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 541701
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Alternatives?
by zima on Fri 9th Nov 2012 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Alternatives?"
Member since:

I'm personally more interested in an Average Joe - oriented cross-platform WLM alternative. I mean, the software would have to do all the usual stuff like e.g. voice and video chat, text chat with colours and embedded pictures, graphical smileys, the ability to send and receive files, offline messages, and maintaining of friends lists.
[...] it must be a separate application, not just something that runs inside the browser.

Too bad for the last requirement. Because a combination (so yeah, still not that great, not one app; though I'm not sure how extensive the Android client is) of Gmail with video plugin plus the original win32 GTalk, does pretty much all that (Gtalk for image transfers with nice previews, and file transfers in general if too big for email); maybe except not having several buddy lists, if that's what you want there.

Too bad it might not last, the win32 client is how neglected.

So, other than that... Skype, I suppose ;p

Reply Parent Score: 2