Microsoft Comic Chat, an IRC client from 30 years ago that helped popularize Comic Sans, is going open source | Windows Central ⁠74%

By Zac Bowden⁠59%

7/16/2026, 5:46:51 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 227 faulty-reasoning hits from 202 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,564 of 21,168 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.70% of the article peer group.

Microsoft's once popular IRC client "Comic Chat" is being open sourced to celebrate its 30th anniversary. 
Those who frequented the world wide web in the 90's will likely remember Comic Chat for being a unique experiment into how IRC chatting could be, featuring graphical avatars that presented chats and chatrooms in comic strip form. 
"Today, we’re excited to announce the open-source release of Microsoft Comic Chat, the chat client that automatically turned conversations within Internet Relay Chat (IRC) into comic panels featuring illustrated characters, speech bubbles, and expressions, and helped introduce the world to a little font called Comic Sans," Microsoft's Scott Hanselman announced in a blog post today. 
Although from the 90s, Comic Chat is still functional as an IRC client today, though most people likely don't use it anymore. 
Still, with the app now being open source, perhaps developers and tinkerers will be more open to breathing life back into the 30 year old app. 
The Comic Chat source code is now public on GitHub for anyone who wants to take a look and compile their own version. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 5.7%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.3%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Zac Bowden: 3.6%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic18.8%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.0%Windows Central: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.6%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 4.2%Windows Central: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 6.7%Windows Central: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.5%Windows Central: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.9%Zac Bowden: 0.8%Windows Central: 0.8%Status Quo Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.9%Zac Bowden: 14.4%Windows Central: 8.1%Optimism Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.4%Windows Central: 3.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 5.0%Windows Central: 8.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.4%Windows Central: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.4%Windows Central: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 2.9%Windows Central: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 2.8%Windows Central: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.2%Zac Bowden: 3.6%Windows Central: 3.9%Appeal to Authority27.2%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 29.7%Zac Bowden: 10.6%Windows Central: 8.8%Hasty Generalization29.7%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 2.0%Windows Central: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.5%Windows Central: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.9%Zac Bowden: 5.3%Windows Central: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.9%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 7.4%Windows Central: 3.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 3.0%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 3.1%Windows Central: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.1%Windows Central: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 12.1%Windows Central: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.0%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 4.7%Windows Central: 7.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

202 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker27%attributed speech147writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageScott Hanselman • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Hanselman

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words100% of attributed speech59% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.