AIM for Requests? The people want AIM, by a 2.5:1 ratio. 05/08/02 xyzzy- - (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and informa (29 replies) 05/08/02 xyzzy- - (1)C. NO - other reasons (12 replies) 04/18/02 xyzzy- - (1)Should the bot use AIM for requests? (2 replies) 04/18/02 xyzzy- - (1)B. NO - software issues (0 replies) 04/19/02 xyzzy- - (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and informa (11 replies) 04/19/02 xyzzy- - (1)C. NO - other reasons (6 replies) 04/18/02 xyzzy- - (1)Should the bot use AIM for requests? (2 replies) 04/18/02 xyzzy- - (1)B. NO - software issues 04/16/02 xyzzy- - (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and informa Reply here if you agree I should use AIM for requests. Advantages are that requests are kept off public Audiogalaxy forums, so other people don't know what you're requesting. Also, there is no polling rather the bot can process your request as soon as it receives it. Thirdly, the bot can give you details on the status of your request, such as if it is successful, how many retries, and what the bot is trying to do to fix it. 04/17/02 avitec - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I'm agree to use the AIM 04/18/02 jhallai - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I prefer AIM. 04/18/02 jaodell - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf Aim is the way to go, to keep prying eyes away. Personally it would be easier. People could post their artist/albums lists in a sub-section, & make requests to certain people. All in all, more adaptable and effecient. 04/18/02 lollyharris - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I sounds very good to me. Thank you for all of the time you have put into this. 04/18/02 klaber1984 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I think AIM is a good way to go. Thanks for all of your hard work 04/19/02 SliderOh - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I already have AIM so it's ok with me :) 04/19/02 kardee25 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf AIM works for me:) 04/19/02 kixfan - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf It sounds good to me 04/19/02 Kiembeni - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I prefer this. All what you could hide on internet is worth to be used. 04/19/02 paulkellysr - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf Count me here 04/19/02 crzyhorse18 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf go for it 04/19/02 gnillors - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I think Nick Burns, the computer guy from SNL, nicely sums up my thoughts about using AIM for requests, when he says, "MOVE"! :)) Thanks for all your hard work! 04/20/02 meirby - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I'm game to try AIM. I'm not a messenger user but I'm willing to learn. 04/20/02 pdsm1 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf Use AIM, and thanks for all your work :) 04/21/02 stivenyfc - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I am willing to use AOL IM 04/22/02 tygrwolf - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I'm game for it hon :) 04/22/02 HybridTeory - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I see only advantages for using AIM... and thanks for all your hard work, looks like everyone appreciates it. 04/22/02 0ffshore - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf i prefer icq 04/24/02 ungeria - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf Don't actively use AIM but it definitely has some advantages for this application. 04/24/02 wigg4383 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf AIM definitely! Keep up your good work! 04/24/02 JROCC211 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf it's the best idea yet 04/27/02 Gudder - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf sounds good to me but really its up to you. You've done so much already. 04/29/02 wotzit2ya - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf i'll follow everyone else.....baaaaa 04/29/02 himynameisabcde - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf i agree. this thread thing is not working. please choose AIM! 04/30/02 aus_bmx_dude - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf I reckon there should be both going at once, so the users who don't like AIM can just use threads in here, and AIM so that it's easier and more secure. I hope that MSN Messenger can have the same feature aswell in the near future. 05/03/02 bassguitarhero - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, and inf ok for me let's use aim 05/08/02 Bigblock429 - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, Yes, for AIM.. Thanks :-) 05/08/02 graedrake - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, Though I will need to put in some work in order to get AIM to run on my box, it does sound like a good idea. The benefits of keeping out of AG's hair seem worth the effort, and this migh insure protection against any future changes AG makes in order to make things even more difficult. 05/08/02 hugofaria - re: (1)A. YES - it's more secure, faster, what's aim ? +++++++++++++ 04/18/02 xyzzy- - (1)C. NO - other reasons Reply here if you want to use the old thread-based bot for requests rather than an IM program, for other reasons not covered by the other choices. Please state your reason in your reply. 04/18/02 MarlboroMoB - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons No AIM. Just becuz its something more to learn/sort out problems. AG already works. If it aint broke dont fix it. When it stops working in AG(posting in threads), then goto AIM. Just my opinion. Thanks to the people that make Automated Requests possible. 04/19/02 jeffthechef - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons No to AIM simply because I have tried in vain to download it so I wouldn't be able to receive anymore songs :( thanks for your hard work anyway! 04/19/02 brinee - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons agree that if AG is working OK then why change ? 04/19/02 sexless - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons its definately worth considering for future ise but as things are i dont see a real need to change the system, having said that i'll go with the majority whatever the outcome is :) 04/19/02 kevpam - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons AG is working OK then why change it now 04/19/02 galazzi - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons NO AIM. I don't know why, but AIM don't work very well when my most used softwares are open. Please, no AIM! 04/20/02 SuBMerGeD_ComA - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons I agree that if there's no problem with AG then don't go to the trouble of changing it and maybe causing problems for people. So I vote a 'no' obviously. 04/20/02 lordvick - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons yea i agree..lets stick with ag 04/20/02 Arono - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons i think it's better to work with AG than use the AIM, because this is place u can find a lot of music and it's possible to send blocked songs.only if broke the shield again 04/21/02 wizard553273 - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons i think we should stick with AG.... i tried out the quick buddy and java versions of AIM and it was kinda confusing for me...... but then again im just a kid. hehe. well so long as somebody can show me how to work the AIM ill go with it, but for now it is NO AIM, YES AG :o) 05/02/02 drvasek - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons i like the way things are now. it works for me! 05/08/02 kevpam - re: (1)C. NO - other reasons AG is working OK then why change it now