Michael said:
Thanks, but the bigger problem is that you put your sig above your
reply. Most smart Usenet clients remove the sig when you reply, and
hence, I end up with only the above line :-(
(copy + paste + fix )
Perhaps the term technology was too strong. I will leave it at this,
chat
client's were designed to use the internet for transmission of text
messages.
But the internet itself can handle arbitrary data (within certain bounds
of course).
Voice is an add-on that requires the user to interface their mic
and sound setup
Since there is a default API for handling sound in/out in most OSes,
again no problem.
If you can play music, you can hear sound coming from a voice chat
If you can record your voice, you can send it on the Internet.
and introduces a number of outside varibles not present in
the chat client. If it works, fine. If not, the user may have some
options
they can check and configure in the chat client but then there's a
whole
host of other things outside of the client they may need to check if
it's
not simply some option or selection they didn't tick within the
client.
As soon as it leaves the chat client, it's data, and it doesn't matter
anymore. Getting the audio in and out of the client is just software.
If the client was designed for this from the ground up, it would
handle
those variables. Certainly, there can be issues between any
application and
the operating system but with chat, there seems to be a great deal
more
reliance on the user setup and that leaves the door wide open to all
sorts
of possibile roadblocks.
The only road block is: making two clients connect *directly* without a
server in between. This means that they must accept incoming
connections. Which is a bit of a hassle to get working through
firewalls/NATs.
But it can be done, look at Skype. Works in more situations, better
sound quality, etc. Even the conference mode works like a dream (I
talked to my mom and brother a few days ago said:
Further, as in the case of "D," he wants to use chat for something for
which
it was never intended, a telephone. From what I've seen, while there
same with winks, nudges, and custom emoticons. Yet it's just data that
needs to go from one client to the other. The Internet was never
intended to host millions of websites, etc.
certainly be issues with Voice over IP, the solutions now being
offered are
fairly turnkey with the application handling most of the setup work
and
other than the free version of Skype completely bypasses the PC's
sound
setup in favor of the telephone.
I sincerly doubt that this has anything to do with the PC sound but much
more with: my mom has to learn how to use Skype. She is going to a
computer course. Yes, she already manages the basics, but just grabbing
a phone is way easier. And I think the same holds for a lot users, and I
mean a lot lot. Just grabbing a simple phone, keying in some access
code, and talking is way easier compared to turn on the PC, wait ...
wait... until it finished booting up, starting a voice chat application,
etc.
Even I consider a voice over the speakers more invading then a phone
conversation.
Right there, that elminates potential
issues that are inherent in chat or in this case, voice chat.
As far as I understand it, the biggest issue is getting the client
accepting incoming connections, through firewall/NAT.
I apologize for the top posting. I recognize what you politely
requested is
generally accepted as proper Usenet ettiquette but that has not been
the case within Microsoft groups on the MS server.
I read this group on "my" server, which is not a Microsoft server :-D
I have experimented with it
from time to time using OE Quote-Fix but I generally get a lot of
people
complaining when I follow that format
Try to remove everything that is no longer relevant. Most complaints are
about scrolling. People "here" often post a question, and think that the
answer is written only for them. If you carefully explain that the
messages are archived somewhere and can (and often) are read stand
alone, you sometimes can make clear that reading from top to bottom is
more natural, then scrolling down, scrolling up, read, scrolling down,
scrolling up, read, etc. Moreover, most top posters don't snip anything,
so the posting has a huge huge trail of garbage dangling under it,
wasting bandwidth, which we pay for in the end.
And all for a quick and free reply :-(
and only rarely receive such
complaints when I top post.
Again, I apologize but for now anyway, it will likely continue.
Print a random top posted message out, and try to make sense of it. You
will discover why it's annoying. Most top posters see Usenet as a help
desk, and every reply to their message as especially written for them,
almost like a private message. They prefer to have the answer on top,
since that's what they are looking for.
But it makes it way harder for people who start reading in a thread in
the middle (e.g. because they found it using Google groups).
People who insist on top posting are often egoists who only are "here"
for the free help, and contribute zilch.
It's a pitty that some well known MVPs, and I recall that P stands for
professional, serve Usenet postings as those egoists seem to prefer, not
caring about all those people who read their reply weeks, months, or
more later, and have a hard time making sense of it.
The Google archive of this group, and very likely similar MS groups are
huge collections of junk, bandwidth waste, and bad communication. In
short, unusable.
Somehow those trigger happy people prefer to repeat the same answer, on
top, over and over again instead of pointing to a excellent piece of
software: Google groups.
Apologies for this rant, but I hope some others will rethink their
posting behaviour. In the end it will save up some bandwidth, and makes
the archives more readable, and hence, makes Usenet work.