DeadAIM

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:32 pm

I HATE DEAD AIM. It mess up my computer. end up spending 20 min on each of my computer after I installed DEADaim to fix everything it did.

One uses XP one is ME. it messed up both of them
I HATE DEAD AIM

iamvoyager · Post by **iamvoyager** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:52 pm

aclauser wrote:How long did we actually "officaly" wait? Waiting for a new version and waiting for something the say will come out is two diffrent things. We all knew a new version of Windows would come out after Win95 but did how long did it take for them to make it offical... oh and how long did we have to wait after it was offical?

we waited since they said they were working on the new version, which was about right after aim 5 came out

knowing that a new version will come out eventually is something completely different. was there a major problem with windows 95? no. was there a major problem with aim+? yes; it was incompatable with aim. if windows 95 was incompatable with most computers ppl would be **waiting** for a new version that will work properly. big-o did say they were working on it, therefore it was confirmed

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 5:47 am

Whoa! Was there a major problem with Windows 95? Why dont you figure out the answer before you ask the question because I am postive you have no clue what your talking about.

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:16 am

iamvoyager,

To answer a previously asked question, the reason I'm not upgrading to AIM 5.x is because it has a bunch of features I don't need. I just need two things:

The ability to chat to my friends/family/co-workers
The ability to keep a log of the conversations (they are amazingly helpfuly when documenting business convos

Like you inferred, I just don't want to have to turn off a bunch of features. I probably won't upgrade until 4.x no longer is able to communicate with those on the current AIM platform.

Ray

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:33 am

To respond to the argument mentioned about how a new OS isn't developed to fix compatibility issues with people's computers.....

iamvoyager wrote: if windows 95 was incompatable with most computers ppl would be **waiting** for a new version that will work properly.

[Ray's Opinion]
With the exception of maybe MS-DOS, Microsoft has mostly released OS products that were knowingly flawed. In fact many software companies would rather meet a release deadline with a faulty product than announce a date slip in order to release a "clean" product. It's the nature of the beast. Since the product is flawed, it could be argued that the product is incompatible with the platform upon which it runs because the product "breaks" on that platform. Then you have to wait for a new release (whether for money or for free) to hopefully make it more compatible with their platform (aka computer).
[/Ray's Opinion]

But all this bantering back and forth isn't going to change anyones opinions. I interpret iamvoyager's statements to be saying that since Big-O software stated that a release would be occuring on Dec 11, 2002 (which I feel he interprets as a "promise" on their part) then Big-O software should deliver a release product on or near the "promised" date. The fact that the product is developed for free doesn't weigh in on his argument. Since a release never occured he feels that the Big-O reneged on their deal and left everyone holding the bag (a product that sort of works with the current AIM platform). In his eyes, it makes the Big-O company "undependable". Possibly, as a user of the AIM+ product, iamvoyager feels burned for putting stock and hype into a product that ended up "dead" (from a development cycle stand-point).

He has the right to his opinions and I feel we've done our best to try and convince him otherwise, but it may be best to "agree to disagree".

Ray

P.S. iamvoyager, if I misrepresented your thoughts, I appologize. That is how I interpreted your statements and thought maybe a restatement was in order

Ray

Master Jedi · Post by **Master Jedi** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:37 am

harra wrote:I probably won't upgrade until 4.x no longer is able to communicate with those on the current AIM platform.

I don't know that you'll ever have to upgrade. AIM version 1 will still log into the AIM servers and function as it should.

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:40 am

idejsecrofkrad wrote:I don't know that you'll ever have to upgrade. AIM version 1 will still log into the AIM servers and function as it should.

There you go. As long as there are sites like www.oldversions.com where I can keep getting my AIM 4.x when I rebuild my PC, then I won't have to upgrade and keep using AIM+ (the user-friendly way....lol)

Ray

iamvoyager · Post by **iamvoyager** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 10:45 am

windows 95 did work for the most part correctly

i am not saying they are undependable b/c it wasnt released when schedualed, but isnt going to be at all

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 10:55 am

iamvoyager,

iamvoyager wrote: am not saying they are undependable b/c it wasnt released when schedualed, but isnt going to be at all

Sorry, I thought that it was understood that was what I meant when I said

harra wrote: Since a release never occured he feels that the Big-O reneged on their deal and left everyone holding the bag (a product that sort of works with the current AIM platform). In his eyes, it makes the Big-O company "undependable".

Doesn't matter any way. Like I said before. Maybe we need to agree to disagree on this point of argument.

Ray

spks3707 · Post by **spks3707** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:27 pm

I hate DeadAIM, it's way way TOO SLOOOOOOOW. yea it does have the same features as aim+, but it basically compromises your system. I have a 475MHz that worked well with AIM+ w/312MB RAM. but now with them gone for now at least, i cant do nething.

punkster103 · Post by **punkster103** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:23 pm

spks3707 wrote: I hate DeadAIM, it's way way TOO SLOOOOOOOW. yea it does have the same features as aim+, but it basically compromises your system. I have a 475MHz that worked well with AIM+ w/312MB RAM. but now with them gone for now at least, i cant do nething.

Funny, it ran fine on my computer 450MHz p3 with 64MB RAM...

Robpol86 · Post by **Robpol86** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:28 pm

runs fine on my computer

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:30 pm

Does not run fine on me (didnt this thread die a while ago 2)

xtool · Post by **xtool** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 10:48 am

- I tried 'DeadAim' and didn't like it.
Yes, it has many features BUT for some reason, if i leave my aim on too long, my screen gets frozen.

- AIM+ is an awesome AIM's addon, stable and also FREE!
I am AIM+ fan and supporter and has been since day one. I will continue being on of Mark&Ryan(AIM+) fan for years to come.

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 11:05 am

xtool wrote: - I tried 'DeadAim' and didn't like it.
Yes, it has many features BUT for some reason, if i leave my aim on too long, my screen gets frozen.

- AIM+ is an awesome AIM's addon, stable and also FREE!
I am AIM+ fan and supporter and has been since day one. I will continue being on of Mark&Ryan(AIM+) fan for years to come.

Aonther person has seen the light. To bad he had to learn the hard way but then again many of us had to learn that hard way (me included).

Big-O Software

DeadAIM

deadaim is way too slow

Re: deadaim is way too slow

Who is online