I didn’t really read the policy when I got Pro 1.0, but with almost all software that you buy there’s only a set time during which you will receive updates (usually one year or until a new version is released). After that, you’ll have to pay for upgrades again. So, this doesn’t come as a shock to me, although if you’re right, this is a bad move. Especially seeing how this kind of software needs updates relatively often to ensure constant compatibility with the IM networks.

The one thing about Trillian that has made me decide to not pay for updates is the fact that during the year that they’ve had Pro 1.x they hadn’t had any major upgrades/patches.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that.

What I think you mean is if there are any other instant messenger programs that don’t allow saving of chats. There probably are, but that would mean somehow getting the other person to change the chat program he/she uses, and that’s not easy to get done. Not to mention that it’s basic functionality that’s expected by a lot of users, so programs that don’t allow for saving of chats will probably lack other functionality too.
Also important to mention is that even if you used another program that didn’t allow for saving of chats, but the other person didn’t change programs, nothing would’ve changed.

Argus is great and cheap, I’ll grant you that (thanks for the tip Jeff, I downloaded it a while ago)
I use webcamXP when I turn on both my webcams at the same time (either FTP-image upload or using a Flash viewer interfact on my site), that way I’ll only have to run one program. Also the overlay editor there is way superior to that of Argus, but you get what you pay for…

Although I do like the idea of not everyone being able to just jump in and view my webcam, I also agree that it often does become annoying when you have to invite someone each time you want them to view your cam. A link that people could click to automatically view your cam when it’s on (like what Yahoo has, including the “always allow list”) would indeed be a great feature.

Also, you’re right about the webcam image not being large enough, at least not by default. At work I have a notebook with the monitor resolution set to 1600×1200 and there the image does indeed stay too small even when it’s set to large, while on Yahoo I always “zoom” the view. At home the “small” size doesn’t bother me much because my monitor is set to a lower resolution (1280×1024) and everything already seems big compared to my monitor at work 🙂

One thing I forgot to mention in my first reply: using FTP instead of streaming, such as with an IM, can also reduce on bandwidth consumption. So if you have to keep that in line due to restrictions from your ISP, you might want to consider going with one of the programs Jeff and I wrote about.

Good luck, and let us know what you’ve decided to go with 🙂

I believe the Common Client CC App (ccapp.exe) is something installed by Norton AntiVirus, so that’s nothing to worry about.

MSN Messenger 6 does allow for resizing the webcam image. Just click on the little arrow below the webcam image and choose size (small, medium or large).

With that out of the way, I recommend getting a program that’ll automatically upload images to a webpage using FTP, or one that will run a virtual HTTP server on your computer and store the images there. Then when you’re on vacation, you can go to the webpage or your computer’s IP address and see images from your webcam (they could refresh every X seconds). IMO that’s the easiest solution when you don’t require sound and streaming images.
Then if you do want to hear what’s going on, or if you do want streaming images, just make a call home and tell whoever’s there to log on to MSN Messenger (getting a seperate cam for that would be easiest unless you trust they will turn off the FTP software before they turn the cam on on MSN, and then will turn the FTP software back on after the chat is over).

Also, there is software around that will run a virtual HTTP server on your computer and by using a Java Applet allow semi-streaming images to be broadcast. It most likely won’t be as smooth as when you use MSN Messenger, but just like with FTP images, you can take a look at any time you want without bothering anyone.

I have both a QuickCam Pro 3000 and a QuickCam Pro 4000, and really can’t say the 3000 has better image quality than the 4000. In fact, it’s quite the opposite since the QC3000’s images often turn out grainy where the QC4000’s images turn out bright and smooth.

Just a quick reply to explain what broku seems to have misunderstood:
First of all, I said ibuild4me could take drastic measures and format the hard disk. Of course that takes a lot of work in most cases, but it’s an option that should not be overlooked (although also not used until you don’t have any other options).

The last thing I said in my last reply was meant as something ibuild4me should ask himself rather than for him to answer on these forums.