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?
Thread beginning with comment 541417
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Could it be fixed?
by lucas_maximus on Thu 8th Nov 2012 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Could it be fixed?"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

As for office, lets not forget the ton of work that was put into supporting things like infopath, connecting to sharepoint, connecting to databases etc etc that happened over the years.

While for users of a lone desktop things might not seem very different, I bet there are a ton of changes for Enterprise users.

Anyway the same comments could be made for pretty much any program, the Linux kernel, the GCC compiler, Open Office and more besides, MacOSX etc. etc. etc.

Also why does anyone care anymore? We have loads of ram and hardrive room and ridiculously powerful processors (even in our phones).

The only thing that I have seen significantly slow down a computer in the last few years in is ironically Firefox (memory leak is still there) and McAfee.

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).


Windows 8 is easily faster than Windows 7. Especially while using the desktop.

Metro apps are slow to start-up but once running are nice and snappy.

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.


The linux version actually got a decent update after Microsoft bought them.

I really hate most of this crap that spoken of about Microsoft.

Edited 2012-11-08 12:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Could it be fixed?
by Trenien on Thu 8th Nov 2012 16:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Could it be fixed?"
Trenien Member since:
2007-10-11

Well, it actually began to worsen before skype was bought by microsoft. So, although I've no love for redmond's giant (and that's saying it nicely), I don't think they can be held accountable for that one.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Could it be fixed?
by ssokolow on Thu 8th Nov 2012 22:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Could it be fixed?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

The linux version actually got a decent update after Microsoft bought them.


And Skype 4.0 is literally the only application on my system which uses the ALSA API yet breaks unless you're running PulseAudio.

I had to stay on Skype 2.2 beta (thank goodness for the statically-linked tarball) to have a desktop where I can run Skype without being condemned to PulseAudio randomly bugging out.

(I also have one other thing that requires PulseAudio. A game which, on startup, waits forever for PulseAudio to start even if you don't have it installed. Thankfully, I got it in a bundle and was only trying to run it out of curiosity.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Could it be fixed?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 9th Nov 2012 08:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Could it be fixed?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well that is the problem, which API do you use?

Last time I counted there was:

*ALSA
*OSS
*PulseAudio

Which one do you make it compatible with? Most distros have pulseaudio.

Edited 2012-11-09 08:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2