YesNoOk
avatar

0.9.9.95 (Read 33125 times)

Started by Nightwish, June 28, 2005, 00:32:36

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this.
Share this topic:
#101
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 13, 2005, 19:40:26
After some time in my message window the border frame is hiding and to return it i need to backup my tab setting, delete TAB_SRMsg branch in my database and restore my settings from file... Can you fix it?

P.S. Sorry for my horrible English...
#102
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 13, 2005, 19:45:12
After some time in my message window the border frame is hiding and to return it i need to backup my tab setting, delete TAB_SRMsg branch in my database and restore my settings from file... Can you fix it?

No, because I really don't know what you're talking about.

The screenshot is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. The static edge on the message log can be disabled, but that's a feature, actually, so there is nothing to fix.
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#103
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 15, 2005, 15:30:00
my miranda doensn't show these status popups (normal&extended).
but i saw it at the pc of a friend who is using the same version as i.
can my windows visual style be the reason? any idea? anyone alse got that problem?  :(
#104
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 15, 2005, 15:38:03
oh, it was my fault.  :-\
i deactivated windows baloon popups using xpantispy.
sorry!  :-[

but the popups are behind the msg-window if i enable "Container transparency".
Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 15:44:53 by ds-sonic
#105
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 15, 2005, 16:45:54
With the new version, if you're in a full screen application and someone writes to you the tab/container pops the fullscreen application. This didn't happen with the .pre versions.
(create tabs in the background and create containers minimized on the taskbar are the only options enabled)
#106
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 18, 2005, 00:28:32
With the new version, if you're in a full screen application and someone writes to you the tab/container pops the fullscreen application.

ok so its not just me.... i find this quite annoying.
#107
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 18, 2005, 05:10:49
I have an annoyed problem. TabSRMM does not split big messages, when i use IRC protocol. It's ok in ICQ protocol.
#108
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 18, 2005, 13:22:20
oh, it was my fault.  :-\
i deactivated windows baloon popups using xpantispy.
sorry!  :-[

but the popups are behind the msg-window if i enable "Container transparency".

Nightwish, why did you use popups baloon instead tool tip test?
#109
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 18, 2005, 19:17:24
I have an annoyed problem. TabSRMM does not split big messages, when i use IRC protocol. It's ok in ICQ protocol.

tabSRMM never splits any messages, neither on ICQ nor on any other protocol. It's just that ICQ allows much larger messages than any other protocol (up to 7800 characters when sending via server, and more or less unlimited when sending directly).

And to prvent further questions - no, splitting will not be a feature of tabSRMM. It has been discussed already and there are many reasons why implementing message splitting in the message window is just plain wrong.

__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
Last Edit: July 18, 2005, 19:19:32 by Nightwish
#110
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 19, 2005, 11:30:05
And to prvent further questions - no, splitting will not be a feature of tabSRMM. It has been discussed already and there are many reasons why implementing message splitting in the message window is just plain wrong.
thanks. But ncovers has such feature. It does not matter who must implement this functionality - IRC protoco plugin or tabsrmm. We only want to see such feature. :(
#111
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 19, 2005, 15:51:58
thanks. But ncovers has such feature. It does not matter who must implement this functionality

It does matter a lot. Splitting is generally a bad idea. It's up to the user to know that he cannot send messages which are longer than the protocols limit. The limits are there with a reason.

Splitting is bad, because it can cause side effects. On IRC it may earn you kicks or even (temporary) bans because of flooding. Same on ICQ and probably other protocols. A working flood control cannot be safely implemented in the message window. Only the protocol can do this. That's why splitting in the message window is just plain wrong.

Reasons enough?
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
Last Edit: July 19, 2005, 15:55:14 by Nightwish
#112
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
July 20, 2005, 10:14:32
#113
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
February 22, 2006, 15:42:07
Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible to inlcude an advanced message handling.
Like, you could be able to browser throught he messages you already sent ( or even someone else sent )
by using arrow keys up and down, for example.

So, if You lost a message, or if You wanna repost a message u used MathModule with, then that would come
in very handy. I have seen it in other chats. I would like that very much.
nConvers has an option to show the last 5 messages sent,
but it's ugly as hell and I would rather use tabsRmm...

#114
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
February 22, 2006, 16:28:06
Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible to inlcude an advanced message handling.
Like, you could be able to browser throught he messages you already sent ( or even someone else sent )
by using arrow keys up and down, for example.

No. That's what a history viewer is for, not the message window.

And for sent messages, tabSRMM already has an input history.
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#115
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
February 24, 2006, 09:49:10
No really,

when I type an answer and hit the send button, but the message fails to send, or isn't received,
then I have to retype all of it, because it hasn't been saved before sending.

I really think it would be much better if You could have some faster access,
and not only by history clicking through...
#116
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
February 24, 2006, 11:00:50
when I type an answer and hit the send button, but the message fails to send, or isn't received,
then I have to retype all of it, because it hasn't been saved before sending.

Wrong, the message is, of course, saved (and in case of an error, it's not even deleted from the input line), but even if it was, you can get it back using the input history (just press ctrl-up).
Quote
I really think it would be much better if You could have some faster access,

and not only by history clicking through...

No change is needed as this feature works as it should.
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#117
Re: 0.9.9.95 |
February 24, 2006, 18:20:40
Ctrl-Up ??

hmm, I have to check this out...
sounds maybe like just what I was wishing for...


Edit: Oh man, this is exactly what I was looking for ;-)
Already implemented...

Thanks ;-)
Last Edit: February 24, 2006, 18:25:47 by TMind