Beta
×

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!

Windows Live Messenger with VoIP

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the soon-everyone-will-be-doing-it dept.

169

V-man writes "Microsoft has just launched Windows Live Messenger with free PC-to-PC phone calls and PC-to-phone calling as a pay service provided by Verizon Web Calling. Of course, most people doing PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling are probably using Firefox...too bad the Launch Page isn't Mozilla friendly."

cancel ×

169 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Launch Page (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583840)

What's wrong with it? It works just fine in my Firefox. I was expecting the screen that tells me I have to "upgrade" to IE to even see the screen. But, nope, works fine.

Re:Launch Page (3, Informative)

jasonwc (939262) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584163)

Perhaps the submitter doesn't have Flash installed or is using an extension like noscript or flashblock. When I loaded the site with noscript enabled, I saw only a blank page. I had to allow the site before it displayed properly. Yet, I would hope the submitter would be intelligent enough to know the difference between a page that doesn't load properly in Firefox and one that simply needs the Flash plugin or JavaScript support (in the case of noscript users).

Re:Launch Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584169)

"What's wrong with it?"

I got a big blue "F" button and an all white page (no text) when I accessed it in FF. I have flash blocker, though.

Re:Launch Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584439)

*Gasp*! Could they be using Flash for the cause of good?

Of Course! (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583844)

Of course, most people doing PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling are probably using Firefox
Of course? Says who. Slashdot, opinions from nerds.

Linus was right (1, Funny)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583956)

Slashdot is composed largely of wankers [lkml.org] prattling on about things they know nothing about.

Re:Of Course! (2, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583979)

That comment was really stupid. Most users doing PC to PC and PC- to Phone calls are using Skype.

Having said that, I recently migrated to Fedora Core from Windows XP, and although I am happy becaus now I can say I "eat my dogs food" I have been having difficulties with VoIp (among other things that ar offtopic).

I know Microsoft would *never* provide any service for unix but, does anyone know if there is a good Skype replacement for Linux?, I have not downloaded it but I believe Skype for linux stalled in the 1.4 version (which means, no video, although it wont matter a lot as I have had difficulties getting FC4 recognize my webcam). Now, if anyone knows, is it possible to run for example voipbuster (calls are really cheap to Mexico[outside Mexico city], where I call frequently). I remember reading about an open source VoIp project, but, does it provides PC to POTS service? and How much?.

As a shameless plug, I would like to wonder, how difficult could it be to make a peer 2 peer VoIp service that included the PC to POTS service, for example, if I downloaded the free PC2POTS server and installed the infraestructure in my home country I could charge (or not) for *connecting* calls to my country or state. How difficult is to do that? is it possible at all?.

Re:Of Course! (2, Informative)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584170)

There's a decent EARLY replacement for Skype available in OpenWengo [openwengo.org] but it's super beta at best right now. The voice quality isn't as good as Skype yet (at least from NorthAm). However, it's got a ton of potential (and video!).

Re:Of Course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584281)

AC because I modded this story.

Try Ekiga, it is the old Gnome meeting, but it may be for FC5 only. For the web cam, try the Ubuntu live CD/installer, and see if it sees your web-cam. Skype is more out dated than it appears. It uses the old OSS drivers for sound so it has to go through an emulator to work. There are many projects for Google talk on Linux in alpha. I am helping test one right now. None are in beta yet as far as I know.

pjbgravely

SIP (3, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584528)

It's called the Session Initiation Protocol, and pretty much every VoIP service OTHER than Skype uses/supports it. (With a few small exceptions such as Google Talk which uses the Jingle VoIP extensions to the XMPP (aka Jabber) protocol). Note in that particular case that Google and many of the big proponents of SIP (especially Project Gizmo/SIPPhone) have been working on solutions for XMPP+Jingle interoperability with SIP.

There are a wide variety of SIP softphones available, just as there are a wide variety of SIP service providers. Many of these also support the IAX protocol, which is primarily used by Asterisk PBX systems.

Examples, most of these service providers provide their own SIP client, but in most cases SIP clients are interchangeable between SIP services:
StanaPhone (http://www.stanaphone.com/) - Free incoming DIDs (dial-in phone numbers) in various New York area codes
SIPPhone/Gizmo Project (http://www.gizmoproject.com/) - Free PC-to-PC, DIDs and outgoing PSTN cost money (not much though)
Free World Dialup - Primarily PC-to-PC (or Asterisk-to-Asterisk or whatever), but with some PSTN in/out capability
The list goes on and on, and I haven't even included the "landline replacement" VoIP providers. (Vonage in the U.S. is the most well known example, but most educated consumers hate them as they have some rather customer-unfriendly policies such as locking telephone adapters to their service and forbidding the use of your own telephone adapter without paying a significant extra fee). A few other providers do use other (although usually still known and standardized) protocols such as AT&T CallVantage (which uses the MGCP protocol).

See http://www.voip-info.org/ [voip-info.org] for LOTS of addition information on hardware, setup, and cheap providers.

Re:Of Course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584566)

SipPhone have a Linux client. http://www.gizmoproject.com/ [gizmoproject.com]

Re:Of Course! (4, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584079)

Yeah, I think he misspelled "Skype."

Not only that, but Firefox loads the page just fine. What an idiotic submission.

Re:Of Course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584160)

Not only that, but Firefox loads the page just fine.

It's not working for me. The page loads but I get no text.

(And, of course, with NoScript I get a blank page.)

Re:Of Course! (1)

toonworld (838479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584228)

In business, it's very important to be the "first mover", which means the fist company to deploy an innovative (I use the term loosely) idea. Not only did MS fail at being the first mover, but they were also not the second mover. Is this why execs are starting to quit the company? :P

Skype has been doing this for how long now?

Re:Of Course! (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584286)

Not in lower resolutions, nor in a smaller windows on mine (older firefox)

The scroll bar is broken. I had to remove the always on top setting on the windows bar to see the last line of text.

anyways, who cares

hehe if it can't go in an email i am using a real phone** If it is like everything else lately it will probably just function enough to say it functions. Does anything actually work good anymore?

**if in fact i had anyone to call ;)

Re:Of Course! (1)

kz45 (175825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584310)

Yeah, I think he misspelled "Skype."

Not only that, but Firefox loads the page just fine. What an idiotic submission.


I think skype will continue to be the leader. Especially since they are now offering free phone calls to anywhere in the US until january 1st.

Re:Of Course! (1)

shokk (187512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584154)

"Of course, most people doing PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling are probably using Firefox"
I'd like to know which anus he pulled that out of. I use Firefox myself, but that comment (and the whole post for that matter) smacks of noobie stupidity. And this was accepted for posting? Me thinks that Slashdot is starting to slide toward the Digg level of submission quality with this type of crap.

Re:Of Course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584155)

PC to PC only ?
IMHO That's not a very bright marketing Idea!
  Skype allows calling any telephone in the USA or Canada for a limited time
Microsoft better get with it!
Skype has beaten them already!
\Looks like they cant even enter the ring this time.
  Untl such time that they offer calling a real telphone they are not even a contender .
    I'll keep my Skype any day

Re:Of Course! (1)

peterpi (585134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584419)

"Of course, most people doing PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling are probably using Firefox"

And now Microsoft is making it user-friendly enough for those of us who don't care what a fox fire is.

Makes sense (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584543)

It makes perfect sense. Making phone calls via a PC is still a very, VERY geeky thing to do (I haven't had a microphone plugged into my PC since I bought a Sound Blaster 1.0 and wanted to try it out). Most uber-geeks use Firefox. Makes perfect sense to me. I really doubt that there are a lot of ordinary people that sit at their PC's with a microphone making phone calls.

I CRIED WHEN OPTIMUS PRIME DIED (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583845)


Not Mozilla Friendly? (5, Insightful)

Bluey (27101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583850)

too bad the Launch Page isn't Mozilla friendly.

What part isn't Mozilla friendly? I just went to the launch page with Firefox 1.5.0.4 and was able to navigate through the tabs and download the installer with no problem.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (2, Informative)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583912)

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060608 Ubuntu/dapper-security Firefox/1.5.0.4

Probably due to a lack of Flash 8... but all I see is this [imageshack.us] .

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584185)

I get that too, but only when I use IEtab.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (1)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584186)

It's purposely cripped for Linux browsers. Works fine using FF on Win VMWare but fails with same rev from Linux client. Can't be bothered to change the user agent to prove that point however.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584237)

Works fine with FF 1.5 on Win32 using UserAgent Switcher to send the user agent exactly as grandparent says. I'd say it's Flash 8, not MS trying to keep out Linux users.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (3, Informative)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584240)

No it isn't. It uses Flash 8, which Macromedia hasn't released a Linux client for.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (1)

HavokDevNull (99801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584305)

I'm using Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3
and see it fine. No flash on that page just java, maybe you should install java correctly if you have it installed, or install it if you don't have it installed.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583971)

Dont you know that this is Slashdot and we crib on anything thats related to microsoft as being "evil"??

YHBT. YHL. (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584060)

hand

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584064)

Yeah looks perfectly fine for me as well...

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584065)


It's actually working fine for me in ICAB Beta 3.0.1/OSX.

You probably think I'm shitting you. But I'm not.

Now all I need is a reason to use a Microsoft product.

Nothing is coming to me so far.

Re:Not Mozilla Friendly? (2, Informative)

Ethan Allison (904983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584362)

It's not Linux friendly. Firefox is fine if you have Flash 8.

Solution looking for a problem. (5, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583858)

Actually, it's worse than that. It's a bunch of crappy business plans and licensing arrangements looking for a solution looking for a problem.

It's VOIP! And instead of bypassing the telco, it requires a telco! And instead of working on every computer, it only works on Windows computers. And instead of being free, it costs money! And instead of working with every IM system, it only works with MSN! And instead of rendering it in HTML, we decided to give Adobe/Macromedia a cut and do the whole web page in Flash!

About all it's missing is a .us domain name for Web 2.0 buzzword compliance.

Re:Solution looking for a problem. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583908)

Talk about doing all the wrong steps...

>And instead of rendering it in HTML, we decided to give Adobe/Macromedia a cut and do the whole web page in Flash!

Ah, no wonder I'm seeing a blank page... I always disable plug-ins because animated banners and animated GIFs makes it impossible for me to read the actual content.

Now if only Apple could add "disable animated GIFs" to Safari, I wouldn't have to right-click on webpages to stop the animated GIFs...

Re:Solution looking for a problem. (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583946)

Don't like it? Don't use it. Not everyone shares your objections. Not everyone hates every single implimentation of Flash. Some people have no issues with Windows. There are other solutions out there for you. This one is not for you.

Re:Solution looking for a problem. (2, Interesting)

MStiles (882670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584020)

I'm not aware of VOIP programs that let you call standard phones - long distance even - without charging you money or working together with a telco. That part is kind of necessary to reach grandma's old touch-tone.

Of course Live Messenger is totally free for PC-to-PC calling, with nice high-res full-screen video even, if you want.

Re:Solution looking for a problem. (2, Informative)

maddskillz (207500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584098)

Currently Skype is free to regular phones from your PC, in North America. This is a promtion untill the end of the year
http://www.skype.com/help/guides/skypeout.html [skype.com]

Right on, although they do have mac versions... (2, Informative)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584095)

It's VOIP! And instead of bypassing the telco, it requires a telco! And instead of working on every computer, it only works on Windows computers. And instead of being free, it costs money! And instead of working with every IM system, it only works with MSN! And instead of rendering it in HTML, we decided to give Adobe/Macromedia a cut and do the whole web page in Flash!

Couldn't have put it better myself, although when my computer goes to the messenger website, it detects that I am coming from a mac, and offers me the mac version, so I guess it's not limited only to Windows. However, since the website won't even let me see the page for the windows version, I can't compare the differences. Perhaps the mac version has yet to offer full VOIP functionality.

Mozilla Friendliness (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583862)

Yeah, I noticed that last night when I went online to check the msn messenger server status when they went down in the UK.

I just assumed is was because I use Ubuntu, can a windows user or a mac user confirm this? Does it work in Safari?
I just assumed it was a flash item that didn't work in Linux because of lack of flash 8 player.

Re:Mozilla Friendliness (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583893)

I just assumed it was a flash item that didn't work in Linux because of lack of flash 8 player.

The entire page is all flash. If you don't have Flash and Javascript enabled you're not going to see much... actually you'll see nothing but a blank page.

Re:Mozilla Friendliness (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584137)

Yeah, but only flash 7 is availble. Or having been living in the filthy squalor of 7 unnecessarily?

Re:Mozilla Friendliness (2, Informative)

Mini-Geek (915324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583906)

I just assumed it was a flash item that didn't work in Linux because of lack of flash 8 player.


I see that as the most likely cause. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4 on XP (full UA string Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4) with Flash 8.0.something and it works just fine.

Re:Mozilla Friendliness (1)

rich3rd (559032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584120)

can a windows user or a mac user confirm this? Does it work in Safari?

All their flashy flash crap works in Safari. However, if I click the "Learn More" button, it automagically redirects me to the download page for Messenger for Mac, which hasn't been updated in at least a year. I'm just burning to get my hands on a Windoze machine and find out what I'm missing out on. </irony>

Firefox? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583869)

"...most people doing PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling are probably using Firefox..."

Oh? Where did you dig up this little nugget of information?

Two points: 1) not only über-geeks are doing PC-to-PC calling. 2) Lots of über-geeks actually use IE.

Re:Firefox? (4, Informative)

Auntie Virus (772950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583896)

3) Skype is currently free for PC-to-Phone. Free as in beer.

How long will that last? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584067)

Talk about giving away the razors for free...

Re:Firefox? (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584101)

What's that you say? Looks like you have to pay for that.

Re:Firefox? (2, Interesting)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584496)

No, no you don't. Did you check their website?

I was about to pull up a link and prove it to you, but I think you can type in the website and go see for yourself.

And I've been making free calls from Skype to US phones for about a month now. I'd know if I were being charged.

Re:Firefox? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584246)

To U.S. phones, for U.S. users.

Re:Firefox? (1)

VAXcat (674775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584317)

Well, heck yeah...that's where are the really important phones and users are, anyway...

Re:Firefox? (0)

System.exit(true) (981356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583900)

I agree with the first part. And only the second part is true when they are writing web apps, because their technologically challenged customers tend to use IE.

Re:Firefox? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584039)

It's also true of the ones who realize that FireFox has security flaws too, and know enough to not have some false sense of security by using it.

There are those who just plain don't like it, don't want to deal with the various weirdo rendering bugs (no they aren't all because of the latest MS conspiracy theory - there are some actual bugs), compatibility issues, or so on. There are many who have to because the policies at their place of work prevent the installation of third party software.

There are many who just cant be arsed to download it, since it really has nothing new to offer (except the aforementioned false sense of security).

They realize a good firewall and common sense already give them all the protection they're going to get. They aren't going to fall for phishing schemes. They know it's perfectly fine to use Outlook so long as you aren't running every attachment that some random email from a random sender has attached.

They're pragmatic and are more concerned with the task at hand then a bunch of rhetoric on slashdot.

Re:Firefox? (2, Funny)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584351)

Quite true.

Myself, I use telnet on a virtual machine on a remote computer across a firewall running OS/2 as the host OS and an OS I created specifically for security as the guest OS; every hour, the host OS is refreshed from a ROM backup according to a hardware process.

When I have verified a site as being safe, I then allow myself to access it via a separate SSH tunnel using Mosaic as the rendering engine. Even then, I'm running it in WINE on a virtual machine under NetBSD.

You just need to take sensible precautions, really.

Re:Firefox? (1)

JJman (916535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584517)

...it really has nothing new to offer...

Huh. Well, personally I think that the 25 extensions that I use provide just a tinsey bit of functionality that is totally missing in IE. You know, stuff like...AdBlock...

And I'm not even mentioning tabbed browsing.

Counterpoints (was Re:Firefox?) (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584071)

Two points: 1) not only über-geeks are doing PC-to-PC calling. 2) Lots of über-geeks actually use IE.

Two counterpoints: 1) If people are using Firefox predominantly, they they are liable to not care that Windows Live Messenger has this function as they probably are not in the habit of using MS products and 2) über-geek is a hackneyed phrase that no self-respecting geek would use let alone be labelled as

Re:Counterpoints (was Re:Firefox?) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584149)

"2) über-geek is a hackneyed phrase that no self-respecting geek would use let alone be labelled as"

Unless they are German. And are in charge of several other geeks.

Besides, if even the geeks think the term 'über-geek' is passe, that makes those who use it the über-est of the über-geeks.

Re:Counterpoints (was Re:Firefox?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584168)

Well... wouldn't that technically make them sonderlingführers?

Re:Counterpoints (was Re:Firefox?) (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584275)

Mein Deutsch is a bit rusty, but I recall "über" as meaning "over, above, beyond" or something to that effect. That would seem to indicate that an 'über-geek' is "beyond a geek." What is there past geekdom?

As an aside, I wonder if Slashdot has an umlaut limit?

Re:Counterpoints (was Re:Firefox?) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584335)

There's no easy direct translation for über, but the closest would be that it indicates the epitome of something, or the superiority of something.

As to the ümlaut limit, you'd probably have to get a Spinal Tap article accepted in order to find out.

Re:Firefox? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584136)

While the contention that most VoIP users use Firefox (at least, exclusively) may be -- I suspect is -- wrong, neither of your points is relevant, when you consider point 3, which you omitted. 3) not only über-geeks use Firefox

Any geek using IE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584418)

...is, by definintion, non-über.

Am I wrong or (2, Insightful)

notBowen (811056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583879)

Doesn't Skype do this pretty damn well already?

Re:Am I wrong or (2, Insightful)

jonging (981292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584022)

It certainly does. This is an example of software piracy at its worse.

Re:Am I wrong or (2, Insightful)

almostmanda (774265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584078)

It does. And, in the case of PC-to-Phone, it does it for a much lower price (US and Canada = free)

No, but... (2, Insightful)

helmutvs (912204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584087)

So, are you saying competition is a bad thing?

Come on. This is nothing but good for the VoIP industry. With this, Google Talk, YIM, and Skype (and others, I'm sure) having voice capabilities, each must compete to be the best. Who wins? The consumer.

Re:Am I wrong or (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584173)

Yea, this is a major delima. Microsoft (evil) is now competing with Skype (owned by Evil Ebay). So is this bad news or good news????

Oh MSN Users.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583888)

From the chat conversation on the launch page:


Is that a new 'do'?

I straightend it


Windows Live Messenger, Still spell check free...

Voice chat (4, Informative)

Gax (196168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583889)

I'm curious, why is everyone promoting it as a new feature for instant messaging? Yahoo Messenger has had voice chat facilities for ages.

Re:Voice chat (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583944)

msn messenger has had voice chat for years too

Re:Voice chat (1)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584140)

msn messenger has had voice chat for years too

Mind you, voice chat is not a buzzword. However, VOiP is a buzzword and is used in marketing. So therefor they rename it.

Also iChat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584057)

Without charges...

Re:Voice chat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584094)

Because Google started doing it recently in Google Talk. If Google does it, it must be innovative, right? And if it's innovative, that means nobody else has done it. The people that think others have done it before Google have obviously been brainwashed by Microsoft and Yahoo.

Re:Voice chat (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584116)

So has MSN Messenger.. like.. since version 4.0?

Now we're running what is supposedly no. 8.0 - I have always been able to call people on the phone from my MSN client. I think they just tied it into Windows Live instead of "pick your crazy provider from our affiliates page".

Re:Voice chat (1)

gwhenning (693443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584252)

Because that's what it said on Apple's iChat page when they first thought of the idea of adding video and voice. Everyone knows Microsoft copies Apple, they just forgot to change the taglines.

And yes I do know that iChat doesn't offer voice to phone, I was making a funny.

Um, no... (2, Informative)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583895)

Maybe if you had an up to date version of Firefox you'd be fine... cause it works with no problems here.

And people complain about Microsoft's FUD...

Um, no... (2, Insightful)

GotenXiao (863190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584150)

Maybe if you were using a non-MS OS you'd be complaining... cause it doesn't work here.

And people (read: me) complain about Macrodobe and their shitty software...

Re:Um, no... (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584538)

Works for me in OS X. Are you saying Firefox uses a different engine for non-Microsoft platforms?

Anyone taking bets on... (0, Flamebait)

comzen (830240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583927)

...how soon the first security hole is found?

What (2, Informative)

fullphaser (939696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583961)

Only uber geeks due this? I am sitting in an office right now with a bunch of folks who use the their computers for VOIP related things, and most are engineers. So I don't see where it is only going to be used by "geeks" that doesn't make any sence what so ever. People are willing to use voip and computers for phone conversations, just look at all the "normals" with a webcam the internet is more accepted as a form of communication than I think even the phone, its becasue of pages like myspace etc. which have made the net usable.

Re:What (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584106)

"I am sitting in an office right now with a bunch of folks who use the their computers for VOIP related things, and most are engineers. So I don't see where it is only going to be used by "geeks" that doesn't make any sence what so ever."

Umm, engineers? Prototypical geeks of yesteryear, typical geeks of today.

Don't forget that there is a reason they call some people "computer geeks." This is to differentiate them from other types of geeks, like "math geeks" or "drama geeks" or "maxillofacial chicken decapitator geeks."

Though I do happen to agree with your point -- lots of the sales staff at my company use VOIP for PC to PC and PC to Phone. Y'know, because it's trendy, and they want to be early adopters -- they were the first kids on the block with iPods.

No Mac or Linux support (1)

yoasif (969247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583966)

Why not just use Skype? While I'm at it, are there any better VOIP packages that are standards based (I tried Gizmo project, but I never got it working)?

Strange problems once installed. (3, Informative)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583968)

A guy at work installed it on a trials machine, and that machine suffered weird problems. It could release, obtain, and renew a DHCP address, but couldn't ping anything, not even the gateway (which is also the switch that does the DHCP stuff).
He rolled the system back, and it all works.

There is a lot of different stuff on that machine though, so it **might** not be just due to that. I wonder if it hooks into the IP stack at some level, and that's what messed it up? Anyone else have any similar issues with it?

FUD (2, Insightful)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584102)


A guy at work installed it on a trials machine, and that machine suffered weird problems. It could release, obtain, and renew a DHCP address, but couldn't ping anything, not even the gateway (which is also the switch that does the DHCP stuff).
He rolled the system back, and it all works.

There is a lot of different stuff on that machine though, so it **might** not be just due to that. I wonder if it hooks into the IP stack at some level, and that's what messed it up? Anyone else have any similar issues with it?


Parent post is a probably a textbook definition of FUD.

Re:Strange problems once installed. (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584495)

I used it for about 10 minutes before switching back to my Mac using Adium. Live Messenger chewed up 50 megs of ram on my system just by loading, and locked the whole system up for nearly 10 seconds while it loaded my friends list (maybe about 30 people on it?).

This is kind of like my experience with the new Windows Media Player. I grabbed it to see what all the hubbub was about MTV's URGE music store, and watched as any other media/video application died a horrible death when I ran this.

I don't have the best computer out there, but a 1.7 GHz machine with XP Pro and a gig of ram should be able to handle an IM program without too much trouble.

Provided by Verizon, eh? (4, Funny)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15583986)

The nice thing about dealing with verizon is that the U.S. government will archive all of your conversations for free! Of course, you may not be able to access them, but it's nice to know there are backups out there somewhere.

Not Mozilla Friendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15583987)

Heck, at my company, it's not even WEB friendly:

Forbidden
You were denied access because:

Access denied by Websense content category. The requested URL belongs to the following category: Instant Messaging.

Launches fine on FireFox (2, Informative)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584012)

Don't know what version of "mozilla" your running, but was able to see the launch page just fine on FireFox, the only one that matters.

Not gonna be very popular (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584034)

Even M$ doesn't believe this business plan will work. The M$ Live Exec is gone [com.com] which might be an indication of how this is going to go down.

Offline Messaging (2, Insightful)

gen0c1de (977481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584062)

Umm, I don't think this is a new feature as ICQ has had this ability for years. Congrats Microsoft for finally making it to 1998. Too bad ICQ was bought my AOL as it was the IM of choice back in the day.

Re:Offline Messaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15584211)

Too bad ICQ is limited to 8-character passwords, making them ridiculously easy to brute force (Had my ICQ account stolen 6 times before I just gave up on getting it back.) This is how it was the last time I got my account back, maybe its changed since then, not like I care too much anymore.

Now that I use broadband, rather than dialup, offline messaging is moot since I leave my messenger (GAIM) on all day.

Mod Parent Troll (0, Redundant)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584084)

Of course, most people doing PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling are probably using Firefox

Why?

too bad the Launch Page isn't Mozilla friendly.

It works for me.

Swimming or drowning? (3, Funny)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584085)

One of the things I was taught when I learned how to swim as a child was that a drowning person tends to panic and flail around and fleetingly grab at everything and anything without rational thought. They'll even drag down their own potential rescuer. They can't help it.

Hey, it's better than a CAR ANALOGY.

Re:Swimming or drowning? (2, Interesting)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584166)

One of the things I was taught when I learned how to swim as a child was that a drowning person tends to panic and flail around and fleetingly grab at everything and anything without rational thought. They'll even drag down their own potential rescuer. They can't help it.

Still flawed. MSN Messenger is not sinking, nor drowning. It is quite well afloat, more so in Europe than in USA, but still, no reason to panic over this particular product for MS. What's important for them is that their official client is better than the unofficial clients, like gaim and amsn, so that people use the official version, and MS gets their ad revenue. So actually, through competition, aMSN forces MS to introduce new features.

The downside is that those features is properitary, so the 3rd party clients have to reverse engineer them

What about AT&t? (0)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584092)

Couldn't AT&T complain that they aren't a viable alternative to verizon, in the same method that google complained that Google isn't an option for IE default searching?

Yeah, AIM has had it, yahoo had it, ICQ.. (2, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584110)

So did MSN.. They've all had voice chat.

It's the PC to POTS feature that's really new.

Of course, only XBox users are smart enough to know that. Too bad slashdot isn't made-up-bullshit unfriendly.

Doesn't work with IE7 (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584147)

I've got IE7 Beta2 installed. Crashes with an error in ieframe.dll.

Well, will continue to use miranda then.

INNOVATION? (1)

KarMax (720996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584177)

At first sight it looks really fancy, the same "design" but with improvements... but I don't see REAL INNOVATION.

Windows Live Messenger
Its interesting that new name, they move from the MSN idea to this Windows Live but it will be good if they include REAL live chat. A long time ago when everybody has ICQ you can see char by char what is typing the other person. (More than one friend ask me if there is a way yo do that).

Soon: talk to your Yahoo! friends, too
Is an interesting move, it's not surprising... the alliance against Google is here. (now they need to figured out the best way to include PayPal on this) Maybe include paypal and passport and a UNIFIED IM are the next steps.

Sharing Folders
I'm still waiting for All Peers [allpeers.com] because the easy-to-share with friends all over the net is really good. Yes of course, there is a LOT of ways to do this, but for the average users it isn't a "easy ToDo thing"
BTW its the right time to find some vulns on this "Easy Share", with Ms behind there must be an "easy ToFind Vuln".

Simpsons Did IT!!!!!! (1)

Another IT Grunt (981199) | more than 8 years ago | (#15584389)

Just because the Simpsons' already did it doesn't mean that South Park doesn't kick their asses up and down the street!!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>