bit-tech.net

I think, therefore IM

Comments 1 to 21 of 21

Reply
-:: M@ ::- 8th March 2004, 21:22 Quote
Totally with you on that one, IM's just so much more easier, its kinda more impersonal, so you can just meet a new person and get on with them easily whereas in a real convo with them in person you might not be able of something to think for a while so go quiet and they go off somewhere else, but with IM you can just start up another convo later, and its much more easier to speak through typing than on phone, no awkward silences really :D I only seem to be able to talk to really close friends on the phone, but I can just randomly speak to anybody on msn.....so true - M@
Fatboy 8th March 2004, 21:50 Quote
Something i might add;

When people see IM as something to do. You know, you log on then about 6 people are like "lo m8" etc. They try to initiate some kind of pointless conversation to nowhere, and they spend every minute trying to talk to you.
Some people are merely using it as an activity.

I get the same feeling witht the 'nothing to say'. Most of the time im either after something , being asked for/about something or discussing something with people. Its a tool, not plaything.

A decent article, I look forward to the next.
penski 8th March 2004, 22:30 Quote
There will always be those of us who sit on 'away' for days at a time, irrespective of whether they are really 'afk'...

*n
RTT 8th March 2004, 22:40 Quote
I think the point you made about once 'true' IM gets onto mobile fones it'll be there to stay makes so much sense. I'd never really thought about it before. Scary.
olv 8th March 2004, 23:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by penski
There will always be those of us who sit on 'away' for days at a time, irrespective of whether they are really 'afk'...

*n

indeed, i like to select who i talk to 'Har Har'.

i'd never thought of IM on phones before but it's such a good idea. But cant the 'mobile network' barely cope with WAP load atm, let alone thousands of people with an always on connection chatting away?
jonesie 9th March 2004, 00:38 Quote
great, so when I want a bit of piece and quiet not only do i need an excuse for why my pc's not online, I need one for my phone as well??

nooo i cant get away from the smileys.... :'(
Green Soda 9th March 2004, 07:27 Quote
It is true that IM is really much more efficient then calling someone, and on phones it would be even better, but i happen to like Nextel's Direct Connect feature. Its great for me, especially, because all i need to do is

<click>Hey Nicole, you busy tonight<unclick>
*2 seconds later*

No, im not, lets do something

<click>Ok, i'll be over in 5 mins<unclick>

Its so easy! Unfortunatly, Nextel seems to be against SMS and IM on phones and junk... Oh well :(
sheardjr 9th March 2004, 09:30 Quote
I wish there was more standardisation in IM programs :(

At the moment I have Trillian (MSN & AIM), mIRC, Skype, and Xfire running, wouldn't it be great if they were all in one prog?

Buck_Rogers25 9th March 2004, 10:14 Quote
Trillians good but by using it you lose some of the other functions of each IM prog, file sharing in ICQ for example. I prefer to run MSN ICQ and Mirc myself. Was about half way through the article when i thought 'imagine when IM gets to mobiles' then i kept reading and about two paragraphs down hehe :). Good little piece m8.
Bindibadgi 9th March 2004, 11:03 Quote
But the beauty of IM is that you can ignore people, or "can leave the pc" even when you dont or you just wanna turn on a movie/music or dont fancy talking anymore. Having IM on your phone, on you 24/7 *might* be annoying, but then again, i ignore my phone even when my mum calls sometimes..
djengiz 9th March 2004, 11:07 Quote
Nice article! I use msn aswell, but i would like a more stripped down version.
Anakha 9th March 2004, 11:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Rogers25
Trillians good but by using it you lose some of the other functions of each IM prog, file sharing in ICQ for example.
Erm, you're wrong there.
Trillian supports File Transfer in ICQ, MSN and AIM.
It also supports "Buddy Icons" in MSN and Webcam in Yahoo.

Yes, I use it, on ICQ, MSN, AIM, YAHOO and Jabber, and it works very well, IMHO.

As to IM on mobiles, it is around already (nICQ is one, off the top of my head), the problem is that GPRS connections are charged per Mb for data transfer, and while the bandwidth is there, the continual "Presence updates" on IM systems make it prohibitively expensive.

Although, I do have to say, I use my home copy of Trillian over the 'net via Wap (Someone built a plugin for Trillian Pro that turns it into a wap/www server so you can use it remotely. Works amazingly well, as well)

TBH, as far as a "Lean" protocol goes, IRC is better than any of the IM systems out there. MSN especially.

When mobile data starts getting charged "All you can eat", then we will have the perfect climate for mobile IM. As it is, it's not really suitable
Buck_Rogers25 9th March 2004, 13:12 Quote
File transfers yer, i meant ICQ shared directory or whatever they call it, cant remember the name now as i hardly ever use ICQ for more than chat,sms,file sends.

Another point about ICQ is its SMS feature, being able to text mobiles for free is pretty useful, althought it could do with more mobile networks being supported. Lycos's SMS service has more networks supported, probably cause they have more cash to spend.
Anakha 9th March 2004, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Rogers25
Another point about ICQ is its SMS feature, being able to text mobiles for free is pretty useful, althought it could do with more mobile networks being supported. Lycos's SMS service has more networks supported, probably cause they have more cash to spend.

ICQ's SMS is easy. You just add a contact to your "Buddy List" with the ICQ number +44<number>. Same with AIM (As they're merging the two networks. You can now connect to AIM via ICQ and vice-versa)
Zogthetroll 9th March 2004, 17:12 Quote
yeah, gotta love it as a form of communication, personally, I just use AIM (despite my deep and abiding hatred for AOL itself, long story) because it is more than just "for aol users" as it can be used as a stand-alone app. since I started using it back in college, and all my friends there, and most family were using it also, i've never seen the need to branch out.
jonesie 9th March 2004, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Rogers25
Lycos's SMS service has more networks supported, probably cause they have more cash to spend.

Got an email from either lycos or o2 (genie) saying they were closing their free sms service as they cant afford the 6 million odd texts a day. Cant remember which one it was though
Hepath 11th March 2004, 07:28 Quote
I agree to with the article to the extent that IM can and is an extremely useful method of immediate communication and as its use grows it will evolve.

Personally I believe it will become the "de facto" standard for communicating with friends family, beating email etc. However we must acknowledge it, not as a replacement, but as a complementary tool. Remember that you might actually be asleep when someone wants to talk to you..... you dont know where they're calling from.

The only thing I sort of want to conclude this waffle with is that - the more we become reliant on 'technical devices' for communication - the more insular we become and people become lethargic and lazy; already people leave their IM on 'afk' or 'away' when their not, just like turning ignoring the phone; Seems to me just more of the "same old same old". People's attitudes don't change - just the tools.
JADS 11th March 2004, 15:49 Quote
Must say I use it, but I'm not keen on it. I much prefer having a conversation face-to-face or on the phone. IM is vastly too impersonal.
Boggy 12th March 2004, 12:11 Quote
have to say i agree with you there KNA!
using IM software is part of my way of commmunicating to people, have have relationships with people that i have never met or even spoken to IRL, but this does not affect the relationship, i have as good if not better relationship with these people. sounds sad i know :S
havent posted on here for like 6 months you should feel privelaged ;)
jezmck 15th March 2004, 12:30 Quote
nice article kna.
you talk about not being able to escape from communication, and it's true that many people find it difficult to just ignore the phone, turn off the mobile etc.
I'd really like to see a version of the selective invisibility you can have with MSN etc - i.e. only certain people can see that you're available.
this kinda brings me onto my worries about mobile-IM spam - it's bound to happen, unless the country/planet makes the neccessary effort to prevent it in both legal and physical terms.
sebbagoe 2nd June 2004, 12:34 Quote
good column!
On- and offline communication is one of my favorite topics to talk about.

You wrote about the "easy communication", that it's easier to start talkin online to a person than offline. (the smalltalk thing)
Sure it is. But here in Germany, I dunno if it is like the same in GB, many kids are in chatrooms a lot. They sitting in front of there computer many hours a day. They say thereself, that its easier to say things online.
I think the bad thing is, that they forget how to communicate offline. In further generation kids might not start smalltalks or other offline communication. They might abscond thereself in there "online world".
I can see things like this at our school. We have an internet cafe and in the breaks, even in the 5min breaks, kids run down there and chat. So they don't really speak with other students in the breaks.
I'm anxious how this will evolve in the future.

There are also people who are completly different on and offline. For example they are really shy offline, but only they tell you their deepest feelings.

Wouldn it be easy if everybodys "communication style" would be the same on- and offline? When you don't need smalltalks online, why do you need them offline?

What do you think?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums