Jump to content

Talk:MSN Messenger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:MSN Messenger

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jordanzed (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 16 May 2007 (→MSN [web] Messenger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Compatibility

MSN Messenger is an instant messaging client for Windows and Mac OS computers (officially, but
can be run on virtually any computer with an  Internet connection, see Third-party clients)

This information is wrong, there is a Web-based MSN Messenger client from Microsoft (http://webmessenger.msn.com/), thus MSN Messenger is available officially for any computer with an Internet connection.

I would say that's a bit of an exaggeration - web messenger won't run on older machines that don't meet the specs for the minimum browser requirements. Say I've got a 286 running DOS and Lynx as my browser - would Web Messenger run on that? But I DO have ann internet connection!
The official specs are: "Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or later, Netscape 7.1 or later, or Mozilla 1.6 or later, running in Microsoft Windows." from [1]. The eMessenger project at [2] allows Messenger access via WAP though.
I Totally Suport The Idea Of The Mix Of The To MSN Messengers But Compatibility Should Not Be An Issue Here. Its Called Windows Live Messenger To be A Part Of The New Set Of Stuff Coming Out Of Microsoft. Technically Its Called That But Its Still MSN Messenger 8.0. Sure It Has Way Higher System Requirements But Look At MSN Messenger 6 And 7, Did They Not Have Different System Requirements ( If They Did Not My Bad Cause i Have No Clue Myself ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.72.113 (talk • contribs)
Just mention it later in the article in a list of alternatives or in its own section if enough information is available that we won't be repeating ourselves. JordanZed 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MSN [web] Messenger

MSN Messenger refers to the application itself, not to the protocol. Therefore MSN Web Messenger is a different article.. a stub anyone?

maybe a REDIRECT would be more appropriate
Maybe a REDIRECT would be in order but only if Windows Live Messenger is mixed with MSN Messenger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.72.113 (talk • contribs) Oops I'm a little late.

how many users?

Is there information anywhere on how many people use MSN Messenger? I know that in the AIM article it said there was 195 million people using AIM, I'm curious if there is a number for MSN Messenger as well.

I can't find the links I'm thinking of at the moment, but there's this, a little outdated, but specifies 120 million users each month. 9 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
I've read 150+ million users on Microsofts web site only some days ago. --Shreddy 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

When was first released

There has to be some information about when the first version was released. What about posting a change log of all the different versions. There is more information out there!

MSN Messenger Service (original, formal name), version 1.0.0863 was released on July 22nd, 1999. Sources: Microsoft PressPass, Meeting by Wire 9 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

Yahoo + MSN integrate userbase

I've made moderate changes to the competition section of this article based on the recent news development that Yahoo and MSN will introduce interoperability between the two messengers. Here are several links to improve the quality of my quick contribution:

http://messenger.yahoo.com/partners_msn.php;_ylt=AkW4EDOueQMPf_Wc.qKLUkNwMMIF http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2143773/yahoo-msn-marry-messengers

Criticism and NPOV

The article states: "Some believe that this is a way of forcing Macintosh users to use Windows, so they may use the complete MSN Messenger."

I find it hard to believe that a significant number of Macintosh users believe that Microsoft intends to force an OS switch by merely omitting some features in their IM client. Conversely one might conclude that Apple's iChat AV is a way of forcing Windows users to use Mac OS X becaues it supports multi-person audio and video conferencing and does not offer a Windows client.

By the same argument, Microsoft is also trying to force Windows users to use Windows by offering similarly "limited, featureless" IM support to users of their Windows Messenger client which is included in Windows. The paragraph mentions lacking webcam and ink support which are lacking in Windows Messenger.

In either case, it's a baseless conspiracy theory and has no place in a neutral encyclopedia article (NPOV policy). Considering these facts, the criticism does not seem worthy of mention in the article.

One way around this might be to make a tabular feature comparison between the various versions, beginning with comparisons of the stand alone client, Mac client, and Webmessenger client.

Perhaps something similar to the one found here: Comparison of instant messengers

-- N okla 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Messenger 7.5 and Passport

Does anyone have more info on this line in the document?

"Introduced a new sign-in method, dropping the built in Passport creditentials system in Windows XP"'

My first impression was that MSN Messenger 7.5 was dropping Passport, but a look at the app indicates otherwise. I think the article needs some clarification in this regard.

-- N okla 22:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That does sound a bit off. Previously it used the creditentials system is Windows XP, which has a special thing for Passport accounts ('Manage my network password' in User Accounts). Here's an explanation from a program manager: New Login UI and Platform: The Identity Services team (passport) has created a client library called the Identity Client Run Time Library (or IDCRL for short). It provides a richer programming model and easier integration of passport authentication services into messenger. In other words: Improved Login functionality including reliability, auto-complete in the login address well; ability to save login information. Duphus 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since "dropping the built-in Passport credentials" seems misleading, I'm changing it to this: "Introduced an updated Passport creditentials system." -- N okla 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Malware

Shouldn't some mention be made of the insipid and various MSN worms that mimic someone messaging you and invite you to download the worm in the guise of a sent-file? Those used to be teh suck.

I supposed there could be a section explaining it is a frequent target, new ones pop up quite regulary, go ahead and add it if you want. Duphus 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Criticism

The URL pointing to the online competition does not exist anymore. Line deleted.


.php blocking?

The whole "MSN Messenger blocks PHP webhosts!" thing seems a bit far-fetched and probably a falsified flame made by a troll. I vote for the removal of the section. --W3bbo

Most of the text there seems POV, but it is correct it blocks text containing download.php and gallery.php. No announcement has been made regarding this, but I personally believe it is an effort to stop worms. Such messages may contain: "OMG LOOK FUNNERZ PIC: http://www.messengerspam.com/gallery.php?user@hotmail.com", which downloads the worm EXE for the user to run. I suggest a rewrite of that bit. Duphus 08:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I made a thread on MSDN's Channel 9 about this "php blockage" and it seems that this is real. I notice that someone has removed the section on it, perhaps it needs to be restored (after all, it is pretty important that MSN is Censoring MSN Messenger without telling us!). The thread and evidence is available here: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=144437 W3bbo 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a feeling there actually were worms containing download.php and gallery.php, but I can't find any community news coverage (there usually is). In which case what they're doing is quite valid: stopping worm prorogation. The blocking did receive coverage when it was discovered and the only point the anti-PHP nonsense popped up was by crackpot speculators trying to make news "better", even as the text said, it was rumours. Perhaps the article could have a section on its IM worms, it is quite a problem. Duphus 04:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Correct. I have worked as an intern at Microsoft last summer with the Messenger server team, and have found the source code to only contain references to URLs known to host virusses. They are not censoring, merely protecting the users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.198.213 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Also just remembered that when either of the two phrases are received by the server, the IM session/connection is dropped. So, if there are more than two people in the conversation, everyone is kicked out. This is also another possible reason why they've tried to keep it low profile, since anyone can end a multi-party conversation. Another one, the text ".pif" and ".scr" does the same thing, .pif couldn't get more obvious that it is to stop worms. Duphus 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the section with a bit better wording. Some more citations would be nice though. // Gargaj 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this censorship even real? I used Gaim and IMed myself and tested every string that was supposedly censored by MSN, and nothing happened. Everything was like it was normally. Here's a screenshot to prove it: [3] TanookiMario257 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is real, but probably client side. I tried sending from Gaim to my friend who uses the latest version of MSN and he didn't receive the message. Sadly, my reason was legitimate, too. This really doesn't stop worms anywho, you could just as easily use foo.php instead of download.php Dustin 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

removed

"and see the new version, rather than downloading and installing the full program.and it had stuff in it like colors and everthing i dont no tho..."

I just removed the above from 1.11 MSN Messenger QFE Patch. Can someone who is involved in this article add any information from it back into the article. The bellman 09:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"and see the new version, rather than downloading and installing the full program" is supposed to be there with another piece, I've restored it... think it was just a random deletion by vandal. Duphus 12:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

IE6 required?

I have tried to install MSN Messenger 7.0 and then uninstall IE6 in my Windows 2000, and the MSN Messenger still works. So, why they have been specified to require IE6 as a prerequisite? --Hello World! 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it heavily relys on it. But off the top of my head one of the things it needs IE6 for is the message history, does it render message history for a user in the normal way? Duphus 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean the message history? I have noticed that they are XML files, so they can be viewed by any XML parsers or XML editors. --Hello World! 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's the XSL styling pre-IE6 can't handle properly. What do you mean by uninstalling IE6? Switching to 5.5 or removing it completely? If the latter, then I think the browser control is still there, which is used when you right click > View Message History (or something). Duphus 04:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Messenger Plus

Does anyone know anything on messenger plus[4]? Cheers --LeftyG 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See Messenger Plus!. FireFox 09:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I loaded it once... got pounded with pop ups and spyware...would not recommend it.--Mfinney 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You should have checked the "no adware" option. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

emoticons/games

There are way more than 4 games.. should there be a list? And is anyone going to write about how the emoticons and emoticon set have changed through the versions? 203.218.88.47 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there should be a list. --Terence Ong Talk 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a list of MSN Messenger v6.0 emoticons: [5] --Freethemustard 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the v3.6 - v4.6 list of MSN Messenger emoticons: [6] --Freethemustard 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And here's the list of the latest version (v7.5) emoticons: [7] --Freethemustard 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

License

Isn't MSN Messenger adware because it is ad-supported? The bottom of the main window has a small graphical banner, and the bottom of every conversation window has a single line text ad. Wilson 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are millions of people using MSN, and Microsoft hasn't receive complains yet. I think those are sponsored. Also, I don't see a single line text ad at the bottom of every coversation. --Terence Ong Talk 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There are single line ads nowWolfmankurd 17:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Technically since MSN Messenger has a banner graphic, it IS an ad-supported software (aka adware), however MSN is a much less invasive type of adware, since it only features ads on the program itself, and doesn't bring ads to outside of the program (i.e. it doesn't display popups, or bundle other adwares, etc).

Custom game patch/Activity SDK

Should the custom game patch information be removed since Microsoft released the Activity SDK?

MSN Messenger 7.5.0322 has been pulled

More infomation here http://spaces.msn.com/members/messenger-support/blog/cns!1pUFzGgzjAV-OT0jri_AqaGw!1683.entry and www.msnfanatic.com so u might wana change latest version infomation Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.SoothingR 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Winks

Are "winks" really Flash animations, as stated in this article? Ehn 10:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 6.2 (MSNP10) no longer allowed

After having used 6.2 for quite some time I was denied access today after a reboot. So I guess MSNP version 10 is no longer allowed, and you have to use a newer client. Verification from another user with regards to this would be welcome. I'll see what version I have at work and test some more tomorrow. --Harald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.177.2 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


After testing from work I found out that version 7.0 still work, but I don't know which protocol it uses. I guess it's MSNP11 but I'm not sure. --Harald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.177.2 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Name Change - Merge ?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to merge, but move to History of Windows Live Messenger. However, upon further examination, this page was moved after only a day of voting. Therefore, there was no consensus for either proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft has recently announced MSN is going to be split away from the rest of their online services, and that MSN Messenger will be merged with Windows Messenger, to be renamed Windows Live Messenger. Can anyone update the article for this change?

Some resources:

Live.com: http://ideas.live.com/mainpage.aspx

Announcement of MSN's name change: http://spaces.msn.com/members/MessengerSays/

I think the article should remain, but when the rebrand has gone through (Windows Live Messenger is released), it should be modified to state that it is now defunct (or a more appropriate word) and has a new name, articles for Windows Live and Windows Live Messenger have already been created.
I don't think the way you put it is very accurate, Windows Messenger doesn't really have anything to do with this. This press release is a good source for info. Duphus 08:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge to WLM

  • Against - Come on now, use your common sense. Windows Live Messenger and MSN Messenger are clearly different. The fact that they have the same creator does not make them the same product. Cyclonenim 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. MSN Messenger is slated to become Windows Live Messenger. As soon as it goes live, any MSN Messenger queries should be redirected to a page about WLM. Common sense, as Mr. Fenton suggested above, would suggest having the new product replace the old one.
  • Nope - Their different products made differently. MSN Messenger was made by Microsofts MSN, and Windows Live Messenger is kinda like the renewal of the old unpopluar Windows Messenger which is auto installed on Windows. Plus more people use MSN Messenger than Windows Live, and Windows Live hasn't been released in a stable verison. Its still a beta. Koolgiy 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. WLM is only for Windows XP or above. Why merge MSN Messenger with this when the requirements are different? Thats like saying "Let's merge Windows 3.11 with Windows Vista"
Dustin 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the discussion directly below. Windows itself is an excellent analogy. We don't have Windows 3.1 in the same article with Windows xp. There are enough changes for this to be viewed in a separate article. - jc37 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The content is entirely different between the two articles. And merging them would create a rather large article, that we'd have to find some way to split anyway (a spilt which would be along these lines anyway). - jc37 20:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It already has: History of MSN Messenger, Games and applications for Windows Live Messenger. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response : ) - While I was going to mention that This article has more than the "histroy" article, and has a clearer name (especially since there are some users who still use the older products), I note that that article is up for deletion. Given the choice, I think I'd rather retain this article's edit history, and delete that one. (Also noting that you were the creator of that article in June 2006, as well as the games article you cited.)- jc37 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i split off the content to allow the merge to go through much more smoothly and stop WLM from becoming excessive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well at this point, to preserve the older edit history (GDFL concerns), I think we should support this article instead of the "history" one. I'm going to suggest that in the AfD discussion. (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Windows Live Messenger). And since, as you note in the AfD, the Windows Live article would be "too long" with this information added, I presume that you will no longer support the redirect. - jc37 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You presume wrong, this article just duplicates what can be done better split of and merged into the new article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, as this is the older article, the other article duplicates this one. But anyway, I think I'll wait for the AfD to end, and then we can attempt to discuss this further. - jc37 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well since the results of: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Windows Live Messenger, was "delete", I think that eradicates your arguement about duplication. - jc37 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
After reading this a bit more, I don't understand... I don't support having this MSN Messenger article deleted; I was under the impression that a merge would result in this page becoming a redirect. If this was a redirect, the history of this page would still be preserved, wouldn't it? I don't understand your position on the duplication bit either -- the AfD votes are clear that there should not be duplication and I thought this was what Mr. Fenton was hoping to achieve by the merging of this article with the Windows Live Messenger article. I'm not clear on how the result of the AfD vote supports your position; to me it sounds like you view the WLM article to be a duplicate of this one, and that you would like the WLM content to be merged into here instead. Is that correct? Otherwise, how do you propose to have a Windows Live Messenger article that doesn't duplicate this one? I suggested below that the WLM article could be heavily edited so that there was no such duplication -- Although I am in favour of merging this article with the WLM article (as I believe that it would be easier to maintain a single page) I would fully support having two articles if the content of each is markedly different and is not duplicated (in both a logical and literal sense). I look forward to that happening soon. Alternatively, I would like to see your solution to this duplication problem (or why the current duplication isn't a problem). --59.167.104.199 14:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that User:Matthew Fenton created History of Windows Live Messenger, which was split from Windows Live Messenger (and was partially a duplication of this article). He then claimed that this article duplicated his history article, and wanted to make this one a redirect (even though this one predated it). Since then his new article has been deleted, per the AfD listed above, and which reaffirmed that this article should stand as it is. I do not believe that Windows Live Messenger or MSN Messenger should be merged (under either name). I hope that this clarifies. - jc37 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I think that since it's practically just a name change (still the same messenger, just with a few different things susceptible to version changes) and that MS didn't call it WLM 1.0, I think it should be merged. And for the person that said 8.0 is only meant for XP, 7.5 was also only meant for XP (except that you could edit the setup to run on win 2000). And if we're to go by your thinking, then why not split 7.5 from the rest of the versions since it doesn't run on Windows 98 anymore. SmartSped 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Object I think it's best to leave the MSN article to document the history of WLM. (Perhaps we could go as far as having Main article: MSN Messenger in a yet to be written history section of the WLM article. -- Selmo (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Its obviously the same product (note the analogous version numbers). Merging the two articles would also avoid confusion. Tryggvia 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. - I think that MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger are different products. I wouldn't say completely different but they are definitely not the same product. They have different names and Windows Live Messenger is a big update to MSN Messenger. Windows Live Messenger has a totally different GUI (unlike most previous versions of MSN Messenger - most of which shared an older, different GUI) and I agree with the comments that it would be like merging the Windows 3.1 article with Windows Vista article etc. Windows Live Messenger is big improvement and update to MSN Messenger and has lots more and newer features. MSN Messenger is the old historical version and Windows Live Messenger is newer, more recent (and cannot be used on < Windows XP). It seems sensible to keep them separate to me. The andyman 0 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge. - Microsoft: Now MSN Messenger, you will be called WLM. Newbie: wow it's new! 16@r 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Just as Windows Internet Explorer 7 was a MAJOR upgrade to Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, Windows Live Messenger 8.0 is a MAJOR upgrade to MSN Messenger 7.5 Proto Dude 05:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The andyman 0 is right. MSN and Windows Live Messengers are different. Windows Live Messenger has a different user interface and and can't be used with the preseccessers of Windows XP. Salmans801

That does not make sense at all. First, you spelled predecessor wrong if that was what you were trying to spell. Second, IE 7 does not work on the predecessors of Windows XP either.Proto Dude 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'Oppose Seems to be substantial amount of content for both. Cultural impact of product family is high. Joestella 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as per many of arguments above, I would agree that the articles for Windows itself are an excellent example --Amxitsa 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I'm disputing this - I never liked it when it was redirected, and there is a lot of good seperate info for each article. And they are slightly different products as well. RN 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I obviously agree, (since I reverted the redirect). While the new version is apparently MSN messenger 8.0, I think it's comparable to the differences between windows 98 and windows 2000 (which each receive their own pages). - jc37 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Whaaaa? MSN Messenger 7.5 -> WLM 8.0 is nowhere near the scope of change from Windows 98 -> 2000. Have you noticed that the executable name for WLM is msnmsgr.exe and is installed in a directory called "MSN Messenger"? It's a new version of the same product, and save for the name change and a set of new features typical of a major version number upgrade, there's really no difference between the two. -/- Warren 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The name of the product is the same, and the name of the installation directory is the same..... k - Windows is called windows, and installs into a directory called Windows, whether you're talking 3.1 or Me : )
But that aside, Win 95 and Win 98 also have their own articles. And further, both MSN Messenger and Win live articles have a large amount of different and varied information. No reason to have a single mile length article, when we already have a natural split (marketed name change). - jc37 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages suggests that pages should be merged if "there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap". Look at the current versions of both this MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger pages and spot the differences. What is the different and varied information? New content in the WLM article is just development information. If the article is too long, I would suggest splitting the page and moving the development information to a new page... Otherwise, following your argument, why aren't there different pages for MSN Messenger 1 to 7? In regards to Windows, Windows 98 article refers to new and updated features from Windows 95 - unless the Windows Live Messenger article is going to be drastically edited so that it follows that style and only gives information on the new features, then I think this and the WLM article should be merged. Otherwise, now we just have virtually duplicate information split on two very long pages; protocol, xbox live integration, games, applications, and criticism sections look pretty similar to me (i.e. most of the article). Also see the AOL Instant Messenger article - AIM has several different names and several different current versions on one page.--59.167.104.199 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, using your arguement, if we merged the article, we'd immediately have to split it, and this is a rather likely way it would be split, anyway. Also, in looking at both articles, I don't see the duplicate information you are referring to. - jc37 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Games and applications (on a separate page in the WLM article) is/should be duplicate for both articles (at least, currently they update both MSN and WLM with the same games and applications). XBox Live Integration section is/should be duplicate. Protocol is the same except WLM is up to version 14. Competition should be the same in both articles -- since WLM is an upgrade of MSN, it doesn't make much sense that there is different competition. The same goes for criticism; all of the criticism listed in the MSN Messenger article applies to WLM. Do you agree that these sections are/should be duplicate? I can see that only the development section and features section are different (as WLM developed new features). Do you agree that these are the only different sections?
As you mention, I do not oppose splitting the article eventually, but I believe the current articles are split in the wrong fashion (as so much information is or should be duplicate). Thus, I believe the article should be merged with WLM (or vice versa, I suppose) until a more appropriate version of either page is created or a better way of presenting the content is found.
If you (or others, of course) still disagree, then I suggest that -- for the time being -- the aforementioned sections should be edited for consistency (i.e. copy missing information from the MSN article to the WLM article). Then, I will propose changing the WLM article to link to the MSN article where information is identical.
I honestly appreciate your opinion thus far, and I would like your opinion on what course of action should be taken, if any.--59.167.104.199 02:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply redirecting doesn't make sense when the information haven't been removed, reverted. A merge is of course possible, or splitting in a different way, but I think that it must be noted on the WLM page, or that the information on the MSN Messenger page must be merged before the redirect. Lemmio 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This proposed merger has been listed at Proposed Mergers for greater community feedback. Luke! 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

People, please! There are about as many differences between Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 and Windows Internet Explorer 7, as there are between MSN Messenger 7.5 and Windows Live Messenger 8.0. So now what? By the same logic that the opposers use, we should make IE7 a separate article too? Proto Dude 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to History of Windows Live Messenger

  • Support - Since this article is far too large to be merged into WLM, I recommend that this article be renamed (and only slightly modified) to History of Windows Live Messenger, as WLM is the direct successor to MSN Messenger. (It's part of the MSN rebranding to Live, successive version number, the old Windows Messenger is simply be retired, etc.) Craig R. Nielsen 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check this out. (And the associated discussion.) - jc37 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article's gotta be renamed. Personally, I believe it should be merged, but there appears to be an overwhelming majority against this decision. At the moment it doesn't seem to acknowledge that Windows Live Messenger is simply the next version of MSN Messenger, but rather treats the two as completely separate programs. The fact that the infobox lists 7.5 as the latest release (as well as including the 7.5 logo and screenshot) confirms this. It's the same as if 6.0 was labelled the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer just because 7.0 was renamed Windows Internet Explorer. I suggest the article should be renamed and the infobox removed. --Tobz1000 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Impact?

MSN has been quite influential on culture, especially teenage culture in the UK (at least I notice it). Is there a place for a comment on this in this article? User:Saveourcity 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of cultural impact? Is there documented support or hearsay? Luke! 23:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Move Protected

This page has been move-protected until discussion has concluded on whether or not this page should be moved to History of Windows Live Messenger. Discussion about this can be found here. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Freeware?

This is a freeware? AFAIK, most of microsoft software that are parts of windows operating system, for example, windows media player, they are distributed as if they are windows update components themself. According to the EULA, to install those windows updates, you must have a legal licensed copy of microsoft operating system. In other words, it allow you to install the updates only on a licensed copy of microsoft OS. As it is a part of windows update, so it shouldn't be called freeware? --203.190.250.105 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

MSN Messenger is not part of the Windows operating system, is not distributed via Windows Update, and does not require validation. Themodernizer 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep at current location, MSN Messenger. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MSN Messenger → History of Windows Live Messenger — Duplicate content from Windows Live Messenger. Themodernizer 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

  1. Oppose the premise above, per: 1.) the rather lengthy "no concensus" discussion above about the difference between MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger; 2.) The AfD, which resulted in a delete of History of Windows Live Messenger; 3.) The discussion above and the AfD have made it rather clear that this article wasn't duplicative of Windows Live Messenger, but of the previous History of Windows Live Messenger. (Which was a new created artcile, duplicating this one, presumably to side-step the merge/rename discussion, out-of-process.); 4.) Concerns about Themodernizer's POV in this discussion, based on the user's edit history (rather Microsoft-centric, among other concerns), and specifically that he reverted the template for the merge discussion, preferring to substitute a link to the now deleted History of Windows Live Messenger here and when Luckyluke reverted, this was his response. - jc37 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  1. In response to User:jc37's opposition: 1.) I think that "no consensus" should provoke further discussion such as this; 2.) The AfD was about duplication between MSN Messenger and History of Windows Live Messenger: this discussion is about renaming MSN Messenger to History of Windows Live Messenger; 3.) I don't think there was consensus on whether or not MSN Messenger was duplicative of Windows Live Messenger--for example, User:jc37 did not respond to this comment: "Games and applications (on a separate page in the WLM article) is/should be duplicate for both articles (at least, currently they update both MSN and WLM with the same games and applications). XBox Live Integration section is/should be duplicate. Protocol is the same except WLM is up to version 14. Competition should be the same in both articles -- since WLM is an upgrade of MSN, it doesn't make much sense that there is different competition. The same goes for criticism; all of the criticism listed in the MSN Messenger article applies to WLM. Do you agree that these sections are/should be duplicate? I can see that only the development section and features section are different (as WLM developed new features). Do you agree that these are the only different sections?"; and 4.) By definition, this discussion requires the point of view from various users, and I don't believe the article's neutrality is at stake (by renaming it). On the other hand, similiar to User:MatthewFenton's past actions with this article, I think User:Themodernizer's action in removing the template was inappropriate. 59.167.106.225 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I removed the template because at the time of removal, I had already moved the article MSN Messenger to History of Windows Live Messenger. Themodernizer 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vendor lock-in?

Do you think Messenger contributes to Vendor lock-in? Would it help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:MSN_Messenger/Archive_1&oldid=131291339"