame, they could be trying to place a �1000 order. ;-) > > > >I don't use any for of IM for work, as either a customer or supplier! > > I have, well, as a customer and I've seen quite a few Co's that do > offer an IM interface. > > I thought you were all for not isolating any proportion of the market? > ;-) I am not. But we don't get enough money to employ someone to sit there chatting to people, and if you are going to have an IM connection to a company it is no use unless it is there all the time. -- Woody
From: T i m on 8 Dec 2009 05:21
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:00:12 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >> But it's like suddenly realising you have been driving around with the >> sun visor down in your car since you got it. You probably would >> realise it's pertinence if you saw the better solution and by better >> it's not like the OSX / XP icon 'beauty' where it's down to a personal >> appreciation of such things but something that would make a difference >> (however small) to everyone using it (if they cared or not). > >Surely that is the same thing? Erm, not to my mind. The 'detail' of an icon (assuming it was readable and disenable etc) has little impact on it's role of an icon. Not having an indicator in the same location as the incoming text is a functionality thing. Like having a GPS in yer field of view or not. Yes you can use it practically anywhere within sight but it's no as safe / natural as when its in your natural field of view (IMHOA). > >As I said, I haven't ever had a problem knowing someone was typing to me >on IM. Maybe there is a better way but as I have never noticed a >difference I dont' see how it could help. Ok, I was using Trillian this morning and unsure if the chatee was typing to me or not. Then I looked around the client and 'found' the doohickey. > >It is certainly nothing I would actively seek out a solution to, as it >has caused me exactly no problem! And you don't miss what you have never had. > >If MSN hasn't got the problem and trillian has, then it is less than no >problem as I find trillian a much better client than MSN. Fairy muff. > >> It would >> be like a home phone that was comfortable to hold or fitted your head >> nicely etc. You would cope with 'any' phone but a nice one is nicer >> (but you may never consider it). > >Yes, I know what you mean. So for me it is like using windows when I >could be using a mac, and for you probably the oposite. Indeed. > > >to be honest, I just generally use the phone. So do we now we use 18185 etc. > Sab calls canada a lot, >but they don't have the network at that end to use anything other than >the phone so it is largely irrelivant. And I don't suppose Skypeout is much cheaper (if at all) than some of the international dialling packages. > >> >> Me neither but my HOSTS file deals with them. ;-) > >Certainly couldn't be bothered with that much effort when I can just use >a different client that I find better anyway. 'That much effort' ... download (1s), run batch file (1s). ;-) > >> I thought you were all for not isolating any proportion of the market? >> ;-) > >I am not. But we don't get enough money to employ someone to sit there >chatting to people, and if you are going to have an IM connection to a >company it is no use unless it is there all the time. What are you doing now and you two could work shifts? <ducks> Cheers, T i m |