Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Retiring Messenger, Replacing It With Skype

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the we'll-choose-for-you dept.

Microsoft 213

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.'"

cancel ×

213 comments

ICQ (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900309)

FTW

Re:ICQ (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900381)

Pidgin ftw!

Re:ICQ (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900615)

talk me@somesever.edu

FTW :)

Re:ICQ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900719)

Carrier pigeon ftw!

Re:ICQ (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900917)

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

Re:ICQ (4, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901375)

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.

Re:ICQ (5, Informative)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901529)

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).

Re:ICQ (1)

officialkirill (2723541) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901055)

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

AOL wins! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900315)

AOL IM finally won! Good job AOL!

Re:AOL wins! (3, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901459)

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.

Re:AOL wins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901863)

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

Windows Live Messenger Integration (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900325)

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

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (4, Insightful)

mrbluze (1034940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900365)

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.

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900581)

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

Defining "bloaty" (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900925)

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

Re:Defining "bloaty" (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901159)

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.

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (4, Insightful)

preaction (1526109) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900613)

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"?

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901879)

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.

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (1)

oji-sama (1151023) | about a year and a half ago | (#41902343)

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

Right click in task bar - quit skype

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (3, Insightful)

PReDiToR (687141) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900931)

Get an old version [oldversion.com] then.

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

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (3, Informative)

humanrev (2606607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901243)

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.

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901813)

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.

Re:Windows Live Messenger Integration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41902307)

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.

Gtalk/Facebook (4, Insightful)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900359)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900449)

No. Not everyone is 12.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900829)

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...

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (2)

PhillyMeeks (884443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41902225)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900479)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900567)

What's wrong with IRC?

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900617)

My wife can tell you that itchy road cunt is no damned fun.

Unfederated (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900953)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901001)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901081)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901869)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901897)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901191)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901411)

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

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901573)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41902381)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901855)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900693)

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.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (4, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900851)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901059)

I collect dead social networks.

That answers my question why you're on slashdot.

/ducks

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901115)

Also, why he's on your mom.

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900929)

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

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901503)

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!!!!

Re:Gtalk/Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41902409)

I prefer soupcan and string technology

No thanks. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900387)

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.

Re:No thanks. (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901105)

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.

Re:No thanks. (1)

Abreu (173023) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901151)

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

Re:No thanks. (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901995)

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.

Re:No thanks. (1)

aultsegf (2766801) | about a year and a half ago | (#41902203)

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.

Smells like a bundled update... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900409)

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.

Re:Smells like a bundled update... (2)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900809)

How about a big UNINSTALL button.

Re:Smells like a bundled update... (2)

freeze128 (544774) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900843)

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

Show 'em the DONG!

Facebook Chat killed it (3, Insightful)

dnaumov (453672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900421)

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.

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (4, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900653)

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..

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900723)

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.

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900821)

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

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900855)

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

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900877)

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.

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901303)

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.

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901569)

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.

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901635)

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

Re:Facebook Chat killed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41902389)

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

Pidgin has no Skype support. (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900503)

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

What about Messenger on Xbox (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900551)

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

"Maybe" on accounts, but "yes" on contacts (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900555)

>> 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."

Re:"Maybe" on accounts, but "yes" on contacts (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901595)

"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.

That's a surprise (2, Interesting)

Dave Emami (237460) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900573)

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.

Re:That's a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900705)

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.

Re:That's a surprise (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901095)

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. ;) :)

Re:That's a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901337)

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.

Microsoft's recent shocking displas of sense. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900643)

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.

.NET on Windows Phone 7.8 (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900975)

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.

Re:.NET on Windows Phone 7.8 (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901703)

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.

Re:Microsoft's recent shocking displas of sense. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901121)

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.

Re:Microsoft's recent shocking displas of sense. (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901667)

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

.NET is a supported framework [microsoft.com] for Win8/WinRT, as well as [msdn.com] 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).

Saw this coming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900679)

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Saw this coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41900815)

Also, IRC ftw.

Sounds (4, Funny)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900701)

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

Re:Sounds (1)

OldSport (2677879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900895)

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.

Get rid of the backdoors (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900791)

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

In other news... (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900841)

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.

3rd party clients... (1)

jonwil (467024) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900887)

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)

Re:3rd party clients... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901787)

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.

Way to go MS (3)

MaXimillion (856525) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900889)

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?

Re:Way to go MS (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901807)

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.

Skype on 360 (2)

Babbster (107076) | about a year and a half ago | (#41900969)

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.

Re:Skype on 360 (2)

CasaDelGato (701438) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901627)

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.

No single client solution (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901073)

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.

Re:No single client solution (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901815)

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

Office Lync / Communicator? (1)

mathew42 (2475458) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901235)

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on Microsoft Lync [wikipedia.org] (formally Office Communicator). Two advantages of Communicator are that SIPE project [sourceforge.net] 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.

Impact on Microsoft Lync? (4, Interesting)

Pvt_Waldo (459439) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901267)

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

Re:Impact on Microsoft Lync? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41901625)

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

What about Remote Assistance? (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901321)

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

Re:What about Remote Assistance? (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901391)

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.

Re:What about Remote Assistance? (1)

caseih (160668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41902323)

Google Chrome remote desktop add on.

Too bad :) :( (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901871)

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.

Steam (2)

DudemanX (44606) | about a year and a half ago | (#41901931)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...