mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
argv0 #192447 01/01/08 03:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
There's always the option of having the installer point the user to the site to check for the latest version as well as including an official mIRC installer, possibly even launching the mIRC site directly. That said, many scripts work only with certain versions and including an official installer for that version with a note that it's not the latest mIRC version, but will not work with the latest would also be an option for those cases. In either situation, the mIRC installer is clean and unaltered. Of course, that's my own personal opinion and as I'm not Khaled, it doesn't really matter what my opinion is. smile


Invision Support
#Invision on irc.irchighway.net
argv0 #192448 01/01/08 03:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
if a scripter take the time to create a script, then i belive he also take the time to update hes script with a new version of mirc.exe ? smile i know i would if i relesed my script with mirc.exe..


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
sparta #192450 01/01/08 07:30 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Originally Posted By: sparta
if a scripter take the time to create a script, then i belive he also take the time to update hes [sic] script


Tell that to the authors of PnP, ircN, the blowfish patch (I'm aware it was *recently* updated [finally], but the point stands), etc. which are all heavily distributed scripts that are rarely ever compatible with the latest version, let alone the few before that. In fact, most of the popular scripts haven't even been updated for 6.3, and yet people are still downloading them. Imagine if they packaged with their equally old mIRC installers... There would be a lot less people running 6.31, I'd bet.

Again, it's a nice thought in theory, but good luck sticking to your word on that one.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
argv0 #192451 01/01/08 08:06 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
i can't speak for someone else, i said i would, and for a user that download and using a script should have so much knowledge so they know the version of mirc is 6.31 and not 6.17, you should always know and trust what you install on your computer, and if the author of a script care for his users, then he should let them know that the script using a outdated version of mirc. smile


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
sparta #192463 01/01/08 09:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Originally Posted By: sparta
a user that download and using a script should have so much knowledge so they know the version of mirc is 6.31 and not 6.17


This is also an idealistic view. The truth is, though, that most users who are new to any community or program are rarely aware of the latest releases and will therefore trust the most recommended source. If a very popular script recommended by their good friend is being packaged with 6.17, the user probably won't question it. The user shouldn't be faulted for something like that.

Originally Posted By: sparta
the author of a script care for his users, then he should let them know that the script using a outdated version of mirc.


Therein lies the problem. Script authors rarely put much attention into the script packaging. They'll toss everything into a zip and you'll be lucky if you even get installation instructions, though review-based scripting sites have done a good job in changing that mentality.

But reality aside, even if authors cared about their user base, there would be nothing holding them to actually acting on it and informing their users that the installer may be old. Some authors might care, but may inadvertedly omit the fact that the mIRC packaged with their script could very well be over a year old. This can easily cause problems if the script author is, say, the author of PnP or other. This is why the license agreement states clear rules about how script authors can and can't distribute mIRC.

Frankly, it's simpler as a script author to deal with the packaging of their own script and allow the packaging of mIRC to be handled by mIRC itself. I don't even see much of a benefit to bundling. It would be very easy to just inform a user to visit http://www.mirc.com/get.html and download the program on their own. You could even launch the browser for them, as Riamus suggested, and there is no violation of the EULA in even going as far as automatically downloading the installer from mirc.com using a custom script installer of your own. It's not like bundling will bypass the installation process of mIRC-- it would only bypass the downloading part-- is clicking a link *really* that difficult for a user? I personally don't think one less browser click would justify all the extra complications.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
argv0 #192465 01/01/08 09:56 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
many users have "problem" to install scripts, don't know many times people have been asking me "it's not a exe file to that script, how do i do now?", and still it have been in plain text in the readme/help that they need to download it from http://www.mirc.com/get.html, people don't have time to read the files or just ignore to do so.. smirk


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
sparta #192468 01/01/08 10:42 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
You don't need to require them to look at a readme or a help file though. You can make it a link or a button in a step of your script's installer so that they can't not install mIRC without explicitly saying they don't want to.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
sparta #192476 02/01/08 02:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Originally Posted By: sparta

many users have "problem" to install scripts, don't know many times people have been asking me "it's not a exe file to that script, how do i do now?", and still it have been in plain text in the readme/help that they need to download it from http://www.mirc.com/get.html, people don't have time to read the files or just ignore to do so..


But packaging the mirc installer will not help you in that situation. If installing the script is the part they're confused about, giving them an mIRC installer file won't get their script installed. They're still going to need to read your instructions to install your script after installing mIRC regardless.

If you have users asking how to install a script without an executable, maybe you should consider making an installer for your script. An mIRC installer can't do that anyway, so I don't see what your argument is. If your users won't read your readme file telling them to download mIRC, then they wouldn't be reading your readme to tell them how to install your script either, so you're in trouble no matter what.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard