Official Google Talk Thread

.































































































































































































































































.


























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.


























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.





























































































































































































































































.































































































































































































































































.


























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.


























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.



























































































































































































































































.

 

[Aenygma]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
So you can't group contacts???

I'd like to separate people by forums and whether they're friends, family, pimps, etc.
_______________________________________


BTW, I am Ross' friends family pimp, thus the need for his question.

 

[archcommus]

What the freaking hell did this new member just do?

NFSs4???

 

[EKKC]

ban him

 

[archcommus]

Now I must use the End key on my keyboard.

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: archcommus
What the freaking hell did this new member just do?

NFSs4???

sure was a long post, so can you use emoticons with gtalk?

 

[archcommus]

And you're an idiot for quoting it.

 

[kermalou]

what the hell was that?

 

[screw3d]

fvcking idiots

 

[haveblue]

Second thread he's done that in.. or.. someone has done that in.. I can't remember the thread, so I can't go back looking for it..

 

[jamesave]

BAN NFSs4

 

[bjc112]

meh,

I'll stick with AIM.

 

[EKKC]

works through corporate proxy. another :thumbsup: for google talk

i am at a client now and connected to their network, normally aim and msn dont work
but gtalk works nice

 

[toekramp]

hwo about not quoting him anymore...

 

[dug777]

msn is much shinier and more uselful..but googletalk is kinda kewl in a classic ipod looking way

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: archcommus
And you're an idiot for quoting it.

QFT.

 

[upsciLLion]

I'm trying to edit my post, but I keep getting this error. I guess I'm too legit for the system.

Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request timed out.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.Web.HttpException: Request timed out.

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

Stack Trace:


[HttpException (0x80004005): Request timed out.]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2032; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2032

 

[Liviathan]

charlief1975 at gmail.com

 

[alocurto]

Originally posted by: dartworth
OMGHOWMANYCHATCLIENTSDOWENEED@gmail.com

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Why is this better than other chat protocols?

Cause it uses Jabber (or XMPP), which is a totally open source protocol that can be extended easily (like Google did with VoIP) and Jabber clients can connect to any Jabber server across the net. It's an alternative to the closed-source, hacky protocols of AIM and MSN and Yahoo.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: Parrotheader

Originally posted by: trmiv
I just can't see this being that successful with them being so late to the game. Most people are already well entrenched with either AIM, Yahoo, or MSN, why would they switch? Yea. you can start using it, doesn't mean your friends and family will. I can't see anyone I chat with switching, because Yahoo does exactly what they need it to, allows them to chat with people, and they already have very large lists.

We were discussing this earlier today when we heard about this. We're about to upgrade all the systems in our office and originally there was talk that the company was going to request that everyone switch over to Microsoft Messenger due to its Outlook integration. But the backlash from people so well entrenched with extensive lists of friends, family and coworkers in AIM and Yahoo caused them to nix that idea.

No doubt, a lot of people will flock to this though because it's a Google product. I love Google too, but at this point I'm personally reluctant to add another service if I don't have to because I honestly haven't had any problems with my current IM services. Seemingly everybody has AIM and I like the featureset of Yahoo's current client. If enough people from my own circle migrate over to it I'll make the jump, but probably not until then. I'll just fiddle around with it for the time being.

See, this entire conversation here is one of the big problems with IM communication. The fact that we're talking about people "switching" to Google Talk and Google "stealing" users away from AIM and MSN is a symptom of the problem. IM should be like email: everybody should be able to talk to everyone without worrying about whether or not they belong to the same network. How would you like it if your AOL email account can only be used to send email to other AOL users? Or you can only email Yahoo accounts with your Yahoo email address?

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Parrotheader

Originally posted by: trmiv
I just can't see this being that successful with them being so late to the game. Most people are already well entrenched with either AIM, Yahoo, or MSN, why would they switch? Yea. you can start using it, doesn't mean your friends and family will. I can't see anyone I chat with switching, because Yahoo does exactly what they need it to, allows them to chat with people, and they already have very large lists.

We were discussing this earlier today when we heard about this. We're about to upgrade all the systems in our office and originally there was talk that the company was going to request that everyone switch over to Microsoft Messenger due to its Outlook integration. But the backlash from people so well entrenched with extensive lists of friends, family and coworkers in AIM and Yahoo caused them to nix that idea.

No doubt, a lot of people will flock to this though because it's a Google product. I love Google too, but at this point I'm personally reluctant to add another service if I don't have to because I honestly haven't had any problems with my current IM services. Seemingly everybody has AIM and I like the featureset of Yahoo's current client. If enough people from my own circle migrate over to it I'll make the jump, but probably not until then. I'll just fiddle around with it for the time being.

See, this entire conversation here is one of the big problems with IM communication. The fact that we're talking about people "switching" to Google Talk and Google "stealing" users away from AIM and MSN is a symptom of the problem. IM should be like email: everybody should be able to talk to everyone without worrying about whether or not they belong to the same network. How would you like it if your AOL email account can only be used to send email to other AOL users? Or you can only email Yahoo accounts with your Yahoo email address?

Well we never said we liked the fact that each network is essentially closed off from the others. I'm simply trying to cope with the systems as they exist right now. And in the current state of affairs, I'll likely have to stick with AIM & Yahoo for the forseeable future as I doubt most of my friends, family and coworkers will all jump to something new simultaneously just because it's a Google product. And just personally, as far as the client software and not the network goes, I still like Yahoo's more than any of the others out right now anyway (particularly for its integration with Launchcast, it's stroing VOIP and voicemail capabilities) so I doubt I'll drop that anyway.

Maybe if enough people switch over over the long haul, it'll force AIM, Yahoo and Microsoft to open up their networks. The situation kind of reminds me of the cell phone companies. All of them have had free (or virtually limitless) in-network calling for quite awhile now. But it comes out of your paid plan's minutes if you want to talk to someone on another network. I think AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft will likely fight tooth and nail to keep their networks private for right now, but if Google (or another open source network) rapidly gains in favor they'll gradually reach a tipping point where they'll probably change their tune rather than risk losing the bulk of their user base.

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: Parrotheader

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Parrotheader

Originally posted by: trmiv
I just can't see this being that successful with them being so late to the game. Most people are already well entrenched with either AIM, Yahoo, or MSN, why would they switch? Yea. you can start using it, doesn't mean your friends and family will. I can't see anyone I chat with switching, because Yahoo does exactly what they need it to, allows them to chat with people, and they already have very large lists.

We were discussing this earlier today when we heard about this. We're about to upgrade all the systems in our office and originally there was talk that the company was going to request that everyone switch over to Microsoft Messenger due to its Outlook integration. But the backlash from people so well entrenched with extensive lists of friends, family and coworkers in AIM and Yahoo caused them to nix that idea.

No doubt, a lot of people will flock to this though because it's a Google product. I love Google too, but at this point I'm personally reluctant to add another service if I don't have to because I honestly haven't had any problems with my current IM services. Seemingly everybody has AIM and I like the featureset of Yahoo's current client. If enough people from my own circle migrate over to it I'll make the jump, but probably not until then. I'll just fiddle around with it for the time being.

See, this entire conversation here is one of the big problems with IM communication. The fact that we're talking about people "switching" to Google Talk and Google "stealing" users away from AIM and MSN is a symptom of the problem. IM should be like email: everybody should be able to talk to everyone without worrying about whether or not they belong to the same network. How would you like it if your AOL email account can only be used to send email to other AOL users? Or you can only email Yahoo accounts with your Yahoo email address?

Well we never said we liked the fact that each network is essentially closed off from the others. I'm simply trying to cope with the systems as they exist right now. And in the current state of affairs, I'll likely have to stick with AIM & Yahoo for the forseeable future as I doubt most of my friends, family and coworkers will all jump to something new simultaneously just because it's a Google product. And just personally, as far as the client software and not the network goes, I still like Yahoo's more than any of the others out right now anyway (particularly for its integration with Launchcast, it's stroing VOIP and voicemail capabilities) so I doubt I'll drop that anyway.

Maybe if enough people switch over over the long haul, it'll force AIM, Yahoo and Microsoft to open up their networks. The situation kind of reminds me of the cell phone companies. All of them have had free (or virtually limitless) in-network calling for quite awhile now. But it comes out of your paid plan's minutes if you want to talk to someone on another network. I think AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft will likely fight tooth and nail to keep their networks private for right now, but if Google (or another open source network) rapidly gains in favor they'll gradually reach a tipping point where they'll probably change their tune rather than risk losing the bulk of their user base.

 

[chuckywang]

Posted in another thread:

Google Talk's VoIP programs in Comfort Noise (CN), which is that hiss you hear when you are talking on the phone. In the digital world, that hiss has to be explicitly programmed in or else people will get uncomfortable at dead silence.

 

[haveblue]

If Google want an IM monopoly like they have a search engine monopoly, it won't. It's kind of a paradox really.. I see it this way:

If Google Talk includes ability to communicate with AIM, ICQ, MSN, etc. It will become just like Trillian or Gaim. It won't move into the mainstream, but will linger to the "enthusiast" community, again just like Trillian or Gaim. Look at MSN for example. Did it support ICQ or AIM? No, but it easily took over. If you look at it really, none of the major clients supported other clients. The multi-network clients all remain relatively unused, in comparison to the number of people that use single network clients. In order for Google Talk to dominate, it has to stay a single network, otherwise it will get lost in the midst of the other multinetwork clients. To stand out and be successful, it has to be a single, more powerful network.

However, the problem with this is, that it won't catch on. I think it's too late now for a single network to dominate, as so many people wouldn't give up their massive MSN contact lists to switch to Google. In order for Google to "take over" many people need to start using it. However, it's so little known that it would take another "generation" of instant messaging youth to convert. See, my theory is that messaging clients go in phases. When I was in grade 6 or so, I was first introduced to ICQ. Not soon after, MSN came along. The system was better for me, and soon the few contacts I had were also on MSN, so ICQ faded away. However, now it's too late for many of my contacts to switch over, they simply wouldn't give up all their contacts to chat with a few people over Google, while they could be doing it over MSN anyway, as most people wouldn't give up MSN right away, until a significant number switched to Google. What needs to happen, is for Google to be introduced first to that new generation, the ones who are new to instant messaging, and who don't HAVE a contact list yet. They need to be introduced to Google firstly. That's the way Google has to take over. I don't feel that Google can thwart MSN with the availible feature set. To the mass instant messaging market, the stupid features of MSN are what make it likeable. With a few added features Google could and surely will match MSN in this respect, however in its current state it's not customizable enough. The emo kids want to express themselves with display pictures, and x's in their nicknames. MSN lets them do that, so they won't ditch it. In order to attract that crowd, it would need to have MSN support, so people can keep in touch with their contacts who won't convert. But, if Google adds multi-network support, it will fail, like I mentioned before.

Google needs to match and improve upon the likable features of each client. Keep it's incredible VoIP. Add the webcam support from iChat. Add MSN's display pictures, and changable nicknames. Add file transfers. Those are the things that I see Google Talk needing. Google potentially has the power to take over, it just needs those minor improvements, and a few crusaders to lead the way. If a few of us switch to Google, it will force our close friends to switch to Google as well, lest they lose us from their contacts. They'll end up using two clients for a while, but as more and more join the "crusade" and give up the other clients, more and more will switch to using both Google and another client. Soon, enough will have switched to Google that it's useless to have another client anymore, because the main friends you talk to will be using Google, because their other main friends have switched. It's a pyramid basicly. It just takes a few to convert a city.

That's the way instant messaging works. Different areas use different clients. For example, my area is majority MSN. Very few people use anything else anymore. I for one, will be starting the local crusade to convert to Google. It's just so vastly superior. I know it's beta right now, but it has so much more potential than any other client now. Soon, I'll hope to convert enough of my close friends that it will force their friends to convert, and so on. My goal is to make Google mainstream, at least within my school, by the end of the school year. That will be enough to start, as the lower grades will be converted too, and they'll convert the grades below them, and so on, until it gets down to the new ones to instant messaging, where they'll start with Google, instead of another client.




^ My rant from another forum.. some of it doesn't make sense here, 'cause it's taken out of context.. but that's my general opinion on it.. Google Talk is better than MSN.. for me anyway. My friend earlier today was ranting about why would he bother switching to Talk, when everyone uses MSN.. I convinced him to have a conversation with my over Talk.. I went out.. came home two hours later and "http://talk.google.com" is in his MSN nickname. It's just plain better. Even the text. However, he was already using a gmail account on MSN.. Google doesn't need to make their client able to talk to the MSN network.. but they DO need to make non-gmail email accounts able to sign up/log in on Google Talk.. that way the masses from hotmail won't have to change their email address.. because the email address is really more important than what client they use..

Anyway, that's all for now.. haha