Forums Feature Suggestions Native FiSH support

What exactly are you proving with the looptest? It was already pointed out that mIRC is single threaded and does not in any way benefit from multi-core CPUs. mIRC probably won't be multi-threaded in your lifetime, so the feature you described probably won't happen, but, but if you're really requesting multi-core support, please start a new thread-- you're just confusing this discussion by posting it here.

Secondly, is this really the test you ran to prove that blowfish isn't usable on 7.x? Please tell me you've done something more comprehensive than time an empty loop.

The loop was actually a specific # not using $ctime as it would include a 1 sec discrepancy. I just put it there so noone hangs up a slower comp. All the tests were to see if the speed difference with the fish patch on 6.2 vs what we use for 7.17 was in fact all due to fish or due to code execute speeds. If you look at previous posts, it was suggested fish be used as a .mrc script and that native support wasn't needed. It is needed... Glad it's on the todo lists. No I don't want a new thread on multi-core. I was just curious if we could control what routines could be sent to specific cores or the thread pool. And as I suspected, not bloody likely.

And as for significance, the user clames under heavy load in an encrypted environment on several servers on several channels, mirc 6.12 (patched) will hang at maximum 5 seconds on a heavy request load (ie many users searching at relatively the same time). He then points out he gets up to a 15 second hang on 7.17 (script with dll's). Most of the work in his script centers around irc text in priv msg and in chans that are using fish encryption.

Maybe we should all enjoy a 15-30ms delay like someone meantioned. After all, 15 chans more than enough for anybody.
I try my best to encourage users to get a shell so they can use the same type of script using perl and sql. But not everyone wants to a pay monthly fee so some prefer the mirc version of my utility. And mostly a lot less complicated to install for novice users who want to use it.

Not only will it make mirc more appealing and convenient to use, it'll make encryption/decryption faster. And by the looks of it I need all the help I can get. What are u going to suggest now? Tell all the users of my script to overclock cpu to keep up?

A simple routine... lol Next time I'll paste 10,000 lines and u can pick which command was a better example for comparison. You keep asking "what tests?" "what tests?". JUST CODE SOMETHING AND RUN IT ON BOTH!!! Are you that lazy???

As I pointed out before, yes, the newer mIRC is slower than the older mIRC. However, any decently written script is not going to need to loop hundreds of thousands of times. In normal use, you're looking at unnoticeable differences in times. I know people who use FiSH on 7.17 and have absolutely no difficulties and they are in many large channels at once.

Once again, the points being made are that there are working and usable options at this time and until this gets to the top of Khaled's to-do list (probably not anytime soon), those work just fine if used correctly. Another point being made is that there are really a very small percentage of users who care about encryption or who would use mIRC's encryption instead of a third party's encryption if it were added. Many other features are desired by a much wider audience and those deserve to be higher up on the list.

When you are done pointing your finger at me, be sure to point it at yourself as well. Your attitude isn't one that's lead this thread in a positive and forward-moving direction of any kind.

Unless all of "you" have working knowledge and experience of encryption, security, and associated delivery systems, then no, this is not a forum of peers in that regard. And your curiosity on the subject is of no concern to me.


There's nothing to discuss with you about an offer I've made to someone else. Had you been included in the invitation then it would be otherwise, but you weren't. Ego plays no part in any of this but I have no interest in explaining it to you.

Further there's no mystery on my stance, I've made it quite clear... Here's a refresher: "In all honesty, the more posturing that takes place, the less I care..."


The irony in the above quote is humorous. Now, it seems you've missed a previous statement of mine. Here's another refresher, "As I've said, he's welcome to msg me privately. Beyond that nobody here has given me any indication I should take anything they say seriously. People are free to make all the demands they like but if they don't provide motivation to meet them, they won't be."

In other words, don't waste your breath asking because I simply do not care about any of your requests. They will all be declined so maybe it's best you adhere to your own request and not respond.

Sounds to me like you think Khaled does nothing whatsoever but spend time researching things for you and you alone. In the last year, Khaled did absolutely nothing but finish bringing mIRC to the point where it's a more complete unicode client. I'm sure he had plenty of time to do research for you as well.

What's your problem re: giving him some answers? It's not like he works for you, or something. Like has been said over, and over, and over, and over .... Give him some information like you were asked, otherwise drop the subject.

....Wow, ... Is this even meant to be serious? I have neither ever asked Khaled to do anything for me, nor do I care how he spends his time. And how do you confuse asking someone to do some reading on their own first as asking them to do reading for you? Kindly get your head out of the clouds.


How in the world does offering Khaled direct help translate into you thinking I have a problem answering his questions? In addition, I've said repeatedly that I do not care about anyone's demands in this thread. It's astounding how you can take something made very clear and become so confounded by it. Only fools keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. You've reminded how easy it is to overestimate a persons common sense. Please make more of an effort to pay attention.

This is a general response not directed to any particular person.

There's nothing wrong with feeling passionately about something, but as this thread has pretty much fallen into a personal dispute that has no value to the original feature suggestion, I'm regrettably locking it.

I would remind all posters to read (or re-read) the sticky topic at the top of this forum by d00dman and try and stay within those guidelines in future.

Cheers