Forums Feature Suggestions Icons..

I know its not the greatest of priorities.. but would it be possible to update all the icons in mirc to the winxp style. The default icons look very out of place imo and are well due for an upate...

Cheers

Chris

not all ppl uses win xp, so think about it.

that may be true, but ill think you will agree that 'style' does look more modern and a great deal better then the old win95 icons currently being used.

In short it looks old, and needs updating. Dosent matter if you use winXP or not.

Personally, I'd rather have it look like win95 than AOL

IMO xp icons look childlish and stupid

I don't think it *needs* updating, this is quite a personal matter. On the other hand, the fact is: limiting mIRC icons to XP users isn't currently a good idea. Too many non-XP users to consider.

pfft all so stubborn

anyway, just a suggestion.

Laters

not stubborn, just realistic, it is always better to find logical explanation and/or result, your suggestion maybe is good, but only for win XP users, but think... not all ppl use only XP, i see ppl using win 95 still ! so... it is obvious that going on xp icons wouldn't be logical.

updating the icons has absolutely nothing to do with the OS. The pack can contain old style (24 bit) icons as well as the newer 32 bit (xp) style icons. In fact it can include monochrome if khaled so chose. The OS decides wich icons to display at wich time based on resolution and color depth. It is true that the 32 bit icons will not work for non xp systems but as long as you include the older counterparts it wouldnt matter.

As for the "alot of people dont use XP" this is true but what about the 10's of thousands that do? Just because a number of people refuse to upgrade does not mean everyone should remain in the dark ages especially when a solution for both system is available.

For anyone on windows 95 thats just plain ridiculous. Thnk of all the advancements they will never see. Its because of users like that developers are forced to stay within a certain boundary. Thus keeping software development behind where it perhaps could be.

Not to pick a fight but, with your last statement "Just because a number of people refuse to upgrade does not mean everyone should remain in the dark ages especially when a solution for both system is available."

I don't think you know all the reason why people haven't updated, therefor shouldn't call anyone stubborn. The fact is that people have several reason for sticking with an older operating system.. Just to give you a concept to grasp:

- Computer is afairly outdated, and upgrading would severly slow the machine.
- - "Buy a new machine" The person/houshold doesn't have the money to upgrade. So now are they supposed to go out and buy an $800 system so they are not referred to as "stubborn"?
- Don't have the money to pay for an operating system at the moment
- Prefer windows 2000/9x instead of XP (I won't get into the reasons)
- Hardware conflicts

Im not going to argue all these points, as I shouldn't have to. The point I'm stressing is you do not have the right to call anyone stubborn for choosing to (or being limited to) updating.

(indirect reply)
i tried XP and i think it is just horrid. i will take 2k, thx ne way

It has nothing to do with being stubborn. Just as you do, everyone has a right to their own opinion. Its impossible to make everyone happy and you cant expect everyone to agree with you. Just as an FYI, there have been numerous complaints about changes resembling xp stuffs, so obviously not everyone likes xp. Visuals are so much a personal preference (as well as habit to a degree) that any time changes are made there are lots of ppl who love them, and as many who hate them.

I really dont want this to turn into an OS debate, and my issue isnt about one OS vs another. Altho KT gave a very good reply, i too have to take exception to your comment about equating not upgrading to XP to remaining in the dark ages. Whether the reason is preference (for any number of reasons i wont get into either) or financial, just because a person isnt using the latest of anything is no reason to belittle them. I realize your point was that a way to appease both could be done, and thats fine and valid. Latest is not always greatest, and to assume ppl who dont use the latest are backward or deficient in some way just isnt valid or kind. Financial or personal preference, neither is something for anyone else to be judgemental about.

True, I forgot that 32bit icons could just be added to the pack.

As for the "dark ages vs XP" argument, no need to even bother. I said a lot of people currently don't use XP. No reason to be in a hurry for some flashy XP icons when the trend is going to favor them, I can't see a need. Nowadays, IMO, people using win95 should reconsider, indeed. The same will happen to 98se I guess. I just can't see it happening yet, and I don't think this is either good or bad, it's all about personal preference as it's been said.

Edit: some missing points and grammar

my point wasnt that anyone should upgrade or not. The actual point was why limit things to cater to those users only. One could also argue upgrading can be cheap with hardware these days but that theory is flawed as well. Im only saying that the options related to a lesser OS should also include the ones from the newer. As it stands many many things either havent been added or was severly delayed due to the old 16 bit version. Thats finally gone but weve yet to see any leaps and bounds in the area of dependant software.

mIRC already does this for example trasparent windows wasnt added until win2k. So 95 users cant have it but 2k+ users can. It doesnt mean mIRC is any less better (is that a phrase) on older os's it just offers more to support some features from the new one. I would like to see more of this such as common controls (introduced in 95b) and so on.

As for the icons you can have the best of both worlds no matter wich os you use.

My earlier statement still stands however alot of developers (myself included) have to avoid alot of newer technology to ensure the most compatibility. Upgrading from 95 to 98 either wont be that large a hit or if it is then perhaps a new (or upgraded) pc is in order otherwise they simply cant use the features a particular application may offer.

as for the "dark ages" if were still worried about writing software basically for win95 in 10 years just how old does it have to be before we consider it time to move forward? My issue isnt with wich OS one prefers or what reasons one may or may not have for upgrading but in limiting the software we chose to write years and years later. Personally ive used every windows version written and believe it or not i do see a point to staying with certain builds. not a 9x one because they are horibly unstable. Ive never seen a report of a 2 month uptime on a 9x build. This may not be important to some but it does show a limitation. All software written for any os is only as good as the OS it was written for and suffers from the same limitations. Of course you still have to consider the older versions but not just those alone. one should also consider the newer versions as well. Also visual styles etc.. is only one aspect I wasnt just refering to that alone.

As for the xp vs. 2k. xp is 2k+luna. you can disable luna entirely with 3 mouse clicks. the stability is about the same and xp offers more hardware support than 2k did.

I think that from this side of things I agree. While I still think there's no need to be in a hurry, I recognize that what happens might be the opposite.

from the side of the icons its entirely possible to make professional looking icons using 32 bit and not just the xp'ish looking ficher price style. Most people equate 32 bit with "XP" style because thats where it was introduced (to win users that is). Ive seen alot (as im sure many of you have) of 32 bit icons that looked absolutely nothing like the intrisic xp icons but were professional looking none the less. I dont see new icons for mIRC as a supe must have right now thing but I see nothing wrong in adding them and i dont see it using up all of khaleds time either.

Me too, I've seen a lot of XP-only icons that had nothing to do with XPish style. The only thing I was worried about was it not being compatible, but that was when I forgot it could be just a part of the whole icon lib. Even if all existing XP icons followed the style many people (me included) despise, I'm sure mIRC would have a decent one, provided that it had the same concept as the current one. At least in my opinion.

ya i think the so called xp'ish icons are mainly in the color choice. other things such as hilight and dropshadow could be added to make it appear "newer". The alpha blend is nice if you happen to have the icon on the desktop for example it can help smooth edge transitions. Alot of users complain about mIRCS appearance since the new build but really all i can see that makes me wonder is the rebar grippers on the *bars. Its like a non functional rebar (perhaps planned later?). Im sure alot of user may also complain if a new icon is used but thats a shame ive seen some really nice mIRC icons floating around

Generic Reply

People are inherintly afraid of change.

The bigger the change, the greater the fear (and dislike).


I've found that most people I know dislike XP because it looks different. Sure, not liking how it looks is a valid opinion, but to simply not use it because it looks different is one of the most pathetic excuses I hear people use. Especially considering that you can change the way it looks (as pointed out earlier) in less than three mouse clicks.
If people got over the looks factor, and actually based their dislike of any operating system on real reasons (ie, the OS didn't get along very well with some hardware, or it was unstable or even system slow downs etc), then we'd all be happier (well, at least I would, because I wouldn't have to put up with people bitching on about how ugly it looks, or how "Fisher and Price" it looked).

That said, I'm not ever (and have never) going to tell someone to use the latest (and so called greatest) because it is their right to choose what OS they want to use.

In all honesty, if Khaled can implement transperancy for Windows 2000+, its not going to be to much of a hassle to add in 32bit icons with alpha layers and so forth.

I'm one person that would very much like to see some "Fisher and Price" added to mIRC (in an optional theme), but wouldn't mind whatever way the cookie crumbled.

general reply to the whole OS aspect of this:

here's a question for you people - how long was 16bit supported before khaled made it 32bit only? How long was win3.x decomishioned before this happened? Im simply asking to look at certain aspects of the past (relating to mirc) when talking about OSes. As has been stated, win95 is old and while not the latest & greatest, there are reasons for people to use it.

whoa!

Seems to got a little off the point, i was only after some nicer looking icons :tongue:

oh I know, but I was relating that question to the "not everybody uses XP" argument for having better icons etc etc and asking a question more to the point of Im sick of seeing "jsut upgrade and be done with it already" type of reply. Sure I replied to YOU, but it was a general statement rather than a shot at you If you took it that way, then my apologies and offerings of cookies (not PB cookies tho, ParaBrat has a private stash of em LOL)

well ... "just upgrade..." screw you. i will not upgrade to XP, XP pro, or LH. i will keep 2k pro. kthx.

lol "screw you" Perhaps if developers also said "screw you" and started developing software without worrying about supporting 10+ year old OS's things would go quicker and we wouldnt be having this thread

Maybe things would go even slower, as the reasons for people not uploading wouldn't change just because the programmers decided to not consider them :tongue:

that depends on he level of development. If all developers did it eventually there would be little to no software that caters to lesser builds. The actual point i was making is that most users who refuse to upgrade for reasons such as "i dont like the color" expect software to be catered to them. they dont want developers to exclude them when writing thier projects however its ok to exclude the users who have upgraded. In the case of the icons its possible to have the best of both worlds here but alot of features simply werent available or requireed mounds of additional code to achieve with older versions.

alot of user want the common controls integrated but forget to take into account that many of the features they provide are dependant on the IE version installed (MDX listview for example). Adding them to mIRC would indeed impose this restriction but we shouldnt leave it out simply because users of older builds wouldnt be able to take full advantage of all options/features. This would limit those who could.

Yeah you're right, I didn't include those who don't want to upgrade only because they don't like the colours or something like that.

I think it is a good Idea but who cares about that? I mean... as long as the program runs properly, people, (including me) could care less about an Icon. :tongue: