If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Microsoft make things so difficult?
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:47:00 -0500, "Jonathan Kay [MVP]"
wrote: Hi Ari, Nice article, sadly this isn't slashdot where I'm sure you'd be modded up to 5, Insightful. Thanks for not going overboard and remaining sane Jonathan. I realize my comments were a little brassy here, and I did get a little carried away mentioning some off topic items:: But, WHY continue to build/expand/bug fix/write code just to be reverse compatible when the entire concept is flawed? I think the original poster asked why it was so complicated, and the answer was because Messenger and it's variants are imbedded into the OS when they should be independent stand alone utilities that are more or less self contained. When a problem arises, you don't have to modify a .net parameter or some other aspect of the OS that should have nothing to do with the original issue. The answer to the problem should lie in the application itself, not in some asinine interface to an already bloated and complex operating system. If a stand alone application was available, I'd probably run it, provided it was possible to make it relatively secure and it was independently evaluated by security minded professionals. While Bill doesn't have to give the Messenger application away, by doing so, he creates goodwill and an OS that is less complicated, less buggy and runs faster because the individuals that want Messenger don't have to be rocket scientists to make it work and don't have to be concerned with issues outside the program itself. I should also say I don't use Yahoo chat and ICQ either....although they are stand alone, security professionals agree that they represent a real security problem. I'd prefer to have other less informed kb operators take the risk....and I simply just say NO. I wish you the best. A |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Microsoft make things so difficult?
Who is "WE"? "WE" is me and almost every everyone I know. I do not speak for you-if you think Messenger is safe, secure and manageable, then you should by all means go ahead and use it and all the other bloatware Bill puts out. I wish you luck. Please don't try to speak for me! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Microsoft make things so difficult?
Can you please tell me how I can get back into my Outlook Express 6? I
dddownloaded a Messenger 6 update last week and can't get into my email. I have tried every password I could think of and I have tried to change it, but I still Need to get into my emails. I am willing to change the password as long as I can get in. -- Linda Fox "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote: Hi Ari, Nice article, sadly this isn't slashdot where I'm sure you'd be modded up to 5, Insightful. There are two versions because originally someone decided that the "Messenger client" in Windows XP would be Windows Messenger. So, all the 4.x releases of MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger are actually the same executable -- if run on XP it would be Windows Messenger and if on run on previous Windows versions it would show up as MSN Messenger. Unfortunately this bliss ended in 2002 with the release of MSN Messenger 5 and Windows Messenger 4.7 as the teams were split and two products were created, one exclusively for the ..NET Messegner service (MSN) and the other for a more corporate audience with SIP support, Exchange IM and .NET Messenger. The split has had some technical issues (for instance, the COM control which was built-in to Outlook Express goes to Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger). "MSN" Features like Hotmail integration and MSN Mobile were moved solely to the MSN client and some features built-in to Windows XP like Remote Assistance, Whiteboard and App Sharing still need Windows Messenger installed due to references in the code to the Windows Messenger client. Of course the next phase of this is MSN Messenger will be Windows Live Messenger, and the SIP component of Windows Messenger has moved to Office Communicator. No Messenger client has yet to surface in Vista betas, but supposedly we'll have some relief from this "split" of products then. -- Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Live Messenger Associate Expert http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/ Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay. You *must* contact me for redistribution rights. -- "Ari" wrote in message ... On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:39:02 -0700, "Cody" wrote: Why does there have to be two versions of Messenger (Windows and MSN)? It just confuses everyone. Why don't they just merge the two together and have all the features each contain in one program. I have just installed SP2 and lost the features in Windows Messenger. I have lost the Hotmail feature, and also the ability to send text messages, which I used everyday. I would install MSN Messenger, but is it integrated with Outlook Express? NO!Does Windows Messenger support Hotmail and mobile devices? NO! Thanks a lot Microsoft. What am I supposed to do? Install MSN Messenger and just sign in/out between the two for the features I want? I think not! Why can't it just be like the past when ONLY MSN Messenger existed and everyone was happy? This is a fair question, and I don't think you'll get an objective answer here. I might get banned for saying this, but here goes. Microsoft has the 'control the world' type of attitude; similar to AOL and Compuserve in the early days of the internet (circa 1991). Rather than providing a stand alone and secure utility program, they insist on imbedding the application deeply into their operating system, making you subscribe to services (they call them 'features') that you neither want or need. For instance, you need to install and use passport to use Messenger. Carried even deeper, Microsoft insists on requiring the installation of IE, and IE's settings determine security for other Miscosoft internet applications. Are you beginning to see the problem is their attitude and general philosophy? One has only to look at the activeX mess they created to understand how this deep imbedding and requirement of one to use other microsoft services to get the one service that you desire. Of course, fixing technical problems is a nightmare because you have 10 services all interacting with each other when there should only be the base service (which should be stand alone to begin with). One needs only to check into any of the microsoft support usenet groups and read the countless examples of sure 'good intentions gone bad' technical nightmares. Such a continued attitude by Microsoft will bring them down eventually. We already don't use IE (Firefox browser has no activeX issues because it doesn't use/allow activeX). We can block all ads at the source (they aren't even downloaded, so pages load faster)! Spyware does not enter a computer running firefox (in general) and browser hijacking and redirection is not an issue. We see evidence of Bill's losing market share already. Linux OS gets better everyday (linux is an open source OS that does not have a complicated structure and dependency on other linux modules that windows has-best of all it's independently reviewed and audited by security experts so the back doors into the OS aren't a serious security issue). We haven't used Outlook and Outlook Express in years-yet we read they are still riddled with the same security issues that they suffered from 10 years ago. Eudora and Free Agent are free email and usenet readers. Open Office-can't say enough about this. We can buy Microsoft software cheaply thanks to a relative that works for M$, but even so, we use Open Office in place of Microsoft Office. OO is a free version of an Office-Like suite that is also open sourced and does almost everything that the big bucks Microsoft Office does (including opening word, excell etc files and editing them). It's a completely free collaborative effort by hundreds of developers, united to end Microsft's strangle hold on business and home users of Microsoft Office. Best of all, users don't get hosed down for technical support....which is almost always an issue that Microsoft should have addressed when they wrote the software to begin with:: Info at openoffice.org. A registry that you can't edit with a text editor and that a single wrong keystroke makes your OS useless and you have to reinstall? WHY? I should be able to know what's in there without needing to be a rocket scientist. At the root of all of this is Microsoft's holier than thou attitude. We remain a Microsoft OS user, for now and hope that Bill wises up soon. But, tend to agree with MIT's recent conclusion that computers need a complete redesign right down to the basic OS and concept in order to make them useful tools once mere. They concluded that the internet has many problems as well and needs a similar redesign. Both the computer and the internet are built upon fundamentally flawed bases, with layer after layer of additions, all built on the flawed and ancient base structure. We use XP, which we consider the latest beta version by Bill. We used and paid for the previous beta versions as well, called DOS3, DOS5, DOS6, WIN95, WIN98 etc, but don't think we should have to constantly pay for upgrades to the latest version (currently XP). Shouldn't we only have to pay for an OS once???? I wish you all luck. Ari PS:my internet access is shakey, please reply by email directly to me if needed. ttrraabbeemmM at YYyahoo doott coMm Delete all the upper case letters to get reply email address. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Microsoft make things so difficult?
"Ari" wrote in message
Thanks for not going overboard and remaining sane Jonathan. I realize my comments were a little brassy here, and I did get a little carried away mentioning some off topic items:: It happens But, WHY continue to build/expand/bug fix/write code just to be reverse compatible when the entire concept is flawed? Standard typical computer industry decision really. -- Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Live Messenger Associate Expert http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/ Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay. You *must* contact me for redistribution rights. -- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Change Hardisk | Patrick | General XP issues or comments | 9 | April 4th 05 06:09 AM |
Microsoft Sued | Herb Fritatta | General XP issues or comments | 9 | August 30th 04 04:48 AM |
Doom 3 Problem DirectX related ? | Spidious | General XP issues or comments | 0 | August 29th 04 12:27 AM |
Solving all Windows problems- instantly | Mr Lizard | General XP issues or comments | 9 | August 14th 04 09:34 PM |
Two pieces of spam this week!!! But still SPAM ALERT | David Candy | General XP issues or comments | 159 | July 30th 04 09:52 PM |