MSN Client for Mac OS X

DrJonesAC2 writes "MSN has released its software client for Mac OS X today. This software functions just like the PC version with a few exceptions (like chat and money). This software launch has its glitches, however; you cannot download it from Microsoft's Mac site you need to go here to get it."

Comments

Does anyone care?

[osxuser-02]

Seems kinda strange to use MSN on a Mac. There are plenty of ISP options for Mac which would be either cheaper, or have more options for Mac users. Why have MSN if it's a crippled version?

Re:Does anyone care?

[goombah99]

yes, Because QWEST provides dsl via MSN, so its natural to be part of MSN.

Setting aside issues about the evil empire, Microsoft products on mac frequently dont suck. (e.g. look at office) or at least they dont suck as bad like they do on windows platforms. Microsoft's mac unit often puts the rest of the comany to shame.

Re:Does anyone care?

[MoCycleGeek]

There are some companies who use MSN for their off-site dialup access (Don't ask my why when there are cheaper alternatives).

With MSN for OSX the folks at those companies can use the 'approved' access method insted of having to poney up for their own dialup access. Esp helpful these days when most of the people I work with don't have their own dialup accounts anymore becuase they have switched to DSL/Cable at home for their Internet access.

Re:Does anyone care?

[osxuser-02]

You don't have to use MSN broadband with Qwest. I have DSL thru Qwest and use a third-party ISP (4dv.net). Not so much for the anti-M$ reasons, but because I get more features. MSN DSL still won't let you use gameservers or set up your own webserver.

Re:Does anyone care?

[MrTangent]

I agree in principle but more choice is a Good Thing? for the Macintosh platform.

Re:Does anyone care?

[sg3000]

> Microsoft products on Mac frequently don't suck

Shows the value of competition. Microsoft has to work as hard at the Mac market as any other software maker, so they're forced to compete. As a result, Office v.X was one of the first carbonized Mac applications (and used quite a few Mac OS X-specific features). Entourage is cool, Excel is really cool on the Mac, Word is okay, and PowerPoint is well ... tolerable. But they're obviously trying.

MSN for OSX. is released...

[coldwd]

One word:

woopideedoo

What's MSN?

[joto]

I thought it was a TV-channel of some kind. Or maybe some website. Oh no, now I remember, it was that extra icon that came with Windows 98 nobody used... Is that the client that is now ported to Mac OS X? I guess they'll be raving about it then... Lucky mac-users...

Re:What's MSN?

[redtail1]

Microsoft Shopping Network, isn't it?

Re:What's MSN?

[pb]

I just assumed it had something to do with their instant messaging service, you know, err... MSN... Messenger. (or is it .NET Messenger? Windows Messenger? Something...)

microsoft?

[bobba22]

Not having any MS software on my computer makes me feel a bit less "big-brothered". Apple provides me with useful tools for what I need to work/play. If MSN is what I think it is, I'm not sure they haven't been wasting their time as the target audience is certainly going to be a lot more clued-in than the general wintel user. I think people use apple to escape from products like MSN and .net. OS X is rapidy approaching the point where a virtual PC or MS software in general just isn't needed. Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:microsoft?

[mrpuffypants]

bib brother be damned. Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is great software hands down. I'd use good software even if it was called John Ashcroft's Super AIM SpySuite.

Important development

[rumpledstiltskin]

This is actually an important development, considering that OS X has a BSD core. MS is developing products that will interface with that operating system. Maybe this could be a step in the direction of developing applications for the OSS community. Mod this down as a troll if you'd like, but despite the heavy anti-MS rhetoric here on slashdot, MS does employ some of the best coders around. Having such a heavy player develop applications for free OS's could only help them become more accepted and mainstream.

Re:Important development

[cmoney]

Yes, but it's very easy to produce an OS X app that doesn't have anything to do with BSD. So MS producing an OS X app in and of itself shows no bearing on whether they'll be producing BSD (or OSS) apps in the future.

Re:Important development

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, boy. No, you're not a troll, but you are WOEFULLY underinformed.

Think of OS X as "UNIX plus." Okay? (Yes, this post sounds almost exactly like one from yesterday. That's because it's important enough to bear repeating.)

OS X has most of the application environments that are traditional in UNIX-based operating systems: the BSD environment (which includes libc and the other standard libraries) and X. (X is an optional install, but it's just a download from Apple.) It also includes things like OpenGL that are often found on UNIX-based operating systems.

OS X also includes Carbon, which is basically the Macintosh Toolbox with a few changes.

OS X also includes Classic, which is a VM that is essentially Mac OS 9.

OS X also includes Cocoa, which is basically NeXTstep.

OS X also includes the Java environment, including Swing.

A program for OS X can be written to run in ANY of these operating environments: BSD/X, Carbon, Classic, Cocoa, Java. (You can even mix and match them inside your application.)

Now, if an OS X application is written just for BSD or BSD+X, then it will easily port to another UNIX-based operating system that provides the same basic environment, like Linux or whatever.

However, nobody writes OS X software just for BSD or BSD+X, because the other environments are all drastically superior. And if a program is written for Carbon or Classic, then it can't be ported to anything other than a Mac. If a program is written for Cocoa, then it MIGHT be possible to port it back to NeXTstep or OpenStep or GNUstep, but only if it's a very simple program.

A Java program, of course, can run on any Java VM.

So what does all this mean? It means that when you say things like, "MS is developing products that will interface with that operating system. Maybe this could be a step in the direction of developing applications for the OSS community," you end up sounding like an idiot. Because software written for OS X has no more of a relationship with UNIX than software that was written for Windows, or for the original Mac OS.

Mac OS X is far more interesting and complicated than you realize.

Re:Important development

[i0wnzj005uck4]

"MS does employ some of the best coders around."

... which is the reason, I guess, that MS Project is such a joy to use? That we can now be thankful that when Word crashes now it saves a useful recovery document 50% of the time? That Word:Mac v.X is the only non-beta program under OSX that crashes on me more than once a month? (Yes, that's more than the Safari Beta, with Word:Mac at a crash per 7 uses or so.) That Longhorn, scheduled to arrive in 2005, will be implementing features from OSX from 2001, like using a 3D accelerator as a 2D compositing engine, and calling them revolutionary?

I'm an IT guy for a medical company. I spend 90% of my time helping my colleagues work around bugs in Office and related applications. I can't tell you the number of times someone has come to me flustered because their formatting was eaten after deleting a single line, or resizing a table. And is it just me, or did page numbering get more retarded in Office 2K2? Edits not done to sections or page breaks or the header/footer change the numbering? WTF?!

I won't even get into issues of workflow and UI design, aside from saying that Microsoft shot itself in the foot by making the workflow of Word:Mac a thousand times better than Word PC 2K2.

If Microsoft really does have genious coders working for it, they've yet to produce code to their potential.

The beginning of the end

[Enrico Pulatzo]

for MSIE, that is. I can't remember where I read it (and if I'm making it up, I get credit for calling it first ;), but MS is supposedly replacing IE with MSN Explorer for your internet exploring needs.

I've been waiting to switch...

[heldlikesound]

...to OSX, but this was the one killer app I needed!

Re:Dear Apple

[TheRaven64]

Actually, I think he's right. Most people DO think that homosexuality is a moral abomination.

Actually, I think a lot of people just see homosexuality as a way of eliminating some of the competition (and have you noticed how many girls seem to think that it's exactly the bit of the competition you want eliminated that manages to be gay?)

Not Mac specific...

[hexdcml]

Has anyone noticed this particular instruction?

To download: Click the Download link to start the download. Do one of the following:

To start the installation immediately, click Open or Run this program from its current location.

To copy the download to your computer for installation at a later time, click Save or Save this program to disk.

Isn't that a PC/IE trait? My IE for mac never used to give me that, nor Safari.

Hmm, just thought I'd bring that to light.

Broadband Access

[svenjob]

The one thing that MSN lacks is TCP/IP based broadband access on a pre-existing service (cable modem or DSL). AOL has it. Let's say you have a cable modem and want to try MSN. Too bad, you can't unless you have a modem. Not true for AOL. If they add that feature and then possibly charge a lower monthly fee for that kind of access, I feel they would attract a much larger audience (read: parents who already have cable modem or DSL). I know of 5 families who got hooked on AOL even though they already had cable modem. Go figure...

define irony

[branchstudios]

Isn't frustration with MS one of the reasons most people move to Mac/Linux?

I just can't see all those Mac users saying "mmm... finally, secure computing!"

Re:Dear Apple

[BandwidthHog]

That's always been my philosophy. I see a good-looking gay man, I'm a happy puppy. I figure the really attractive ones are equivalent (in RIAA math) to eliminating three average males from the dating pool.

Actually...

[douglasq]

Satisfaction with the Mac OS is why Mac users never move to Windows. I cannot speak for Linux users.

Re:Which browser does it embed?

[pmsyyz]

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; PPC Mac OS X 10.2.6; Tasman 0.9; MSN 8.0; MSN Explorer 2.0; MSNbMSN; MSNmen-us; MSNc11)

Wow, even longer than most Gecko user agents: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030513 Mozilla Firebird/0.6

Thanks. So the answer is Tasman, the Mac IE engine. But 0.9? Either the Mac IE team didn't think Tasman never was 1.0 material or the MSN people forked it earlier. The former I think considering how long it has been out. Maybe the version of Tasman in the current Mac IE (5.12 I think) is even lower than 0.9. It is strange that it calls itself MSIE 6.0 though.

Ummmm...okay...

[rockforever]

don't see where the news is. So okay, now there's a MSN client I won't use on OS X, just as there's a MSN client I won't use on Windows. Have a nice day.

Re:Which browser does it embed?

[SiMac]

I suspect that Tasman 0.9 is newer than the version in IE 5.2.1. According to CodeBitch's latest article, she's already seen a new version of IE in the logs, and the version in MSN Explorer for Mac is the same as the version that will be in the next IE.

Butterfly

[Erik K. Veland]

Funny thing that they chose to use a Butterfly as it's icon as it's essentially a bug.