Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 8th Nov 2012 02:24 UTC
Windows Microsoft is discontinuing Windows Live Messenger in 1st quarter 2013, forcing users to switch to Skype. Most would want to switch to Skype anyway with its more advanced capabilities, and the switch makes sense to Microsoft, since they purchased Skype for $8.5 billion last year. However, the move may be seen as typical Redmondian high-handedness by those using Messenger with dial-up. Technically Skype works with dial-up but in practice most agree you really need broadband for decent use. Will everyone view Messenger as replaceable by Skype?
Permalink for comment 541409
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Could it be fixed?
by darknexus on Thu 8th Nov 2012 11:15 UTC in reply to "Could it be fixed?"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I mean, it feels as if skype's performances have just gotten worse within the last 2-3 years.


Welcome to the world of Microsoft. Okay, I'm partially sniping here, but only partially. Look at Microsoft Office, which has gotten larger and slower over the years without adding any additional value to the most commonly used parts of it (Word, Excel, Outlook, and later Sharepoint). Look at the Windows Live suite itself. Bigger, slower, buggier and even worse, ad-infested. Until recently even Windows followed this pattern, with Windows 7 being the first Windows release in several years that wasn't slower than the version immediately preceding it (Windows 8 seems to set the trend again however, thanks to the slowness of the Metro/Desktop combination).
In short: Could Skype's performance be improved? Certainly. With Microsoft in charge, is that likely? Probably not. I'm just glad they haven't too badly messed up the Mac version yet, although how long that's going to last is anyone's guess.

Reply Parent Score: 4