Vote to remove messenger integration

[Guest]

I vote that Microsoft remove ALL integration with Messenger, and let it
become a stand alone, use only if you want, to program where absolutely NO
other options or programs depend on it. It is a waist of resources. AOL, ICQ
etc have the decency not to integrate themselves with the rest of my programs
leaving the user to have it running ONLY when they want to use it for
communicating. The LAST thing we need around here is a bunch of the employees
instant messaging all their friends and family instead of working! Duh, what
was Microsoft thinking! There is a useful feature in Outlook, the "Display
Presence Status in the From field". It makes it a little easier to access
scheduling info etc for the sender of an e-mail. This info can be accessed
without messenger by right clicking and waiting a few seconds on the senders
name. However, if messenger is active and the above option is selected, (it
can only be selected if Messenger is active) then there is a nice little
Dot/Button next to the senders name you can click on to get the info. This is
typical of the useless obnoxious wasteful and frustrating integration of
Messenger that Microsoft has so rudely forced upon the user. I vote that
Microsoft immediately issue updates and patches that will remove ALL
integration without disabling any obviously don't need to be linked features
(Such as the one mentioned above) in all current OSes and other products, and
that they keep it out of Vista and future products etc. Who want's to vote
with me.

Ralph Malph

 

[Peter]

Suggest you post in and as a new post not a reply to someone elses! Also don't post in all
CAPS..it's considered shouting and is difficult to read.

 

[Richard Urban]

Windows Messenger (instant messaging) is necessary if you plan to use the
"request remote assistance" function of Windows XP (many end users do).
Remove Windows Messenger and you loose that benefit. The operating system
was designed for everyone, not just corporations.


--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Robert Moir]

I vote that Microsoft remove ALL integration with Messenger, and let
it become a stand alone, use only if you want, to program where
absolutely NO other options or programs depend on it. It is a waist
of resources. AOL, ICQ etc have the decency not to integrate
themselves with the rest of my programs

Actually no they don't. ICQ integrated itself into Outlook last time I
installed it and also makes changes to the operating system shell - more
changes that MSN IM in fact. I don't run AIM so I can't comment.

leaving the user to have it
running ONLY when they want to use it for communicating. The LAST
thing we need around here is a bunch of the employees instant
messaging all their friends and family instead of working! Duh, what
was Microsoft thinking!

Duh! Probably that
1) Workers are capable of behaving like adults instead of little school
kids.
2) There have been lots of studies on using IM as a *business tool*

They should certainly improve the ability of a network admin to manage and
prevent use of IM. That I'd agree with.

 

[Vagabond Software]

I vote that Microsoft remove ALL integration with Messenger, and let it
become a stand alone, use only if you want, to program where absolutely NO
other options or programs depend on it. It is a waist of resources. AOL,
ICQ
etc have the decency not to integrate themselves with the rest of my
programs
leaving the user to have it running ONLY when they want to use it for
communicating. The LAST thing we need around here is a bunch of the
employees
instant messaging all their friends and family instead of working! Duh,
what
was Microsoft thinking! There is a useful feature in Outlook, the "Display
Presence Status in the From field". It makes it a little easier to access
scheduling info etc for the sender of an e-mail. This info can be accessed
without messenger by right clicking and waiting a few seconds on the
senders
name. However, if messenger is active and the above option is selected,
(it
can only be selected if Messenger is active) then there is a nice little
Dot/Button next to the senders name you can click on to get the info. This
is
typical of the useless obnoxious wasteful and frustrating integration of
Messenger that Microsoft has so rudely forced upon the user. I vote that
Microsoft immediately issue updates and patches that will remove ALL
integration without disabling any obviously don't need to be linked
features
(Such as the one mentioned above) in all current OSes and other products,
and
that they keep it out of Vista and future products etc. Who want's to vote
with me.

Ralph Malph

Instant Messaging is an invaluable tool for business. I personally use
Trillian Pro for my AOLIM and YAHOO accounts, but stay with the actual
Windows Messenger for my MSN account because it supports Remote Assistance.
That feature alone has paid for every cup of Starbucks coffee I've had this
year.

I remember the hype about removing Internet Explorer from Windows in the
late 90s and what a short-sighted suggestion it was. How was I supposed to
download updated drivers for various hardware? How was I supposed to
download Netscape once they were forced to make it a free browser once
again? How was I supposed to visit a manufacturer's support site without an
integrated browser?

The most frustrating thing I dealt with last year was a company that had no
policy explicitly prohibiting the use of instant messengers, but a
napoleonic System Administrator that took it upon herself to attempt port
blocking and DNS redirection to thwart the use of messengers. All those
steps are useless, of course. However, what was frustrating is that the
Sharepoint Intranet was barely funcitonal. Dynamic Remote Desktop to the
Client Workstations didn't work more often than it did, and the fact that
gawd-knows how many useless hours were wasted trying to thwart instant
messaging in the absence of a company policy is reprehensible.

carl

 

[capitan]

I vote that Microsoft remove ALL integration with Messenger, and let it
become a stand alone, use only if you want, to program where absolutely NO
other options or programs depend on it. It is a waist of resources. AOL, ICQ
etc have the decency not to integrate themselves with the rest of my programs
leaving the user to have it running ONLY when they want to use it for
communicating. The LAST thing we need around here is a bunch of the employees
instant messaging all their friends and family instead of working! Duh, what
was Microsoft thinking! There is a useful feature in Outlook, the "Display
Presence Status in the From field". It makes it a little easier to access
scheduling info etc for the sender of an e-mail. This info can be accessed
without messenger by right clicking and waiting a few seconds on the senders
name. However, if messenger is active and the above option is selected, (it
can only be selected if Messenger is active) then there is a nice little
Dot/Button next to the senders name you can click on to get the info. This is
typical of the useless obnoxious wasteful and frustrating integration of
Messenger that Microsoft has so rudely forced upon the user. I vote that
Microsoft immediately issue updates and patches that will remove ALL
integration without disabling any obviously don't need to be linked features
(Such as the one mentioned above) in all current OSes and other products, and
that they keep it out of Vista and future products etc. Who want's to vote
with me.

Ralph Malph

Not that "voting" in the MS Support newsgroups is going to have any
effect, but I do agree with you. Messenger integration into Windows,
and while we are at it, IE/browser integration in the OS all sucks!

 

[Guest]

Richard,

Thank you for your reply, and thanks to everyone else who has commented or
replied.

All I am saying is that they should make Messenger a stand alone product.
There should be no grayed out or un-selectable options any where in any
programs when it is not used or installed. Then it truly would have been made
for both home and corporate use. There was no good reason for it to be
integrated. Included as an install option absolutely, but not forced upon you
with its never ending requests to make a passport account, which is another
pet peeve I have but will leave for another day. (Yes I know the Reg fix, but
most common users would not!)

As for ICQ it will add some options and augment some options as do many
other 3rd party programs good and bad, but there are no options in Outlook
etc that are dependent on it, and that is the key word, "dependent on it". An
option like the one I mentioned in Outlook has no place being linked in any
way to Messenger nor should it be limited because of the lack of it.

Can an IM be good for business, absolutely, there are many valuable uses for
it. But the work ethic out there stinks, just look around. There are plenty
of people who abuse IMs at work. And I have on more than one occasion had to
find a way to lock them out. I had one customer that had a good employee. She
had been with him several years. Then he got the internet to connect his
offices and communicate with the insurance companies he did business with.
We'll this employee could not control herself and started IMing all her
friends and family. Her productivity went to nil. She lost her job
(rightfully so), but now the employer has to find and train a new employee,
and the ex-employee has an IM addiction. (Something that the shrinks are only
just now beginning to understand and recognize as a legitimate mental health
concern.) All because of Messenger and its like. At least I can block the
others, but blocking an integrated one may make matters worse.

I could go on and on, but the issue is not if Messenger should be around,
just if it should be integrated.

Thanks again for all the comments.

Ralph Malph

PS..They did not have to integrate IE just so that you can get the many
updates needed due to poor programming on Microsoft’s part. I get almost all
my updates except Microsoft’s, of course, via FireFox.

 

[Richard Urban]

If what you want were to occur, I wonder how many people would remove
Windows Messenger and have problems months later, when they ask a relative
for remote assistance. How many people would put 2 and 2 together and
realize that they caused their own problem.

I think it is fine just the way it is.

If a company has problems with "individuals" using IM during work hours,
that's just what they have - problems with individuals. There are ways to
take care of someone who does not follow the rules and corporate
regulations. I don't have to tell you what they are.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Vagabond Software]

Thanks again for all the comments.

Ralph Malph

PS..They did not have to integrate IE just so that you can get the many
updates needed due to poor programming on Microsoft's part. I get almost
all
my updates except Microsoft's, of course, via FireFox.

Did you download FireFox using the command-line FTP or did you order the CD?

carl

 

[capitan]

Instant Messaging is an invaluable tool for business. I personally use
Trillian Pro for my AOLIM and YAHOO accounts, but stay with the actual
Windows Messenger for my MSN account because it supports Remote Assistance.
That feature alone has paid for every cup of Starbucks coffee I've had this
year.

I remember the hype about removing Internet Explorer from Windows in the
late 90s and what a short-sighted suggestion it was. How was I supposed to
download updated drivers for various hardware? How was I supposed to
download Netscape once they were forced to make it a free browser once
again? How was I supposed to visit a manufacturer's support site without an
integrated browser?

The excuses you give in no way justify the action of integrating a
browser into the kernel of the OS. Every flavor I can think of of Linux
includes a choice of browsers you can use with your OS installation
thereby allowing any access to the web you need (drivers, software,
etc.). However, they are installed as stand alone 3rd party programs
that are not integrated into the kernel. Windows would have been better
if the Browser was not integrated into the kernel.

 

[NoStop]

I vote that Microsoft remove ALL integration with Messenger, and let it
become a stand alone, use only if you want, to program where absolutely NO
other options or programs depend on it. It is a waist of resources. AOL,
ICQ etc have the decency not to integrate themselves with the rest of my
programs leaving the user to have it running ONLY when they want to use it
for communicating. The LAST thing we need around here is a bunch of the
employees instant messaging all their friends and family instead of
working! Duh, what was Microsoft thinking!

What else do expect if you're going to use a toy operating system?


--
_ _ _ ___ _____ ___
| | | | | / __> |_ _| / - \
| | | | | \__ \ | | | |
|
\ / iruses |_|ntruders <___/pyware |_|rojans |_|_|dware
Another toy "operating system" from MickeyMouse

 

[Vagabond Software]

The excuses you give in no way justify the action of integrating a browser
into the kernel of the OS. Every flavor I can think of of Linux includes
a choice of browsers you can use with your OS installation thereby
allowing any access to the web you need (drivers, software, etc.).
However, they are installed as stand alone 3rd party programs that are not
integrated into the kernel. Windows would have been better if the Browser
was not integrated into the kernel.

In late 1996, I wrote a technology planning document for 3Com Corporation,
my former employer. It described the future that I saw for desktop
computing, which was that the desktop would be the browser, naturally. I
wrote that in ten years, there will be no software applications purchased at
the store and installed on the desktop. Most premium applications, like
Word, Excel, etc, will be subscription services consumed through the
browser.

Although my time lines are way off, integrating the browser with the
operating system is a natural course of action. Comparing it to Linux is
apples and oranges. Linux is a fine operating system with a GUI bolted on
(I'm a command-line guy, so I never bother bogging down my debian boxes with
X). It clearly doesn't make sense to integrate a browser with the Linux
operating system.

carl

 

[Jared Foster]

I don't mind Messenger being integrated as much as the fact that they pretty
much ditched Windows Messenger in favor of MSN Messenger, while having all
their programs insist on using Windows Messenger instead of MSN.

 

[Robert Moir]

The excuses you give in no way justify the action of integrating a
browser into the kernel of the OS. Every flavor I can think of of
Linux includes a choice of browsers you can use with your OS
installation thereby allowing any access to the web you need
(drivers, software, etc.). However, they are installed as stand
alone 3rd party programs that are not integrated into the kernel. Windows
would have been better if the Browser was not integrated into
the kernel.

You'll be pleased to hear in that case, that Windows has the exact same
amount of web browsers in its kernel as Linux does.

--
--
Rob Moir, MS MVP
Blog Site - http://www.robertmoir.com
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
I'm always surprised at "professionals" who STILL have to be asked "Have you
checked (event viewer / syslog)".

 

[capitan]

You'll be pleased to hear in that case, that Windows has the exact same
amount of web browsers in its kernel as Linux does.

What flavor(s) of linux do you speak of which has browser integration?
What do you consider integrated?

 

[Mike Williams]

What flavor(s) of linux do you speak of which has browser integration?
What do you consider integrated?

The point is that Windows has no browsers in its *kernel* (your
reference point).

 

[Guest]

Richard,

Thanks for your comment.

Once again, as I said Messenger should not be integrated with anything. That
includes remote assistance. If remote assistance needs to piggyback on top of
Messenger, which it shouldn't, then remote assistance could call it up when
started and shut it down when it is done. PCAnywhere has its own built in
chat capability for use when needed, so should Remote Assistance. Since the
channel/port, what ever, is already open for the desktop view etc to be sent
back and forth this should be easy to implement. But, whether they cut and
paste code snippets as needed from Messenger to implement that or write it
from scratch is up to them. The user does not need to be bothered by the
details, and does not need Messenger always running in the background eating
up resources.

Thanks again for your comments. This is the kind of discussions that
Microsoft should be having with users and professional support people like
you and me in the same room. But as we all know the reality is that they
could care less what little old me with my 20 years experience in the
trenches professionally supporting computers and their products etc thinks.
Mind you not that I know everything, far from it, but after that many years I
am not exactly a novice either.

Thanks again, have a great day

Ralph Malph

 

[Bob I]

IF they take your suggestion to the extreme, we would need a copy of the
operating system imbedded in each application. Get the picture?

 

[Robert Moir]

What flavor(s) of linux do you speak of which has browser integration?

What makes you assume that is the case?

What do you consider integrated?

I think the real question is: What do you consider a Kernel?

--
--
Rob Moir, MS MVP
Blog Site - http://www.robertmoir.com
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
I'm always surprised at "professionals" who STILL have to be asked "Have you
checked (event viewer / syslog)".

 

[Mike Williams]

Richard,

Thanks for your comment.

Once again, as I said Messenger should not be integrated with anything. That
includes remote assistance. If remote assistance needs to piggyback on top of
Messenger, which it shouldn't, then remote assistance could call it up when
started and shut it down when it is done. PCAnywhere has its own built in
chat capability for use when needed, so should Remote Assistance. Since the
channel/port, what ever, is already open for the desktop view etc to be sent
back and forth this should be easy to implement. But, whether they cut and
paste code snippets as needed from Messenger to implement that or write it
from scratch is up to them. The user does not need to be bothered by the
details, and does not need Messenger always running in the background eating
up resources.

Then turn it off. Use your 20 years of experience to figure out what
less-experienced people figure out.

Thanks again for your comments. This is the kind of discussions that
Microsoft should be having with users and professional support people like
you and me in the same room.

Do you *really* think they don't? Don't assume that a majority of people
share your views.