hhh8785
02-14-2001, 02:50 PM
Warning: Rant Alert! Please be advised that the following post is a rant. Thank you.
This came to mind the other day:
Why is AIM better than AOL?
Why is it that I've never had problems connecting to AIM (except the time AOL was kicking me off)? I have AOL, and constantly have connection problems, getting kicked off, can't connect in the first place, etc. It irritates the hell out of me when AOL is something you pay for, but the service is 100 times $#!TT!ER than the free service that AIM provides! Why is it that I've never been kicked off of AIM like I get kicked off of AOL? You could put that with my previous statement. Bad service for AOL which you pay for, Good service for AIM which is free. It is like they are giving priority to these people who aren't even paying them, while giving the left overs to the people paying for the service. Why does AIM provide more features and better features than the instant messenger packaged with AOL? I've never used AOL6.0 and I refuse to, so I don't know if the IM service in it is any better than 4.0 or 5.0. But as far as 4.0 and 5.0 go, the IM service is very primative compared to AIM. If AIM is a new telephone, AOL's IM is two cans with a string between them. The AOL IM service is a white box where you talk. It has features like "CHANGE FONT COLOR!" and "CHANGE FONT SIZE!" and even "BOLD, ITALICS, AND UNDERLINED!" While AIM has all that smiley face jazz, the ability to actually talk to a person rather than type, file transferring abilities, a news ticker, and away messages. The buddy list in AOL is a primitive box with a few buttons and the names of the people online. The buddy list in AIM has lots of flashy **** that looks better, has the person's warning level, and info about how long they've been online and stuff. This just makes no sense to me. It can't understand it. You would think that the geniuses at AOL would figure out that they could be sitting on bags upon bags of money more than now if they had the better IM service in AOL instead of AIM. If they put the better service in AOL, it would improve the product of AOL overall, and keep their current customers happy, but also bring in more money from those instant message addicts out there who love AIM and can't live without the features it has. I have many friends who have AOL, but also use their AIM all the time, but never use the one in AOL. I constantly ask them why, when there is one in AOL. The response is always the same: AIM is so much better than AOL. You would think the guys behind AOL could put 2 and 2 together and figure out this stuff.
Thanks for the time and listening to my rant.
hhh8785
This came to mind the other day:
Why is AIM better than AOL?
Why is it that I've never had problems connecting to AIM (except the time AOL was kicking me off)? I have AOL, and constantly have connection problems, getting kicked off, can't connect in the first place, etc. It irritates the hell out of me when AOL is something you pay for, but the service is 100 times $#!TT!ER than the free service that AIM provides! Why is it that I've never been kicked off of AIM like I get kicked off of AOL? You could put that with my previous statement. Bad service for AOL which you pay for, Good service for AIM which is free. It is like they are giving priority to these people who aren't even paying them, while giving the left overs to the people paying for the service. Why does AIM provide more features and better features than the instant messenger packaged with AOL? I've never used AOL6.0 and I refuse to, so I don't know if the IM service in it is any better than 4.0 or 5.0. But as far as 4.0 and 5.0 go, the IM service is very primative compared to AIM. If AIM is a new telephone, AOL's IM is two cans with a string between them. The AOL IM service is a white box where you talk. It has features like "CHANGE FONT COLOR!" and "CHANGE FONT SIZE!" and even "BOLD, ITALICS, AND UNDERLINED!" While AIM has all that smiley face jazz, the ability to actually talk to a person rather than type, file transferring abilities, a news ticker, and away messages. The buddy list in AOL is a primitive box with a few buttons and the names of the people online. The buddy list in AIM has lots of flashy **** that looks better, has the person's warning level, and info about how long they've been online and stuff. This just makes no sense to me. It can't understand it. You would think that the geniuses at AOL would figure out that they could be sitting on bags upon bags of money more than now if they had the better IM service in AOL instead of AIM. If they put the better service in AOL, it would improve the product of AOL overall, and keep their current customers happy, but also bring in more money from those instant message addicts out there who love AIM and can't live without the features it has. I have many friends who have AOL, but also use their AIM all the time, but never use the one in AOL. I constantly ask them why, when there is one in AOL. The response is always the same: AIM is so much better than AOL. You would think the guys behind AOL could put 2 and 2 together and figure out this stuff.
Thanks for the time and listening to my rant.
hhh8785