Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Retiring Messenger, Replacing It With Skype

Entropy98 writes "Windows Live Messenger will be shut down by March 2013, after nearly 13 years of service, so Microsoft can focus its efforts on Skype, its recent $8.5bn acquisition. No word on whether users will be able to transfer their WLM accounts to Skype. 'According to internet analysis firm Comscore, WLM still had more than double the number of Skype's instant messenger facility at the start of this year and was second only in popularity to Yahoo Messenger. But the report suggested WLM's US audience had fallen to 8.3 million unique users, representing a 48% drop year-on-year. By contrast, the number of people using Skype to instant message each other grew over the period.'"

213 comments

  1. ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FTW

    1. Re:ICQ by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Pidgin ftw!

    2. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      talk me@somesever.edu

      FTW :)

    3. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Carrier pigeon ftw!

    4. Re:ICQ by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      jabber.org + pidgin (or anything else XMPP) = win

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:ICQ by officialkirill · · Score: 1

      hell no, use google account with pidgin or trillian or something

    6. Re:ICQ by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is afaict there are no open implementations of the skype protocol. There is an API but iirc you have to keep the skype client running to use it and platform support is somewhat limited. Here in the UK msn messenger (or whatever MS is calling it this month) seems to be the dominant IM network. If those users migrate to skype it will be a PITA.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:ICQ by asdf7890 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here in the UK msn messenger (or whatever MS is calling it this month) seems to be the dominant IM network

      I'm only one data-point, but a lot of people I know directly or indirectly seem to have switched away from MS's IM. It usually starts with using Facebook's IM for contacts that are on there then slowly logging into MSN/Live/what-ever less and less often until they don't bother at all (and reverting to mobile phone text messages for communicating with people who are not on facebook).

    8. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pidgin is shit. Miranda IM FTW.

    9. Re:ICQ by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Pffft, I still use MUDs to communicate with friends

    10. Re:ICQ by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Has anybody actually USED both IMs here? How do they compare? because my dad and all his old buddies are on Windows messenger and if its a giant change man is my life gonna SUCK because guess who has to deal with it.

      Why of why is Ballmer trying so hard to torpedo the company? Is he shorting the stock? Because he seems to be doing his damnedest to shit all over every popular property they have. If they wanted to add Skype support I can see that, even though I thought they were gonna push Skype for their business customers and maybe integrate it with the X720 or whatever its gonna be called, but why destroy something that is actually popular like Windows messenger?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:ICQ by BigBrownChunx · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, the 'new' MSN integration into Skype uses the XMPP protocol to connect to MSN with their own proprietary OAuth2 authentication mechanism. Is it still a win? :)

    12. Re:ICQ by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meet people in front of [beer | coffee | BBQ]

      FTW :)

    13. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSN has been going downhill like crazy, with most features being outright broken... Skype doesn't have these issues.

    14. Re:ICQ by GNious · · Score: 1

      My impression:

      MSN is pretty fast, stupid UI, lots of ads
      Skype is pretty bloated, stupider UI, lots of ads (in the corporate, paid-for version)

      Unless they fix the bloat in Skype, it'll be a turn for the worse.

    15. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use both regularly. I prefer messenger (even though each yearly UI update makes it worse and worse) for two reasons.

      1) WLM has a great image sharing function that allows users to copy+paste images or image URLs and display them in the client without having to save them, but with the option to. This is very important to me and many of my contacts as several are artists and it makes sharing works in progress for quick feedback incredibly easy.

      2) Custom emoticons. Picture says a thousand words. I would not enjoy chatting with my friends nearly as much without them, they allow us to express nuances lost in text as well as laugh at in-jokes.

      Skype has nice features like its persistent chat groups and I believe it syncs chat logs across computers, but it is a lesser experience.

    16. Re:ICQ by omglolbah · · Score: 2

      Not sure if joking or serious, as I actually do that .

    17. Re:ICQ by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lets do it!

      Are you coming over here to Spain or do I have to go to your place?

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:ICQ by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      What's Google's offering? They have a MASSIVE opportunity here, and six months to code it.

      Messenger has some essential features that Skype doesn't have, eg. drop images into the window for the other person to see them.

      If Google comes up with the goods before Messenger expires most people would probably switch to that instead of Skype.

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skype client on Linux is actually quite nice. Unobtrusive and clean. Windows one is POS though, and I think the OSX one is the same.

    20. Re:ICQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One does not need to travel that much for drinking a beer together with a friend. If you do, either you or your neighbours have problems socializing.

    21. Re:ICQ by bluescrn · · Score: 1

      Because they don't control it. They can't force you to use their client and bombard you with ads. With Skype, the client is a lot more locked-down, and there are no third party (guaranteed-ad-free) options :(

    22. Re:ICQ by bluescrn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MSN is completely ad-free if you use a 3rd-party client such as Pidgin. This is probably why they're shutting it down. With Skype, they control the client, there are no 3rd-party alternatives.

    23. Re:ICQ by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Skype is pretty bloated

      How?

      stupider UI

      UI seems easy to get for me? Click a name, got your message window, click 'call', calling them. Is that really stupider?

      lots of ads (in the corporate, paid-for version)

      I really only ever see it cycle through one or two ads and they're not even that noticeable... But if you really don't like them... Tools -> options -> Notifications -> Alerts & messages -> uncheck promotions

      Unless they fix the bloat in Skype

      What bloat?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    24. Re:ICQ by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You only use messenger to talk to your neighbors?

      Weird. I use it to talk to people who are more than a footstep away.

      --
      No sig today...
    25. Re:ICQ by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      GTalk (google talk). It's XMPP as well, and it connects to Jabber.org.

      You've had it available for ages (it's that chat thing in gmail also)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:ICQ by operagost · · Score: 1

      IMs have the advantage of not being ruined by some high-level wizard casting an ill-advised "summon" spell while you're chatting.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:ICQ by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Because they don't control it. They can't force you to use their client and bombard you with ads. With Skype, the client is a lot more locked-down, and there are no third party (guaranteed-ad-free) options :(

      Unchecking 'promotions' is so hard in skype options, isn't it?

      But if you don't like using the Skype client, use a SIP client with http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/skype-connect/

      You have options.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    28. Re:ICQ by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You could just uncheck 'promotions' Skype options you know...

      Also, you can use a SIP client just fine with http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/skype-connect/

      So yes, there are 3rd party alternatives.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    29. Re:ICQ by GNious · · Score: 1

      Skype is pretty bloated

      How?

      stupider UI

      UI seems easy to get for me? Click a name, got your message window, click 'call', calling them. Is that really stupider?

      lots of ads (in the corporate, paid-for version)

      I really only ever see it cycle through one or two ads and they're not even that noticeable... But if you really don't like them... Tools -> options -> Notifications -> Alerts & messages -> uncheck promotions

      Unless they fix the bloat in Skype

      What bloat?

      I'll add details:
      * Starting Skype seems to take a while (just tried)
      ** 25 seconds until any window comes up
      ** 35 seconds until logged in
      * Skype seems to use quite a bit of memory
      ** 69 megs physical and growing despite not using the program (just started it, 1 minute ago)
      ** 110 megs virtual
      *** Trillian running for the last several hours is using 12/65 megs, with connection to several networks
      * Switch view (e.g. to contacts) takes 1-2 seconds .. doesnt feel instantaneous like in other clients
      * Ads on windows version (might be able to turn off) are getting in the way
      ** Ads that have been closed reopen spontaneously, moving things around
      ** Ads in corporate version is just plain wrong
      * UI is a lot larger than any other Chat/IM tools I've used - "softer" and wasting screen space
      ** Large buttons (specially in windows version)
      ** Can be turned into just contact list, but then getting a chat-window opening results in same over-kill UI
      *** 80+ px to show name of the person you're chatting with is too much

      Overall, between it (Skype) and all other IM and most VoIP programs I've used, it _feels_ slower and the UI is less sleek => I get impression of bloat.

      Note: I'm not expecting to use the more fancy options Skype might have. We have separate tool for sharing apps/screens, we have real VoIP phones and generally don't use camera-based calls. In this context, I'm looking at Skype purely for chatting, and it is not the fastest and sleekest option there is.

  2. AOL wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    AOL IM finally won! Good job AOL!

    1. Re:AOL wins! by aliquis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It (well, ICQ but same shit) was the first one over here. But then for whatever reason people switched to MSN.

      Personally I belong in the camp who used IRC and never saw why I needed ICQ to begin with.

    2. Re:AOL wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it came bundled with windows, and had those stupid animations that little girls loved.... and because of webcam support.

    3. Re:AOL wins! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      And because MSN had far less advertising.
      Atleast that's why I dumped ICQ like the bag of trash that it was.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:AOL wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because IRC is for when you want to chat with many people at the same time while IM services are for when you want to have chats with individual people. They're structured in completely different ways for that reason.

    5. Re:AOL wins! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      In our case in one of the channel and the one we used the most we knew each other IRL.

      So the difference was small. The obvious advantage is that you can just type anything and see if someone bite / there's likely always someone awake and available.

      And there's private messages if you want them.

      But of course I do understand the supposed advantage of the other IM clients is to show your pressence even if you aren't there for chat (which would also be doable on IRC but whatever.)

    6. Re:AOL wins! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I guess the real difference is that you've got a user list on the IM services but not on IRC. But you can likely set up some notification for who's online to.

      Anyway, for whatever reason people saw a usage for both and IMHO IRC is more complicated (the first times I used it it wasn't very simple for me :))

    7. Re:AOL wins! by unix_core · · Score: 1

      Also, with IRC you can be completely sure that you won't have to talk to any non-geeks.

  3. Windows Live Messenger Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Umm... Skype 6.0 already began integrating WLM and Skype accounts. See http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/24/3547644/skype-6-0-mac-windows-release

    1. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm... Skype 6.0 already began integrating WLM and Skype accounts.

      It's a shame Skype got bought out. It's already getting bloaty and beginning to suck in various ways.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      bloaty: Noun. A weasel word for things I don't like.

    3. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It started getting bloated long before Microsoft acquired them. Anything that doesn't have to do with making calls or chatting is bloat. Integrated social networking? Advertisements to "spark conversations"?

    4. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by PReDiToR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Get an old version then.

      Skype has been too integrated and full of crap and ads for a while now.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    5. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by humanrev · · Score: 3, Informative

      Turn the ads off then. There's an option in the Skype settings to do so (think it's around Notifications somewhere). Old versions just expose you to security vulnerability that are fixed in newer versions, not to mention older protocols and lower quality codecs.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    6. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      It's a shame Skype got bought out. It's already getting bloaty and beginning to suck in various ways.

      Skype is the new Hotmail. Skypers are migrating to Google Talk in droves.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      False.

      You might as well call a radio in a car 'bloat'.

      It seems bloated because it's slow to respond. It also is difficult to completely shut down; which is unforgivable.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously is anyone actually migrating to Google Talk? I can understand dumping Skype or messenger, but going to google talk??? that is like saying I haven't been beaten to death enough I need something more intrusive and less responsive to really bend me over.

    9. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      It also is difficult to completely shut down; which is unforgivable.

      Right click in task bar - quit skype

      --
      It is what it is.
    10. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also is difficult to completely shut down; which is unforgivable.

      Only if you're a complete retard; which is unforgivable.

    11. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Skype used to run fine on my netbook. It insists on updating itself - there's no way to stay on old versions. It got more and more sluggish with time - it took longer to launch and the video call quality decreased.

      Now when I run it it pops up a message saying "Your computer speed is very slow"

      http://community.skype.com/t5/Windows/Your-computer-speed-is-very-slow/td-p/385505

      Skype used to work fine on machines that were a lot more underpowered than a netbook even on connections that were a lot slower than my current 50Mbit down 8Mbit up DSL.

      If you can't get crappy video in CIF-like resolution to work over an 8Mbit uplink given a dual core Atom with SSE at 1.6Ghz, I'd say the word bloated is about right. Especially if, as I suspect in the Skype case, the problem is not that you don't have the CPU horsepower to compress the video but that the app wraps up efficient video codec into a large application such that the video codec bit gets starved out. Of course if you have a fast CPU you probably don't have this problem. Still older versions of Skype actually worked a lot better on the same hardware, and even older versions used to run perfectly with a slower CPU and a slower connection. And it's not like it's impossible to decouple the video codec from the rest of the application and run it at a higher priority.

      Skype for whatever reason just decided to put up a passive aggressive warning was easier than making their software work on netbooks when they found the issue during testing (why else was the warning code put in?). Even though realistically a lot more people are going to run Skype on a netbook than on a developer class laptop.

      It's actually typical of modern Microsoft that they've bought something like Skype long after it has passed its prime. Skype a decade ago worked very well indeed. Modern Skype seems to be getting worse and worse. Still I'm sure the WinRT rewrite will solve all these issues, because one thing modern Microsoft APIs are known for is reducing bloat and making code run well on low end hardware.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's clearly an adjective.

    13. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Best way to stay 3 versions behind on Skype? Run it on Linux! ;)

    14. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might as well call a radio in a car 'bloat'.

      Yes and furthermore it is the cause of vast numbers of road accidents.

      Lethal bloat.

    15. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Zeussy · · Score: 2

      So going to oldapps.com, getting a nice older version of skype. And going Tools -> Advanced -> Automatic Updates (or similar depending on version) and disabling it doesn't work for you like it does for me?

    16. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The problem with vendors doing what Skype are doing is that you can't get security fixes without ending up with an app that you need to run on your development machine to get decent performance.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Now Microsoft have bought it it's likely to get even worse. Which is fine, unless someone finds an exploit in the older versions. Then again, it's unlikely people would write their exploit code in such a way that it works with your particular version of glibc and so on - they'd target Windows and not bother trying to make it portable.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    18. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      And if I go back to 4.2.0.187 Secunia PSI flags it as vulnerable - e.g.

      http://secunia.com/advisories/47856/

      It's not clear if this vulnerability only affects 5.x or if the 4.x code is vulnerable too. Plus it still complains about the machine being slow.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    19. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      At least Google Talk is based on an open protocol, which means you are not locked in, and have a chance of having a half-decent client for your chosen platform which isn't bogged down with adware.

      I tried out the Skype client for Windows recently - the Linux client may lag behind on features, codecs, etc, but it has Zen-like simplicity compared to the Windows client which seems to exist purely to sell me things, in a visually noisy way.

    20. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't the radio, but the drivers allowing themselves to be distracted by it.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    21. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but I've seen the opposite. Skype used to be utter shit on smartphones, now its been properly optimised to not constantly peg the processor and constantly send data. Skype has an indicator telling the other party you're typing that would devour mobile battery life because you're in constant communication with skype servers. Now its a push/pull system where it only pushes when you finish a message and only pulls when the skype server receives a message for you while you're logged in mobile. This was a MUCH needed optimisation and I'm glad they implemented it.

    22. Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration by johnpagenola · · Score: 1

      This. I put Leopard and the 2.8.0.866 version of Skype on a ppc G5 Imac for my wife's Skyping. No bloat. Works perfectly.

  4. Gtalk/Facebook by RobbieCrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hasn't everyone stopped using AIM/MSN and moved on to Gtalk/Facebook Messenger?

    --
    Keep on knockin'
    https://robbiecrash.me
    1. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. Not everyone is 12.

    2. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped using AIM to use gtalk. See, gtalk isn't blocked from the gmail webpage here, but everything else is.

    3. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with IRC?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't everyone stopped using AIM/MSN and moved on to Gtalk/Facebook Messenger?

      Moved on? Lol. If you're using any of those, you might as well just be another AOLer.

    5. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised unfortunately.

      I think it just boils down to people having the FB app running on mobile devices and it becomes the de facto way to reach them. At that point why launch anything else...

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    6. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I still can't bring myself to kill my ICQ account. Some people collect stamps. Others collect figurines. I collect dead social networks.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I use what my friends use, and unfortunately most of them are still using lame networks.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IRC is great for chat, but ever tried audio of video chat with IRC? Also sending files with DCC doesn't work 9 out of 10 times.

    9. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      I collect dead social networks.

      That answers my question why you're on slashdot.

      /ducks

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    10. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Hatta · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure why I'd want to audio or video chat. Text chat is simply better.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      With Skype HD you can see if the 25yo with 6 years of French is trolling you with his latest persona.
      With Skype HD you can see if the 24yo with 5 years of advanced Math and a security clearance is trolling you with his latest persona.
      A web cam is justly commended as a remedy for social and trolling diseases found on irc.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Different networks, more advanced clients and lack of webcam support I suppose.

      KDE telepathy stuff would had been cleaner without all these protocols.

    13. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook? Sir, this is slashdot. Not some kind of pre teen privacy give away convention. I should hope everyone here is smart enough to not have a facebook account! And knowledgeable enough to not trust google.

      duckduckgo ftw! icq and irc ftw! welcome to slashdot!!!!

    14. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      IRC is fine as a chatroom protocol. It's not so hot as an IM protocol. Nicks are poor as a way of idenfitying users due to the fact that many users change them to indicate status and in many cases nick ownership is not enforced but nicks are the only identifier you can use to query if a user is online. Further there is no command to take a list of users and give you all their statuses at once and combined with the relatively dumb rate limiting system* this makes updating a buddy list slow even if the nicks are stable. Finally as someone else mentioned it isn't federated so you have to maintain seperate connections to every IRC network you have friends on.

      XMPP (formerly jabber) on the other hand does things right for an IM protocol. Anyone can run a server and users on different servers can talk to each other with users identified by user@host like with email. Sadly unlike email which had developed in the days when the internet was built on openness and interoperability jabber came along while everyone else was trying to lock users into their proprietary IM systems and didn't really gain much traction.

      * Rate limiting makes sense but limiting queries that can be served locally to the same rate used to limit state changes that traverse the whole network doesn't.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    15. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by westlake · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with IRC?

      The IRC Chat clients which only a geek could love.

      Multiple networks (mIRC lists over fifty) and hundreds of channels but none with a critical mass of users.

    16. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      you are not the only person on earth, and your opinion and preferences are one of many.

    17. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Thanks for defining better for everyone~

      My mother like to look at her grand kids when she talks to them form the other side of the country.
      And I could go on, but you get the point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by PhillyMeeks · · Score: 2

      Aren't we all basically 12? C'mon, be honest...

      --
      "Women. Can't live with 'em. Pass the beer nuts." -Norm
    19. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      I agree. Governments have put a lot of effort into forcing interoperability on telecommunications lines, yet on the internet it's becoming all proprietary. I guess the difference is the cutting-edge nature. Like it or not, systems like Facebook and MSN/Skype identified deficiencies in existing protocols and were able to provide improvments far more quickly than if an industry standard had to be developed. They also work better for being under centralised control.

      Ultimately I hope, once things mature, that open standards will prevail. It's insane to handcuff society's means of communication to corporations.

    20. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer soupcan and string technology

    21. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to being a dumbass you mean?

    22. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, adults all use AOL Instant Messenger. Because they're old and disconnected from modern technology.

    23. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's wrong with IRC?

      Young whipper-snapper. In my day we used "talk" from the command line! We didn't need any fancy IRC doo-dads or color tags. We didn't pull any of that slap with a trout nonsense either! It was a simpler time, and we liked it!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    24. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

      You don't need to actually use Facebook. Just connect Pidgim, Adium or wathever client you use to the service. You can even use OTR if you are paranoid.

    25. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by antdude · · Score: 1

      I still see many still using YM and AIM. One using ICQ and a few MSN. Many with GTalk. I don't use Facebook so no comments on that.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    26. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us have girlfriends who aren't ugly.

      You can stick to your robe and wizard hat stuff.

    27. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      IRC is fine as a chatroom protocol. It's not so hot as an IM protocol. Nicks are poor as a way of idenfitying users due to the fact that many users change them to indicate status and in many cases nick ownership is not enforced but nicks are the only identifier you can use to query if a user is online. Further there is no command to take a list of users and give you all their statuses at once and combined with the relatively dumb rate limiting system* this makes updating a buddy list slow even if the nicks are stable.

      Some servers, like Rizon, allow users to register their usernames. So that can help as far as the "identifying the user" business. Pidgin lets you use IRC quite a bit like IM. You can add IRC usernames to your buddy list like you would on any IM network, combine them with other logins for a single "online/offline" indicator per person. Talking to a person in a separate tab from the channel you're in makes the entire convo private massages between the two of you. You can also add IRC chatrooms to your buddy list to easily join them.

      It's not as good as IM (frankly I like Yahoo best because I can combine multiple types of text formatting in one message), but it's better than having to type text-based commands to do everything.

    28. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Not if they trade commodities. AIM has been entrenched in commodities trading for a very long time. AIM is used as deal confirmation system and if your company doesn't use AIM then other broker/traders don't like dealing with you. Companies are experiencing a chicken/egg conundrum. We've been looking at OCS (now called Lync) for at least 4 years as a replacement because of it's ability to communicate with AIM clients. Except the ability to do that costs extra (per seat) and it is no small fee. Especially when using the AIM client is free (IM recording backend not withstanding).

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    29. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Yet, you need to have a facebook account. Unlike gmail/gtalk or other jabber services, it is not possible to send messages from facebook chat to other XMPP networks.

    30. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by JazzVoid · · Score: 1

      I've been using GTalk for years but it kind of sucks when you're using it with 3rd-party client. Most of it's features and XEPs are GTalk-exclusive and at the same time it doesn't support popular modern XEPs like "publish tune".

    31. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a client, you need to know server information, you need to know channels, you need to have a OP rights and understanding of IRC functions.

      IRC is good if you need group chat for huge amount of people (50+).

      Otherwise email and even newsgroup is better. And if you have 2-10 users, a Google+ hangout is much better.

      I just installed plugin for Gtalk video talk yesterday and it was way easiest way to get a video call working. I compared it to WLM and Skype.

      The bad thing, other needs GMail, what isn't such a big problem these days.
      I don't like that I am forced to show my name in public in any social network. Thats why I prefer email, IM and IRC (in that order).

    32. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freenode has a pretty decent level of usership among the techy types, although reading the rules would be scary if you didn't know that most of the rules only apply if you have a huge a channel or the netops don't like you. (/me hugs christel)

    33. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Facebook chat isn't really an XMPP network, it just has an XMPP bridge (and a rather lossy one at that). That's why a lot of XMPP features aren't supported, although that doesn't really justify them deliberately breaking groups (it used to put contacts into groups based on your friend lists, now it just dumps them all in one huge group).

    34. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      I collect dead social networks.

      I can't help picturing you as Egon Spengler when you say this.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    35. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      I can't reliably remember the dates of birth of my children, but I can still remember my skype ID which I haven't used for approximately ten years.

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    36. Re:Gtalk/Facebook by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Pidgin keeps em going for me. You can have my ICQ number when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  5. No thanks. by Seumas · · Score: 1

    If I'm going to go with one big evil super corporation with ties to government agencies and concerns about privacy and yadda yadda, I might as well use the one I've used for years that is between free and super cheap and way less bloated -- Google Voice.

    1. Re:No thanks. by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I'm going to go with one big evil super corporation with ties to government agencies and concerns about privacy and yadda yadda, I might as well use the one I've used for years that is between free and super cheap and way less bloated -- Google Voice.

      Google Voice is a internet based Answering Machine. It does not support Video.

      Google Talk is a slightly proprietary Jabber (XMPP) client that includes Voice and Video streams on some devices.

      Neither is exactly like Skype.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:No thanks. by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Google+ Hangouts is the closest equivalent to Skype in Google-land.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:No thanks. by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Please do not feed the pedants. I have started using my google account for video conferencing and found it to be better than Skype when there are bandwidth problems (why we decided to try it). I also found Oovoo better in the same situation. Several issues with Skype make it a problem for me but it is much more suitable for terrorists etc. as it does not store any data... Great for the tinfoil hat brigade but if you send a message to someone who is not online, they do not get that message if you are not online when they get online. They online get the message when you both come online at the same time (this is a problem as I am dealing with people all over the world and in very different time zones) so I have to use another method to send the message, i.e. gmail, so why not stay in the google front end and use their video conference facility.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    4. Re:No thanks. by aultsegf · · Score: 1

      Please do not feed the pedants. I have started using my google account for video conferencing and found it to be better than Skype when there are bandwidth problems (why we decided to try it). I also found Oovoo better in the same situation. Several issues with Skype make it a problem for me but it is much more suitable for terrorists etc. as it does not store any data... Great for the tinfoil hat brigade but if you send a message to someone who is not online, they do not get that message if you are not online when they get online. They online get the message when you both come online at the same time (this is a problem as I am dealing with people all over the world and in very different time zones) so I have to use another method to send the message, i.e. gmail, so why not stay in the google front end and use their video conference facility.

      You are a terrible tin-foil-hatter. You just told them to use Skype.

  6. Smells like a bundled update... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Not sure I like the sound of that.

    The last thing I want is some election year halfwit or spammer suddenly popping up on my desktop to expound their views or blast me with unwanted content. Better be a big DISABLE button somewhere easy to find.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Smells like a bundled update... by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      How about a big UNINSTALL button.

    2. Re:Smells like a bundled update... by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      If that happens, you could just do what most people on ChatRoulette do....

      Show 'em the DONG!

    3. Re:Smells like a bundled update... by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

      If that happens, you could just do what most people on ChatRoulette do....

      Show 'em the DONG!

      Might I suggest you use a more widely accepted currency like the US dollar, Euro or British Pound. You'll never get a good exchange rate on Dong outside Vietnam.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  7. Facebook Chat killed it by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There, I said it. Nobody I know uses Messenger anymore, but practically everyone is using Facebook Messenger. Some have basically replaced both IM and email with it.

    1. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh.. I guess I'm nobody then. And so is my list of about 15 people I chat everyday on it with.

      I like Windows Live Messenger.. it's simply, it doesn't suck like Skype, and it doesn't require Facebook. I use gTalk sometimes too, but that seems to be an Android user thing; people with iPhones rarely use gTalk, even when logged into GMail. As it is, this really pisses me off, because I really like Windows Live Messenger. It's going to be a real mess for me to find one way to talk to all these people after it goes away..

    2. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can vouch for this. Since facebook became popular I only every see one other person logging into my msn chat, and we don't chat via it anyway. Out of almost 40 people, nobody uses it or their hotmail.com addresses anymore, some have not logged in for years. I pretty much keep it there just for posterity (I've been on msn since if first came out, ironically, also because everyone just shifted to using msn messenger and I had no choice but to follow or lose contact) but will probably not notice if it vanished tomorrow.

      If they were to shut down msn, I probably won't notice that much, thankfully fb chat is XMPP based, so I can connect to it with a normal jabber client, so it could have been a worse alternative.

    3. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still use MSN Messenger to talk with suppliers and vendors. Don't use it for anything else though.

    4. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      The great thing is that instant messaging and emailing/PMing is the same thing in Facebook and you seamlessly transfer between them.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      MSN Messenger (or whatever they're calling it these days) is still the dominant IM network in Canada, and still held a 40% global marketshare as of a year ago. Facebook chat has certainly risen in use, but it's not typically used as an IM client outside of the website itself.

    6. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could say the opposite which I will... Nobody that I know uses facebook messenger. Why in the world would you use something like that to chat with people? The amount of anti-privacy that is involved is as common as bill clinton's sex addiction. I can assure you that people don't care about MSN live messenger 2011 and up, they had it right a long time ago, and the handwriting tool was amazing. They decided to add a lot of useless features, more ads, disable encryption messaging, and vandalize the whole program from top down. I use skype, steam, and IRC.

    7. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nobody that I know uses facebook messenger. Why in the world would you use something like that to chat with people?

      Because most people (outside of Slashdot) already have Facebook accounts, and use them at least to some extent, even if not to post. Also because official Facebook chat client is available on pretty much every mobile platform.

    8. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be able to do it when your 15. When your 20+ you use email, XMPP/Jabber/Gtalk, IRC, and others to communicate.

    9. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm Facebook messenger. Is that a program or just their website?

    10. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

      And then there is this talk again about people replacing email with something.

    11. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      And its frustrating, because I log into FB for a few minutes each day. A friend caught me online and said 'hey were are you, you are never here" I answered with "dude I sit in front of my computer almost 24/7... there are other ways to contact me than FB

    12. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to know, that the guys which make statistics, live in an parallel universe.

    13. Re:Facebook Chat killed it by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Why don't you connect your Facebook to Skype? You can communicate with your Facebook buddies like a regular Skype chat then and they can talk to you through the Facebook cruft.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  8. Pidgin has no Skype support. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    Pidgin has no Skype support. You have to run real Skype to do Skype chat. There is a plugin to let you manage contacts.

    1. Re:Pidgin has no Skype support. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It appears the Pidgin devs have an excuse to never update their MSN support either, now.

      Support for the current MSN protocol features has been waiting for some time, with MSN logging-in even breaking a couple of times (because the method being used was from a version of MSN that the network no longer supported). A band-aid patch is applied to get text working again but other features continued to drop off one-by-one. I can't even do group chats reliably anymore with the current support.

    2. Re:Pidgin has no Skype support. by BigBrownChunx · · Score: 1

      Whoops you've got this backwards. Things broke as Pidgin moved to newer versions of the MSNP protocol. You can try using an older MSNP through the msn-pecan plugin or try the new features (or lack thereof) of the 'new' MSN through the msn-xmpp plugin.

    3. Re:Pidgin has no Skype support. by BigBrownChunx · · Score: 2

      Not completely true. The Skype plugn for Pidgin allows you to chat through the Pidgin interface through the Skype API which admittedly, needs Skype running (or you can use the imo2sproxy service that forwards Skype API messages over imo.im to connect to Skype)

    4. Re:Pidgin has no Skype support. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Whoops you've got this backwards. Things broke as Pidgin moved to newer versions of the MSNP protocol.

      So the Pidgin devs forgot the dog wags the tail, not the other way around?

      It boils down to the same thing: features stopped working and they didn't want to fix it, instead sending those issues in the "patches welcome" (aka: fit it yourself) bin.

    5. Re:Pidgin has no Skype support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's partly because there is very little in the way of public documentation of the protocols, and the whole system is rather an unholy mess. Last year, I spent a while hunting for current specifications, and couldn't find enough to try to implement it.

      aMSN used to be pretty decent, and it did voice and video on Linux, but it has been a couple of years since I used it.

  9. What about Messenger on Xbox by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will replace the Messenger integration on Xbox with Skype too?

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  10. "Maybe" on accounts, but "yes" on contacts by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> No word on whether users will be able to transfer their WLM accounts to Skype.

    From TFA: "To ease the changeover, Microsoft is offering a tool to migrate WLM messenger contacts over."

    1. Re:"Maybe" on accounts, but "yes" on contacts by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Yes" on accounts as well, as anyone who installed Skype v6 (or the earlier betas) can attest - the very first thing it does is suggest that you input your WLM / MS account info so that it can link the two. If you do, it doesn't just migrates contacts - from there on it effectively operates as WLM client, letting you chat with those people who still use WLM (or any third-party client using the same protocol), and letting them send messages to your WLM address which you then see as Skype chats. Furthermore, it lets you log in using your MS account rather than Skype username. And if you don't have a Skype account at all, you can just log in with MS account, and then that becomes your Skype username.

      So the more accurate description is that services are transparently merged, and WLM client is retired in favor of Skype client.

    2. Re:"Maybe" on accounts, but "yes" on contacts by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that also means it effectively kills MSN for me. I used MSN for contacts I made online and acquaintances I've made through the years, with a stupid e-mail address as to protect my real-life/professional life. Skype is for real-life friends, family, and work, using my real name, because I use it as a voice/video client. Therefore I keep both open on my computer, with completely different contact lists. There's no way I'm merging the two, and if MSN is closing down, I know which contact list I'm keeping...

  11. That's a surprise by Dave+Emami · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given the accumulation of annoyances in Skype since MS acquired it (the whole ads thing, for instance) I expected they'd bought it to kill it.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    1. Re:That's a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use either Windows Live Messenger nor Skype, so like Windows 8, it's another Microsoft change for the sake of change I can happily ignore.

    2. Re:That's a surprise by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      it's another Microsoft change for the sake of change

      Yeah, clearly, consolidating your messaging applications so that you only have one, rather than two, is "change for the sake of change." Because it makes far more sense to continue to support and develop both of them, I guess.

      Your bias may be showing, Mr. AC. ;) :)

    3. Re:That's a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole ads thing? They hadn't added any new ads to it. But skype never really worked well, especially not on portable devices like on smartphones. Microsoft is fixing these things lately but for the longest time it had no updates and if it did, it would kill support for a lot of features for so many phones. It works best on PC but even still, microsoft no longer encrypts it P2P and is cooperating with the higher ups. Lack of privacy, broken features, and increase in lag/latency has been a few of the many problems with skype lately.

    4. Re:That's a surprise by XcepticZP · · Score: 2

      Skype started getting bloaty way before Microsoft bought it. Don't fall for that anti-MS propaganda.

  12. Microsoft's recent shocking displas of sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Endeavors in mobile OS's aside, (Winphone8 / RT tablets are stillborn - Deal with it), Microsoft has been making some rather.. Un-microsoft like software moves lately.

    They're getting rid of crap that nobody used or liked:
    Dropping of the Live brand title - Which nobody liked.
    Apparent abandonment of silverlight - Nobody liked it. Microsoft practically paid NBC and neflix to use it. Not supported in metro IE, winphone7, winphone8, winRT and never will be.
    Apparent abandonment of .net - Not a supported framework for metro, winphone, winRT.

    Their new stuff has cross platform support and is appears to be quite functional:
    Live drive(Or whatver they're renaming it to) - Good, fast, low cost, apps available for andriod and iOS
    Skype - Good, cheap, again cross platform apps available. Replacing crapfest windows messenger.
    Hyper-V - Officially supports linux, drivers and support in main kernel tree.
    Azure - Cloud platform officially supports linux.

    1. Re:Microsoft's recent shocking displas of sense. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I've heard some positive reviews for their Surface tablets, actually. "Live Drive" is currently "Sky Drive" I think?

      And you didn't mention Windows 7. IMO, it's actually pretty good. I prefer it much more to Windows XP, and it's actually more stable, IMO. Of course, not surprising, but still.

      And Skype, they are doing a good job of supporting platforms, it seems. Everyone and their dog were predicting they'd drop Linux support, but they seem to be more inclined to support it than errr the company Skype was.

    2. Re:Microsoft's recent shocking displas of sense. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparent abandonment of .net - Not a supported framework for metro, winphone, winRT.

      .NET is a supported framework for Win8/WinRT, as well as all incarnations of Windows Phone (in fact, for WP, you have to use it for UI layer).

      Silverlight is not gone, really, it just got rewritten in native code and rebranded "XAML" (for Windows Store apps).

  13. Saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And nothing of value was lost.

    1. Re:Saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, IRC ftw.

  14. Sounds by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as they uncorporate sounds like a high-pitched cartoony UH-OH! and THWAP! into the new UI, I'm fine with it.

    1. Re:Sounds by OldSport · · Score: 1

      Well, they already replaced the cutesy bubbly log-on sound with an obnoxious robot middle-management guy saying "yOu haVe SIGNED IN!" It's Microsoft, so they'll make their unmistakable mark on it somehow, for sure.

  15. Get rid of the backdoors by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Was this change a request from governments to make spying on people easier?

    1. Re:Get rid of the backdoors by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Was this change a request from governments to make spying on people easier?

      MSN's protocol was completely unencrypted. Skype's on the other is encrypted. I wouldn't say "spying on people" is any "easier".

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  16. In other news... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    In other news retires Skype, Replacing it with GoogleTalk.

    I fought like the devil not to get on Skype, but it was company policy that I had to have it, so now I have it, and now they have decided it is TEH SUCK and are replacing it with Google Talk.
    Trillian still works for me and that is what all my outside contacts use.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  17. 3rd party clients... by jonwil · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't surprise me if this move by Microsoft is designed to kill off 3rd party clients (many such clients exist for MSN Messenger, all efforts to produce one for Skype have so far failed for legal and/or technical reasons)

    1. Re:3rd party clients... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Skype has already integrated WLM support, and third party clients seem to work just fine for it. The protocol itself is not retired (and probably won't be anytime soon, since it'll make many existing devices unable to use it), only the WLM client itself is - Skype just adds support for it, and integrates accounts from both services so that you only need to log into one.

    2. Re:3rd party clients... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I understood from the announcement, but one could also interpret it as the WLM-protocol slowly being replaced by the Skype IM protocol (which isn't reverse-engineered and most likely never will). If Microsoft does the latter they're taking an awful big risk. I suspect that at least half of all users will switch to another IM network if they kill off the WLM-protocol and third-party support with it.

  18. Way to go MS by MaXimillion · · Score: 3

    They have the best IM client on the market (well, the newest versions suck for their UI, but the older ones are great), and they go and kill them off in favour of a software that serves a completely different purpose. I could understand ceasing development and reducing support, but surely it's making them more money through ads than it costs to run the network?

    1. Re:Way to go MS by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They have the best IM client on the market (well, the newest versions suck for their UI, but the older ones are great), and they go and kill them off in favour of a software that serves a completely different purpose.

      How does Skype "serves a completely different purpose"? It's an IM client with voice and video chat; so is WLM. Yes, Skype also has the ability to call phone numbers and send SMS directly, but that's an extra feature on top of the IM core - most people use it for Skype-to-Skype communication.

    2. Re:Way to go MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And most people I know who use WLM use it for all sorts of things like play games together, share control of certain programs, do remote assistance with their parents, work on documents together because you can tie it with office. Plus, it has an enterprise version that connects with the entire office suite (most importantly outlook) and works with exchange and AD for some truly awesome features.

  19. Defining "bloaty" by tepples · · Score: 2

    Is "performing noticeably worse on old, low-cost, small-form-factor, or battery-powered hardware than the previous version" precise enough?

    1. Re:Defining "bloaty" by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      Is "performing noticeably worse on old, low-cost, small-form-factor, or battery-powered hardware than the previous version" precise enough?

      Or... has lots of features that add to the application size or load that aren't valued by 99% of the user base.

    2. Re:Defining "bloaty" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like my phone? Nope. Skype works fine there too.

  20. Unfederated by tepples · · Score: 1

    For one thing, the various IRC networks (EFnet, Freenode, Quakenet, Undernet, etc.) are not interconnected, so you have to be on the same network as whomever you're trying to contact.

  21. Skype on 360 by Babbster · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't be surprised if a key reason Windows Messenger hasn't been killed already is that Microsoft is waiting until their Xbox 360 Skype client is ready to go. I use my 360 for all my gaming and TV viewing, so it would be pretty convenient to be able to get my phone calls through the system as well, especially if the client was capable of multitasking which, unfortunately, some key Microsoft 360 apps (perhaps most notably Xbox Music Pass, formerly Zune Pass) are not.

    1. Re:Skype on 360 by CasaDelGato · · Score: 2

      They seem to be also doing their best to make Skype unusable on Macs. Probably hoping that people will want Skype more than they want to use a Mac.

  22. .NET on Windows Phone 7.8 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Apparent abandonment of .net - Not a supported framework for metro, winphone, winRT.

    I thought the .NET Framework was still the only way to make apps for Windows Phone 7.8.

    1. Re:.NET on Windows Phone 7.8 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is also still the only way to make apps for WP8. You can use native C++ for libraries (or, rather, WinRT components), but .NET is your only choice to work with XAML.

    2. Re:.NET on Windows Phone 7.8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows Phone 7.x apps can only be built using Silverlight, which uses .Net.

      Windows Phone 8 deprecates Silverlight, having it in as legacy support with a plan to remove it in Windows 9.

      Windows 8 (Desktop, RT, Phone) main development platform is .Net 4.5. The main push on the Win RT Core was to make sure that .Net 4.5 has all the features that C++ and other native code have access to.

      You can build a Windows 8 application in C++, you can also build it using HTML with Javascript, but the main recommended way to make a Windows 8 program is to use .Net.

      Why do I say Silverlight (kind of) being killed? Silverlight is now gone, but most of Silverlight has been integrated into .Net 4.5. Basically they had two versions of XAML. The one originally that came out with Windows Vista and the Silverlight one. Now there is one XAML.

  23. No single client solution by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Right now I am using pidgin to have my MSN contacts and my Jabber/gTalk contacts in a single list and a single application. Skype has always been reluctant (slight euphemism there) to let third party software connect to its network. I have no solution then, but I think that I will then help half of my list migrate into gTalk then.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:No single client solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's the client that's being retired here, not the protocol (for now, at least).

    2. Re:No single client solution by BigBrownChunx · · Score: 1

      Skype has always been reluctant (slight euphemism there) to let third party software connect to its network.

      Although this whole idea was kinda put on its head with the release of the SkypeKit library. Unfortunately its licence is specifically open-source incompatible so it can't be used in Pidgin (but it is used in Trillian) - so for now you're stuck with the other Skype plugin for Pidgin.

    3. Re:No single client solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be thinking of iOS.

      Windows does not (yet) allow revoking software remotely. The only way to retire the client is to make the protocol incompatible.

    4. Re:No single client solution by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Skype has always been reluctant (slight euphemism there) to let third party software connect to its network

      So has MSN.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:No single client solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Retire" in this case means cease producing new versions of software, and eventually remove the official download for the existing versions.

    6. Re:No single client solution by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Skype has always been reluctant (slight euphemism there) to let third party software connect to its network.

      I don't really know how you can say that when Skype has been providing a SIP interface for years:

      http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/skype-connect/

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  24. Office Lync / Communicator? by mathew42 · · Score: 1

    It will be interesting to see what effect this has on Microsoft Lync (formally Office Communicator). Two advantages of Communicator are that SIPE project provides Pidgin support and that some corporate firewalls where Communicator is used also let MSN through the network.

    Skype would be acceptable if it supported third party clients. I use facebook chat purely because it uses XMPP so I can connect to it via Pidgin.

    Family members are wanting me to use messaging apps like Tango that require your mobile phone number to work and don't have a linux client, let alone pidgin integration. If they supported XMPP I might be interested. If I used SMS frequently (more than once or twice a week) I might be interested, but I'm not. SMS messages can sit on my phone unread for hours.

  25. Impact on Microsoft Lync? by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what the impact is on Lync? I would guess it's based on Messenger to some extent.

    1. Re:Impact on Microsoft Lync? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not based in msn, even in the slightest. Lync is based in SIP and other IETF protocols. MSN on proprietary MSNP stuff

    2. Re:Impact on Microsoft Lync? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lync for business, Skype for consumer.

  26. What about Remote Assistance? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    That's pretty much the only reason I still have Messenger installed any more.

    1. Re:What about Remote Assistance? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      For Win 7 (and maybe Vista) there's the Easy Connect feature in Remote Assistance. I'm pretty sure this is all that Remote Assistance in Messenger was doing anyway.

    2. Re:What about Remote Assistance? by caseih · · Score: 1

      Google Chrome remote desktop add on.

    3. Re:What about Remote Assistance? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      It's enough of a pain to walk friends/family through the "request Remote Assistance" process through a client that, at least in XP, I know is installed. Trying to hold their hand over a telephone while they download and install a new browser isn't a viable alternative.

    4. Re:What about Remote Assistance? by needsomemoola · · Score: 1
      --
      "That'll never compile."
  27. Too bad :) :( by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    IM systems rise and fall on the quality of their smiley faces.

    AIM had an extensive array of smileys baked into the product just not easily accessible in the free version unless you kept a library of font sml tags that could be cut and pasted.

    Microsoft had some nice smiles too but the best feature was flash based nudges with ufos and kid throwing snowballs.

    Open source clients I have tried over the years suffer from low quality smiley faces and thrills.

    I think moving forward we need to take control of the environment and move to a distributed domain based system where no one party controls the endpoints or can spy or collect your data.

    There is no reason to have to endure ads, privacy violations or spying to communicate with each other on a network of PEERS.

    With MSN going away and IPv6 coming online there is an opportunity to get things right, move everyone off of their central control crack addiction and like it.

  28. Steam by DudemanX · · Score: 2

    I haven't needed an IM client for years since Steam hit critical mass among my friends. If and other friends, family, or work people need to message me they can txt or email.

    MSN/Windows/Live Messenger has been a pain in the ass ever since Windows XP would end up loading each of those as separate clients to do the same thing.

    1. Re:Steam by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I haven't needed an IM client for years since Steam hit critical mass among my friends.

      How do you deal with the lack of logging?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  29. No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't stand the fact you can't send message to people offline. Both parties need to be online and if you send a message and they are offline it will be sent to them next time you are both online, even if you are on invisible, revealing that you are in fact online. You can also tell if someone is online but invisible by simply sending a message to them, if it the message doesn't have a rotating circle next to it you can be sure they are online.

    Also have you ever logged into another computer/device with skype after you've been chatting on a different computer? You end up getting some of the messages again on that device.

    Skype is shit for text based chatting.

    1. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by globalist · · Score: 1

      I was going to post pretty much the same list of complaints. If MS does not fix all these glaring issues before they kill off MSN then I don't see how Skype can be a viable IM protocol for anyone. Oh and let me reiterate: Skype is shit for text based chatting.

    2. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I've found Skype invaluable for text communications in places that have huge networking connectivity issues.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by globalist · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? How can text communications present a "connectivity" issue on any network? The IM chat client either connects to the server/peer or it doesn't which has nothing to do with how shitty Skype's protocol is implemented (see above complaints from the AC).

    4. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? How can text communications present a "connectivity" issue on any network?

      When you're on an unreliable connection, such as a cable connection that is constantly futzing out, or have an extremely poor wireless signal and so on - Where it only works for a few seconds every few minutes. Skype is one of those mediums that will get the messages through, both ways. Other messengers won't. A lot of them won't even let you try to send messages while they're 'not connected'.

      The IM chat client either connects to the server/peer or it doesn't which has nothing to do with how shitty Skype's protocol is implemented (see above complaints from the AC).

      It does and manages to send messages when others don't.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once every couple of days Skype doesn't manage to send text messages on my 4Mb/1Mb ADSL, the small circle just keeps spinning while every other application manages just fine.

      Sometimes initiating a voice call makes the text go through, but it's so frustrating it's one of the reasons I abandoned it.

    6. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Once every couple of days Skype doesn't manage to send text messages on my 4Mb/1Mb ADSL, the small circle just keeps spinning while every other application manages just fine.

      I've had that happen on rare occasions (when the Internet connection didn't appear to be having problems and the other party didn't either), but the messages always made it through shortly after. I'm currently using Skype 6.0.0.120.

      Sometimes initiating a voice call makes the text go through, but it's so frustrating it's one of the reasons I abandoned it.

      I've not experienced that.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re:No Offline messaging and no way of hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had that happen on rare occasions (when the Internet connection didn't appear to be having problems and the other party didn't either), but the messages always made it through shortly after. I'm currently using Skype 6.0.0.120

      The messages do make it through eventually, but I had to wait for hours various times. Keeping Skype up to date didn't help.

  30. Contacts moved to skype already by theSatinKnight · · Score: 1

    "Update to Skype. Your Messenger contacts are there. (Update now)" Apparently they are serious about moving from messenger to skype, so much so that they've already moved my contacts (or will do so immediately upon my pressing of this ad in Messenger ...).

  31. The tanks are built, troops have amassed by oztiks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Skype, Surface, Xbox, now a phone, Windows 8, maps, office, voice recognition, skydive, etc etc.

    They hold many cards old Microsoft, now that they've starting to tie all these components into a single working organism, along side the sinking share price of Apple. The battlegrounds have been set and this is the first move of Microsoft's new borgification.

    What is going to happen is this, we're going to start seeing consolidated product offerings of this calibre which will be focused in reshaping the lounge room, the office, the kids bedroom, the parents bedroom, they've only really left out the kitchen (maybe we'll see Sink OS at some point).

    Please tell me amongst the FOSS lovers and Apple punces that dwell on this board that there's someone else out there can see what this minor but well placed move has done? Again, I'm not here to endorse any of this (as people keep thinking i do) I'm just using my own vision and personal experience to draw this conclusion.

    MS has made poor moves in the past few years, yet for every poor move one could say it was a strategy to end up at this turning point.

    They did this at the perfect time, they've allowed the Skype customer base to become comfortable with their new overlords and now the turn the dark side has become complete!

    As for Facebook and it ties with Skype, I'd be very worried about what data gets shared between the two, in fact who in their right mind would of allowed such a partnership to take place ... wait wait ... yes Facebook's run by Mark Z ... I bet he didn't see this coming, so what now? slap a photo gallery app on the side of Skype and you have a better version of Facebook? Hows that 15 or so year "shelf life" on Facebook's platform looking now investors ? :)

    1. Re:The tanks are built, troops have amassed by tyrione · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the humor on the sinking share of Apple.

    2. Re:The tanks are built, troops have amassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skype, Surface, Xbox, now a phone, Windows 8, maps, office, voice recognition, skydive, etc etc.

      Gtalk/Google+, Android, Linux (Half-Life 3 is going to be exclusive for Linux), Android, Chrome OS/OSX/Linux, Google Maps (Funny how you say that Microsoft owns Navteq), Google Docs, Voice recognition (better one), Google Drive... Etc etc (like Google search, Picasa and so on).

      Google has better cards in its hands, problem just is that Microsoft still have dominant market position and it can force roll Windows 8 to any new PC and use it to gain dominant market position on smartphone and tablet area (it has a change) by forcing people to learn totally different (not better) GUI causing a "familiar lock-in".

      Have you heard that Microsoft has application for patent to use Kinect as DRM for movies and TV-series?
      Instead paying to watch movie in 24h, you pay to view it by 1-2 persons, more to view it with 3-4 persons and even more if you have more than 4 persons watching that movie at your home?

    3. Re:The tanks are built, troops have amassed by Xest · · Score: 1

      "As for Facebook and it ties with Skype, I'd be very worried about what data gets shared between the two"

      It wont make any difference, MS already leaks MSN data to Facebook somehow anyway. The Skype/Faceook thing just makes it official.

      I know this for a fact, as a contact whom I only have on MSN messenger, and where neither of us have used Facebook's friend finder etc. found ourselves recommended to each other on Facebook. The only place this information could have possibly come from about the link between us was MS Messenger because we live far apart, and have no IRL connection.

    4. Re:The tanks are built, troops have amassed by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Half-Life 3 is going to be exclusive for Linux

      [citation needed]

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    5. Re:The tanks are built, troops have amassed by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      I'm sure it will also be released on Windows 2095

    6. Re:The tanks are built, troops have amassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its sinking, not tanking ... today it lost another 3% but it has been on a downward slope of 1 - 2% daily for about 2 -3 weeks now.

  32. XMPP by EricTheRed · · Score: 1

    I wish I could retire my msn account but unfortunately it's still the preferred IM system for most here in the UK.

    Personally I have my own xmpp server running for IM. Not only is it open but it's also means that I'm in control of my contacts & know that, if it fails it's my own fault ;-)

    If I need to talk to someone on Google Talk or other xmpp severs its no problem as its federated correctly so I'm pretty much covered.

    I'm just wondering what those insisting on msn will do now or the chaos when this happens next year.

    --
    Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
    1. Re:XMPP by BigBrownChunx · · Score: 1

      Just as well the 'new' MSN is XMPP then :) Although no s2s :(

    2. Re:XMPP by EricTheRed · · Score: 1

      yes, probably down to them thinking that implementing s2s would devalue it somehow - facebook chat doesn't have s2s either

      --
      Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
    3. Re:XMPP by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering what those insisting on msn will do now or the chaos when this happens next year.

      I imagine a windows update will replace Windows Live Messenger with Skype that will automatically log them in with the same credentials (since Skype now supports using the same login credentials).

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  33. Oh boy by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://www.slate.com/articles/technol/technology/2012/11/microsoft_surface_why_is_the_new_tablet_so_much_worse_than_the_ipad.html

    Indeed they have, the axis of evil is on the march. Pity it is the Italians, feared by none, their tech out of date before the first shot is fired.

    I haven't used skype in ages, Xbox is the only gaming platform I don't own, W8 phones need to be insanely subsidized and when you google for "sales record W8 phone" you get pictures of thumble weeds.

    Windows 8 is universally despised and it just a copy cat of Unity and Gnome in an attempt to alienate users.

    Maps? MS has maps? Gosh... that should tell you something about it, honestly didn't know they had.

    Office... they had that for over a decade, for matter they also have had phones etc etc for that long.

    You are saying that MS has all the tools to lock people in. Yes. That is what everyone else thought... and then iOS and Android happened and showed that the lockin wasn't as tight as everyone thought. Rim got big because they locked you into exchange and surely that was essential. Where is Rim now? Where is the exchange lockin? GONE! Suddenly every boss has a macbook and insists the office systems work with it and screw MS attempts to create a windows only network.

    I have no doubt that MS would love to see the parents posts brainfart happen for real but they had two decades to get it done, why should they succeed now when for the first time there is some serious competition and the computing landscape has changed forever?

    No doubt oztiks grandparent was in that bunker, grasping his headless dead leader screaming "come on, we got the enemy right were we want them, we can win it!"

    The battle has been lost, all MS can do right now is try to not loose the office desktop too.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows 8 is universally despised" - ohhhh, so readers of Slashdot make up the entire universe now?

    2. Re:Oh boy by oztiks · · Score: 1

      I get the angst being a tech myself I really do. My impressions of Microsoft however are not that cynical and I'll tell you why.

      - Apple is the king of product placement. Yet suffer when it comes to competition entering their markets.
      - Google is the king of taking OSS and wrapping smart business models around them.
      - Microsoft is the thief, they either acquire or "establish" a strategic partnership and then assimilate.

      I feel that though the MS regime has been subsided, however, they are a stable stock and are active within "most" if not pretty much all computing circles. The model they adhere to is still well in motion. The GFC may of assisted in slowing it down and Balmer's rookie like aptitude to position of CEO may of swelled some fundamental short comings of his own (and the company as a whole) but they seem to be moving on from the GFC and Balmer has had about 10 years in the role (just a rough guess).

      Apple suffers from the same aptitude problem at the moment. If you look at the CEO of Apple there is maybe 4 people on this planet (1 that is no longer) that have similar resumes as Tim Cook's, that is Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Eric Schmidt, and Larry Page.

      We have to consider Cook who is now the rookie out of these people and this position as being "too big for his boots". I'd say Cook is starting to show Balmer like traits and I'd consider much of what has done recently with the Maps, etc and then the axing of the iOS product guys a perfect display of this.

    3. Re:Oh boy by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Ah good old Slashdot, rage against MS, get modded up. Unfortunately for you MS does have a lot of tools to get people back on the bus. Win8, Win2012, IE10, server, desktop, laptop, surface, phone, Office, AD, Exchange, IIS, .NET, SQL, Skype, Skydrive, Bing, Maps, Outlook.com etc etc You anti MS freaks don't really seem to have any comprehension about how ingrained MS is in the corporate space, and all the thousands of business productivity apps that only work on MS, and the leverage that gives them to offer a seamless integration for consumer devices. MS might not dominate to the same extent as the late 90's, but the Apple honeymoon is over and IMO MS are in the right place at the time to make back some ground.

    4. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod Up.

      Big time, that's all I can say. MS has so much IP on their side to hard to see them fail unless they start showing plain incompetency in the market ... wait wait .. that's Apples turn to do that LOL

  34. And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Work is a living hell because this messenger. Thankfully no one is competent enough to use Skype. A major tool of micromanagement will be destroyed.

  35. old Windows Messenger by u64 · · Score: 2

    The original, simply called 'Windows Messanger' that comes default on XP Pro no-ads, and slim on memory.

    Old Skype v4 Pro still works i hope...
    http://www.oldversion.com/Skype-for-Business.html
    What's the oldest working Skype version?

    Does anyone knows any more ok IMs...?
    o Portable
    o Low-resources 1-2M RAM
    o Encrypted by default

  36. Top posting POS, good riddance by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 0

    I've used Windows from 3.1 to Win7 and almost all versions in between, in all the time I've never used Messenger.
    But I've read my share of messages posted with messenger and it's top posting backasswards behavior.

    Used IE to download Netscape, but Netscape couldn't keep up with the newsgroups so gave Forte Agent .98
    a try and been using it since, stopping at 1.93.

  37. Google killed the standalone IM market.. by Rexdude · · Score: 1

    ...back when they introduced chat within Gmail. Suddenly people who could not install chat clients at work due to IT policies were perfectly able to chat with other Gmail users. I used to be a big user of Yahoo messenger, ever since web based chat started hardly anyone I know uses it anymore. As for MSN/Live, the less said the better - old accounts seem to have been taken over for spam. It took several years for Yahoo to play catch up and offer chat within their webmail, but it's too late.
    (This of course excludes IRC users and those who have their own Jabber setups).
    I now use the open source Windows client Miranda IM - fully featured, has a 64bit version, supports all popular networks including Jabber and extensible via plugins.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  38. delete account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i removed Skype from my boxes, all Linux BTW, the moment Microsoft announced the acquisition. however, years later Skype still have not figured out how to delete the account. what idiots!