replace all your Instant Messaging software [read this]

[shassouneh 0]

Moderators, Please forgive me for posting this here. I can't think of anywhere else to post it.

Here you go folks: www.trillian.cc

This program here is awesome. It connects to MSN messenger, AOL Instant messenger, IRC, Yahoo Messenger, and ICQ all at once. So you use ONE program, and less processes! Its awesome. The only drawback is that it does not (yet) support file transfers. Give it a try folks. I use it all the time!

 

Agian, moderators. Please forgive me for posting this here. Please feel free to move it as you wish.

 

Also, How can I let the "XP" people know about this too?

[clutch 1]

You could just post a link about this in that forum as well, as I mentioned before. Also, this *could* fall into the realm of "Other" and since most people that go to either forum go to "Other" as well, then you would be covered. But for now, I would just post a link to this topic.

[shassouneh 0]

Thanx clutch. I have just posted a link to this thread in the "other" section. I hope people will like my siggestion above.

[felix 0]

The only problem is I've always had real issues setting it up.

I always get the servers wrong.

[shassouneh 0]

thanx ALecStaar. I think i also posted a link under the "other" section as told to do so by clutch.

MS interested in trillian? that's both good and bad news. Here's why

A.) MS could be interested in trillian only to backbone its MSN messenger better, which is already too pushy and hot-soldered into WindowsXP (refer to my post about un-installing Windows messenger under Windows XP). We don't need another MSN messenger here! Its eveil enough, LOL. I would really hate it if MS bought over trillian to do just that. Or, if they are gonna do it, better make MSN/Windows messenger a heck of a whole lot less pushy. I also hate that it already forces itself open whenever Outlook Express launches, eww!

B.) It would be good IF they LICENSE it since windows (or MSN messenger) will have built-in support for multiple chat platforms. I doubt MS will do that though. If they do, they may face aggresive law suits by AOL and maybe ICQ since its not in their "best interest" so to speak for "Windows messenger" to connect natively to their networks! If so, people won't download AOL or ICQ any more! ;-) Also in that case, ICQ AND AOL will both re-configure their servers to block MSN/windows messenger....

 

It seems HIGLY UNLIKELY MS will license trillian (as in option due to it being "too much trouble" Also, MS is already struggling with law suits, and if MS is any smart they'd stay away from "muddy waters" at least for now.

 

What i think MS might in fact do is buy over trillian ONLY to strengthen their MSN messenger/Windows messenger backbone, and force it messenger to be yet even MORE competitive and aggresive on the chat "market" so to speak.

 

Trillian has a great start. It would be a disaster to one-program chat clients for it to be bought over I think.

 

Just my opinion though

[clutch 1]

I have used Trillian for quite a while now, and I like it a lot.

 

@Felix

 

What do you mean by having a problem setting up servers? Do you mean using IRC? My typical setup uses 2 accounts on AIM, and 1 each of ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo! messengers. The only time I have fiddled with servers has been with IRC.

[shassouneh 0]

That may be indeed true, and very nice, BUT (there;s aklways a BUT LOL), the fact of the matter is that AOL and/or ICQ will probably not be too happy about it, because it may drive people away from having to download and install thier software. The chances are AOL (and maybe ICQ) will AT LEAST re-configure their servers, if not even sue Microsoft. If Microsoft was to approach trillian it should do so veeery carefully. Also, I would absolutely hate it if they simply buy over trillian to strengthen their MSN messeneger / Windows messenger software. Just an opinion, lol

[brainsoft 0]

Not a snow balls chance in hell they would ever consider looking favourably on such a product. They would never put something in there OS that they didn't have control over, and would never promote alternatives like ICQ.

 

btw shassouneh, ICQ is owned by AOL, has been since 1998 I believe...

 

It's a great idea, but I have some serious issues with it. I can't stand the way it deals with the history (aka, what history?), and I can't hit enter without the message being sent. I know it's a work in progress, but it didn't even import any of my icq things, even though it knew exactly where to look and what account there was to use.

 

I've joined there forums and am speaking up in there suggestions forums, ICQ section.

[shassouneh 0]

Cool. I actually LIKE the fact that enter=send! I can't stand having to go ctrl-Enter r even clicking "send" myself. LOL. I think Trillian ROX as it is, only they reeeeeally need to implement file-transfer stuff!

[Palos 0]

What goes around, comes around...

I posted info about Trillian about 2 months ago as well

[clutch 1]

And I did before that as well. Oh well, everything repeats as things get "rediscovered".

 

http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=15181&highlight=trillian

 

[brainsoft 0]

Quote:

Then, how come Microsoft licenses technology from Executive Software & Norton/Symantec in many of them OS add-ons in defraggers... and in Office too, with the WinFax add-on for Outlook?

MS doesn't control the companies, but they do have control of their liscence of the software; many companies have also been bullied into alliances with MS. I wonder who approached who about the XP firewall (Tiny Firewall it's called I think, though I can check for sure)?

Those defraggers and add-ons and what not do not promote competition. People don't see that the defrag technology is developed by Symantec and say to them selves, "Hey, I think I'll go buy some Symantec things now." Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?

MS may consider buying out the company altogether, but they probably wouldn't incorporate it into there OS. What if someone starting using it, desided they liked ICQ, download AOLs official client and desided that they really like actually having a history, and stick with it. hmm

But wait, there is another side to consider. Think about this... MS packages a good multi-protocal messaging program, and users use it instead of all the others. The other companies are still getting their networks used, but their advertising isn't being displayed, MICROSOFT's is! MS is then stealing possible business from the other companies. And as mentioned, they would probably get pulled into a long legal battle over it.

Alternatively MS could just sue Cerulean Studios for allowing unauthorized usage of their network and crush them like a bug. They constantly update their protocol to try to prevent other people from using the network. Trillian had to release a patch for MSN to get around the last one I believe.

Quote:

Cool. I actually LIKE the fact that enter=send! I can't stand having to go ctrl-Enter r even clicking "send" myself. LOL. I think Trillian ROX as it is, only they reeeeeally need to implement file-transfer stuff!

What client are you a native user of? As a long time ICQ user I enjoy the ability to type multi-line messagess, but hitting enter in Trillian sends the message; you can't can't hit enter for a new line!

It is my opinion that Trillian should be based around the model of ICQ. It has been my experience that ICQ has many more features than the other programs, and at the moment, switching to Trillian would be a severe downgrade. To introduce many of the options in ICQ to the other medians wouldn't such a shock to the system. It's easier to learn a new feature if you want to, or ignore it if you don't then it is to be deprived of an essential element. Having no history is like being kicked in the crotch for me, and only being able to send short messages, what a pain! If I want to say more, i have to type it in a message at a time, and if I do that, I can't review what I already said as there's no history. I'm aware of the log feature, but it's about 1% better than nothing, as everything is in there. Sending one message involves at least 3 lines: Opening session, message content, and closing session. I don't know about you, but personally I don't consider sending one message a "session".

The essential elements from ICQ should be offered as an option, like "enter sends message", or an option for the message mode, like ICQ has. I obviously understand that the program is under heavy devolopment, only being at v0.635, but there are A LOT of basic things that need to be fixed before more advanced things like file transfers are implemented.
Personally, I run an FTP server, and part of the reason for that is my inability to recieve files from many people, do to my firewall. I still hope they get the option in there.

Thanx for telling me about CTRL+ENTER. I use the keystroke whenever visiting websites, but it's cool to know other was to do it in ICQ.

x i b a s e , CTRL+ENTER = load http://www.xibase.com in IE

[brainsoft 0]

Many good points indeed!

 

The problem with AOL would be the use of their network. If I use Trillian to connect to AOL servers, I am using their network, a network which they have to spend money to maintain. The ICQ/AIM network isn't cheap to maintain, and I know they gotta be loosing money in the venture. The advertising helps off set that a bit, but programs are a means to an end, kind of like media giants owning large portions of sports teams. I'll explain that part sports part if you like, it's something that most people won't think of, a teacher of mine pointed it out once.

 

Anyways, if I use Trillian to connect to ICQ or AIM, I am using their network, but they are not getting a single sent of my my money! I don't see any of their banners, and I sure as hell didn't sign up for AOL, I would never pay for crap like that. They are getting absolutly no return from me for the money they put into their messaging network, they certainly don't want that.

 

------------------------

 

For MS buying technology, there is obviously a lump sum and royalties of some sort, but MS carries a lot of weight and can make lots of people do what they say, usually within the law as well. Hell, they bullied Intel! If they hadn't, you wouldn't see the name Microsoft next to the name DirectX. Some companies beg to help ms, and others beg not to, that's just how powerful MS is.

 

--------------------------------

 

Speeddisk! Speeddisk is great. I was playing around with SpeedDisk and Windows Defragmenter, doing some tests of my own last week and discovered a few interesting things.

 

Defragmenter is named for what it does: it moves files around the hhd puts all the fragments of files side by side. Doing so improves performance, as the hdd doesn't have to to seek for the other parts of it. As fragmention increases, so does system performace, though obviously not at a 1:1 ratio. Defrag puts the files all over the disk though!

 

SpeedDisk on the other hand prioritizes an alternate approach to increasing system performance. Speeddisk, while also designed to rearrange fragments of files, is called an "Optimizer." Optimum performance is their primary concern, and the approach Symantec took was to move everything to the very beginning of the disk, while sorting it out. The start of the disk in the disk maps of these programs is not the same as the start of a cd as many people assume. The start of a CD is the inside... hhd's start writing from the outside though! The logic is easy to follow: The disk spins faster at the outter edge. That's why a 50x cd-rom isn't 50x, it's 50x MAX. 50x is the fastest the drive can read data off the cd: at the very outside of the disc. Although obviously spinning at the same time, the actual velocity of the outter edge of the disc is much higher than the center, therefore more data will pass a fixed point in one second. The drive can only read data so fast though, so the spindle speed is adjusted to compensate, by slowing it down in the middle, and taking it up to full speed near the end.

 

Anyways, first and for most, Speeddisk wants everything at the outside of the disk, so that everything can be read as fast as possible initially. Obviously it also defrags, but in my tests it was no where near as efficient at it as Defragmenter. Packing them all together also saves slack space because there aren't so many beginnings and ends to the file blocks.

 

Here, I'll give you some numbers to demonstrate. Drive C: before hand, 15% fragmentation, after running through SpeedDisk, 4%! That's pretty good eh?

 

Next, I ran the same drive through Defrag. Before: 4%, After: 0.1%. That's even better! It doesn't show much though, just that's it's quite good at what it does.

 

Defrag took my nicely packed, yet slight fragmented drive that Norton optimised for me and put all the fragments toghether. Unfortunately it put them all over the drive! In the end, it LOOKED like it did before norton laid it's hands on it, but was completely defragged, save ONE small file. Other than that, it was 100% defragged. I certainly didn't want those files scattered all over the freaking drive though, I want them in order, AND at the start of the drive.

 

So, I decide to run the disk through Norton again. I figure the files are already in order, not I'll just let Norton sort them out and pack them all at the front of the drive! It seems like a good idea, doesn't it? Well, it did to me, so so I did it. My results?

Before: 0.1%. After: 5.0%.

 

yes, that's right, 5%!!!! Norton actually fragmented my files! Granted, they were then all tightly packed on the outter portion of the drive, the pieces of files were all over the place!

 

I ran similar tests with my Drive D, a 30gb, where the other is only 4 with similar results. It didn't get down to 0.1%, there are a LOT of large, cd sized files on it, and it certainly didn't stay that way as I move many GB of data through there every week.

 

Anyways, there's my experience with the Windows based Defrag and Norton SpeedDisk 2002, take from it what you like. :0

 

d=)

[brainsoft 0]

I'm sorry, I have a hard time following through your messages sometimes. I never thought about the space needed later on. If everything is perfectly ordered, and completely packed to the brim, any file that expands later on will get fragmented. Therefore, remove all fragmentation and sprinkle them around the drive, with like 60% at the start and you get the most optimum layout?

 

If that's the case, then you have made a very compelling argument on the behalf of Windows Defragmenter. Speed isn't an issue for me, I simply run these tests at night. There are many things I like about Norton. One of them, which I seem to have missplaced, was the option to move all directories to the top of the drive. As it is I have directories scattered all over my drive, and neither piece of software has done anything about it.

 

------------------------------

 

Maximum PC? You mean May 99, Volumn 4, Nomber 5 that I have sitting on my desk?

 

I just re-read through the article and see that I misunderstood it slightly. Intel devoloped those things to lure MS into a partnership with them, all they wanted all along was to make sure they had a hand in keeping people motivated to buy faster CPUs!

 

I remembered the part where MS forced Intel into not running with their own API, NSP, but forgot the part where that ws exactly what Intel wanted. Kind of like the Sun coming out at night. Wouldn't that be rude?

 

MS still tried to bully Intel to stop them from "invading" MS's territory, Intel just planned it that way. clever fiends they are.

[shassouneh 0]

What you said AlecStaar is bery true indeed, but judging from AOL's HUGE network of users, like you said they want the money, bottom line. Let us assume MS licenses out trillian and it can connect to all AOL networks (i think trillian does that now anyways), less users will have the INCENTIVE to at least download AOL instant messenger (which is LOADED with AOL ads and banners, etc...). THAT alone will take out a considerable "chunk" of their quote-unquote "business".

Consider this, have you ever thought of why Windows media player STILL can't open all .MOV files, or any .RA, .RM or event .QT files? simple: too much of a legal hassle, allow me to explain below:

A.) .RM and .RA are sort of "owned" by RealNetworks. Its kind of their "territory". If Windows Media Player WAS to include native support for such files two things would SURELY happen:

i.)RealNetwork's stake would SERIOUSLY be affected, since there would be NO real need for their software. Thier software is FULL of ads, and banners and is VERY pushy in presenting "offers" to the user! If Windows Media PLayer (WMP) was to support the files, why would any of us ever have to use RealPlayer? ESPECIALLY if windows media player stays as it is by minimizing ads/banners in it

ii.)Microsoft would be involved in SERIOUS legal trouble. Not only will Real spare all they can to beat Microsoft in court, but other lawsuits against Microsoft will use this to try to demonstrate that Microsoft indeed is a "monopoly" that demands and executes "forced control" of markets, get what I mean?

This would also support any future rulings to break up Microsoft.

B.) IF Windows would have native support for MOV or quicktime files, again, why would ANY of us have to dowload Apple QuickTime? Again, this would shove Apple's stakes down by people not HAVING to download thier quote-unquote "free" player. Their free player makes money by popping up the "do you wish to upgrade" dialogue box frequently. OF coarse, this may seem fine, but it IS irritating AND all they really want is to pipe you their web site where they would have more ads, and where they would lure you into "Apple" products. If .MOV or .QT support was included natively within windows media player, we would probably have no more of the "do you wish to upgrade" BS that Apple QuickTime keeps BOMBARDING us with.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Microsoft is a great company. It should know by now though that native support for everything is simply not gonna work for them! Its "muddy waters" for them. Take for example Executive Softwares defragging software which it licensed from them. YES it may not be as advanced or powerful as the full-blown Executive Software product (e.g Diskeeper Lite), but how many of us out there feel the NEED to either download or purchase dfragging software? now with Windows XP, since it can burn data files on CDs natively, again we probably feel LESS of a need to download other software or buy it. right??

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Microsoft to death, and I woudl WISH someday to work for them, but their marketting and "dominance" strategies right now will not work!

[shassouneh 0]

oops, sorry guys, It took me a while to write that post up. It looks like i was typing it as you guys where changing the subject. Sorry!

[shassouneh 0]

Hmmm, I think that MS and AOL are on "good terms" with each other. I would doubt that AOL or MS would use a supertool like Trillian to try to eliminate the other from the market. After all, AOL licenses Internet Explorer from Microsoft to be ditributed with its AOL software. Also, AOL software runs on Microsoft Windows meaning it would benefit BOTH companies to stay as quote-unquote "business freinds". Yes MSN messenger / Windows Messenger poses some competition with respect to AOL nistant messenger, but it seems the MAIN focus of AOL is their full-blown AOL software. Even thier AOL Instant messenger seems sometimes like nothing but a "freindly" ad to their services and software. If you've ever installed AOL Instant messenger, you realize how many "free 700" or "free 1000" hours offers from AOL there are in that little banner! And what does AOL IM run on? Windows, Unix, Mac, etc... (but windows is DEFINATELY included). SO it seems that a lawsuit between AOL and Microsoft seems ONLY possible IF AND ONLY IF Microsoft licenses trillian to be able to eliminate AOL instant messenger! Also, due to the great work and effort Microsoft put into its excelent web browser, Internet Explorer, AOL finds some competition in supporting Netscape and competing with Internet Explorer. On the Other hand, Microsoft competes with AOL in terms of Internet Explorer vs Netscape competition, LOL (more on that below)

 

I personally think that IF Microsoft is going to approach the trillian concept, I think it'll choose to buy it out for some main reasons:

 

1.) No more legal issues to worry about in terms of "controlling" companies. The ONLY legal issue that may arise is Microsoft CASUING companies to sell out, an argument Netscape (now owned by AOL) attempted to make a while ago

2.) If MS owns trillian, they can certainly look at the source code and "mess" with it and edit it, like they did when they bought Hotmail!

3.) Microsoft would not have to worry about trillian's "stake" if it buys out trillian!

4.) Microsoft can innovate new things with its knowledge of the code (read point 2 above). It can, for instance, integrate some of the code with MSN/Windows messenger, or even do like it did to match Netscape's competition by adding more features to MSN messenger as part of Internet Explorer (in version 6 of Netscape, AOL included a dumbed-down version of AOL instant messenger. When Internet Explorer 6 came out, Microsoft included a version of MSN messenger with its web browser, and further strengthened MSN messenger by hard-soldering it into Windows XP).

5.) Windows/MSN messenger is still an evolving product. Microsoft may use trillians mutliple-chat-network technology to delve into stuff like file transfers between MSN messener and AOL instant messenger! ;-) Of coarse such a step would require a big "OK" from AOL as well as a satisfied "eye" from the USDOJ

6.) Also (like point 5 above) Microsoft can implement such things as video/telephony in Windows messenger OVER MULTIPLE CHAT NETWORKS

 

So arguing from all of the 5 points above, i think in fact Microsoft would benefit probably MORE than AOL would by buying out trillian, if not licensing its technologies. YES it would be nice to be able to connect to all those chat netwroks natively from windows, BUT due to the legal nature of the problem, it may not be entireyl possible. ALSO remmember that there is a HUGE possibility that AOL (and its subsidries like ICQ) will not be satisfied with this, and will probably re-configure its servers to block Windows messenger (or MSN messenger) from access to them! It CAN be done you know LOL

 

tell me what you guys think of what i just said.I hope its not just phoney bologne!

 

PS -> I prefer Microsoft Internet Explorer over Netscape ANY TIME! I REFUSE to install Netscape on my machine, LOL.

[shassouneh 0]

Thanx for the reply.

Yes indeed both MS and AOL have great potential if they would collaborate. Imagine AOL and MS merging together, wouldn't THAT be a disaster, LOL.

Btw, Yes IE is a much better browser than Netscape for sure. Stability, solid-performance, ease of use, and staying away from pushy ads deifnately adds icing on the cake! I personally hate how AOL uses Netscape to push more ads at you (the new Netscape 6 is kinda like that).

However, as much as I love IE, it has failed horribly in one important respect: Multiple-platform. There's probably nothing better than IE on Windows and Mac, but IE is non-existent on Liinux! It is a pity that arguably the most powerful browser out there is not available on Linux, BUT that is understanndable. It would jeopardize the success of IE as a program on any platform is it is available in Linux, and here's why:

 

In order to make IE available for Linux, the GNU dictates that it should be OPEN SOURCE, a concept Microsoft is uneasy with, understandably of coarse. Imagine IE being open source. Who would stop netscape from stealing IE code and going on top of IE with a cheap trick? It would be perfectly legal is the source code was open to anyone!

I don't think the GNU allows for ANY form of non-open source programs n Linux (I could be mistaken). IE on Linux would be a good idea IF AND ONLY IF Microsoft is allowed to keep it (or even ANY Microsoft product) CLOSED-source. So in terms of being fair to Microsoft, CLOSED source is a MUST BE for IE products to be ported on other platforms. MacOS 9, for example was NOT Linux-based, and hence Microsoft gladly made a Mac version of IE. To be homest, I have NO IDEA if IE is available on MacOS X. Again, PLEEEASE correct me if I'm wroing in anything. I'm only human, and I DO make mistakes like other people!

What do you guys think?

 

Oh btw, If trillian was made open-source, MS will have a harder time swallowing the idea of approaching it, LOL

[shassouneh 0]

Cool. I'm still looking into ways to "emulate" IE under Linux if at all possible. I'm getting sick of Netscape and its clan (e.g mozilla) and Konquerer is OK but not as good as IE!

[shassouneh 0]

Lucky him! he got to test code! I wish I could do that someday, LOL.

By the way, I'll send hima PM. thanx for telling me about him.

I'll ask him about VMWare. I heard its pretty good.

 

Oh I almost forgot, WinE runs 32 bit code (I dunno about 16 bit code). I have heard duccess stories running notepad.exe using it (notepad is 32bit.

[shassouneh 0]

Sure, Send us a copy or something. Of coarse, please bear in mind that I have little time to mess with it as I'm kinda busy with school. So feedback may take a while. Also, I am looking to keep myself busy this xmas break, so If I take my computer with me to my bro's place, then I'll mess with it further.

I'll PM you my email address [for security reasons].

[brainsoft 0]

All those colours make me dizzy Alex

 

If any of you haven't known it, IE IS avaliable for selected UNIX platforms...

[brainsoft 0]

Microsoft....

[brainsoft 0]

Here for instance

 

http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/downloads/recommended/ie5/

 

For Solaris and HP-UX

[INFERNO2000 0]

Ver 0.7 was released today.