Re: Why does Microsoft make things so difficult?



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" <nomail@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:hf8uv1lg47308i3hmnrs4n2tm7jo757lfd@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:39:02 -0700, "Cody"
<Cody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


.