Why doesn't MS gid rid of multiple Messengers??

Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows PC's no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The questions keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add my 2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?

....because not everyone is on Windows XP, so they can't all have the
advanced functionality of Windows Messenger.

To encourage them to upgrade to a modern OS, they offer MSN for free and
bombard users with advertisements.

Later,
Neb


"Ace" wrote in message
news:%2Bna.251424$Zo.48876@sccrnsc03...
Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows PC's
no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The questions
keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more
problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add my 2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?

Greetings Ace,

MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger are now made by two separate product groups -- and they
both are going in different directions. As newer versions release of both clients, I think
you'll see the change more apparent. Regardless, it will be up to the user which client they
use, choice is good, isn't it? =)
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Windows MVP, Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com

"Ace" wrote in message news:%2Bna.251424$Zo.48876@sccrnsc03...
Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows PC's no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The questions keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add my 2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?

Yes choice is good, BUT, when you have "half" of the features in XP
Messenger and the other "half" in MSN Messenger - and in order for one or
the other to work both have to be installed/running - that sucks plain and
simple. What comes to mind as an example, is you cannot do remote assist
unless you have XP Messenger (MSN cannot do it), but if you want a big
better video, you use MSN.

There is in my mind no sense in having the same functions being divided
out - have ONE product PERIOD. If a user not have XP then the XP related
features are simply grayed out unaccessable until either the correct OS, and
or OS with any updates are installed.

Sorry but I am still kinda ****ed with the way this has turned into a mess.
The programs are playing ping pong with each other one logs in kicks off the
other, other logs in and the other gets bumped. I get continual messages
that I have to click off syaing I have been logged in elsewhere so
bueyaaa... Bunch a crap in design. Those two product groups need get their
legs together under one butt and cooperate.

Adding to this of course is the "near impossiblity" of uninstalling both
completely - a real PITA effort to make it really happen.

Rant done, but feelings expressed I think are valid. Time for MS get their
nose up where it belongs and stop playing those male ****ing games between
them.

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Greetings Ace,

MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger are now made by two separate product
groups -- and they
both are going in different directions. As newer versions release of both
clients, I think
you'll see the change more apparent. Regardless, it will be up to the
user which client they
use, choice is good, isn't it? =)
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Windows MVP, Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com

"Ace" wrote in message
news:%2Bna.251424$Zo.48876@sccrnsc03...
Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows
PC's no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The questions
keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more
problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in
the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add my
2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?

Good point sir, perfectly made.

Jon

"Ace" wrote in message
news:%2Bna.251424$Zo.48876@sccrnsc03...
Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows PC's
no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The questions
keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more
problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add my 2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?

He has a very good point Jonathan. I was never a fan of M$ in the bad old
days of Win3.1 because the product was so damn flaky. I am a convert now.
I really do love the way that M$ have managed to achieve a pretty stable OS
in 2000 and XP and in the way in which the apps all seem to integrate,
co-exist, co-operate and so on. But this whole bloody Messenger thing has
become a farce. Why is it so difficult for M$ to get their act together.
Why can't they make one Messenger that performs all of the functions whilst
still being mindful of its platform? The whole Messenger thing smells a bit
fishy. Correction, I think we are talking 500ft long squids here. Where
else in the M$ product range do we have this sort of anomaly? I am not
aware of one. I know we have always had driver issues and so forth, but
that is because we are talking about a plethora of different hardware to
accommodate. Surely this Messenger thing is child's play to sort when you
have the sort of software engineering skills that M$ posesses.

Jon

"nooneyouknow" wrote in message
. ..
Yes choice is good, BUT, when you have "half" of the features in XP
Messenger and the other "half" in MSN Messenger - and in order for one or
the other to work both have to be installed/running - that sucks plain and
simple. What comes to mind as an example, is you cannot do remote assist
unless you have XP Messenger (MSN cannot do it), but if you want a big
better video, you use MSN.

There is in my mind no sense in having the same functions being divided
out - have ONE product PERIOD. If a user not have XP then the XP related
features are simply grayed out unaccessable until either the correct OS,
and
or OS with any updates are installed.

Sorry but I am still kinda ****ed with the way this has turned into a
mess.
The programs are playing ping pong with each other one logs in kicks off
the
other, other logs in and the other gets bumped. I get continual messages
that I have to click off syaing I have been logged in elsewhere so
bueyaaa... Bunch a crap in design. Those two product groups need get
their
legs together under one butt and cooperate.

Adding to this of course is the "near impossiblity" of uninstalling both
completely - a real PITA effort to make it really happen.

Rant done, but feelings expressed I think are valid. Time for MS get their
nose up where it belongs and stop playing those male ****ing games between
them.

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Greetings Ace,

MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger are now made by two separate product
groups -- and they
both are going in different directions. As newer versions release of
both
clients, I think
you'll see the change more apparent. Regardless, it will be up to the
user which client they
use, choice is good, isn't it? =)
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Windows MVP, Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com

"Ace" wrote in message
news:%2Bna.251424$Zo.48876@sccrnsc03...
Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers
and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows
PC's no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such
mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The
questions
keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more
problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in
the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add
my
2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?

Jon,

I think you are hitting the nail on the head. To me, it looks like a
shell game.

I would think it was a bait and switch game (MSN Messenger is the
(less features) bait to get us to upgrade everything to Windows XP /
(more features) Windows Messenger), except that MM has features that
WM doesn't. You can't bait and switch when the bait has more features
than the switch.

I can't believe M$ is dumb enough to try bait and switch this way. So
the shell game is the only analogy I can see.

Anyway, especially after I found Voice Communication in Yahoo
Messenger, MM and WM together doesn't have the functionality of YM.

My girlfriend has a Hotmail address. She got a YM userid with her
Hotmail address, and she uses YM with webcam to talk to me. We use MM
only as a backup, in case she goes to an internet cafe that doesn't
have YM. Which so far she has been able to avoid. :-)

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:44:05 +0100, "Jon Mitchell"
wrote:

He has a very good point Jonathan. I was never a fan of M$ in the bad old
days of Win3.1 because the product was so damn flaky. I am a convert now.
I really do love the way that M$ have managed to achieve a pretty stable OS
in 2000 and XP and in the way in which the apps all seem to integrate,
co-exist, co-operate and so on. But this whole bloody Messenger thing has
become a farce. Why is it so difficult for M$ to get their act together.
Why can't they make one Messenger that performs all of the functions whilst
still being mindful of its platform? The whole Messenger thing smells a bit
fishy. Correction, I think we are talking 500ft long squids here. Where
else in the M$ product range do we have this sort of anomaly? I am not
aware of one. I know we have always had driver issues and so forth, but
that is because we are talking about a plethora of different hardware to
accommodate. Surely this Messenger thing is child's play to sort when you
have the sort of software engineering skills that M$ posesses.

Jon

"nooneyouknow" wrote in message
...
Yes choice is good, BUT, when you have "half" of the features in XP
Messenger and the other "half" in MSN Messenger - and in order for one or
the other to work both have to be installed/running - that sucks plain and
simple. What comes to mind as an example, is you cannot do remote assist
unless you have XP Messenger (MSN cannot do it), but if you want a big
better video, you use MSN.

There is in my mind no sense in having the same functions being divided
out - have ONE product PERIOD. If a user not have XP then the XP related
features are simply grayed out unaccessable until either the correct OS,
and
or OS with any updates are installed.

Sorry but I am still kinda ****ed with the way this has turned into a
mess.
The programs are playing ping pong with each other one logs in kicks off
the
other, other logs in and the other gets bumped. I get continual messages
that I have to click off syaing I have been logged in elsewhere so
bueyaaa... Bunch a crap in design. Those two product groups need get
their
legs together under one butt and cooperate.

Adding to this of course is the "near impossiblity" of uninstalling both
completely - a real PITA effort to make it really happen.

Rant done, but feelings expressed I think are valid. Time for MS get their
nose up where it belongs and stop playing those male ****ing games between
them.

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Greetings Ace,

MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger are now made by two separate product
groups -- and they
both are going in different directions. As newer versions release of
both
clients, I think
you'll see the change more apparent. Regardless, it will be up to the
user which client they
use, choice is good, isn't it? =)
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Windows MVP, Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com

"Ace" wrote in message
news:%2Bna.251424$Zo.48876@sccrnsc03...
Why doesn't Microsoft get rid of their current version of Messengers
and
start over and just have one messenger that would work on all Widows
PC's no
matter how it is connected to the internet? I have never seen such
mass
confusion demonstrated by everybody over and over again. The
questions
keep
on mounting and everybody, (in the World for that matter) has more
problems
and gets more confused with each passing day. I thoroughly believe in
the
KISS principle. Please forgive me for venting, but I thought I'd add
my
2
cents worth.
How do you all out their feel about the situation?










Chuck Croll

Spam sucks - Get rid of the spam to email me