Comments on: Redmond wants you to get the message

Tired of separate domains for e-mail, voice mail and IM? Microsoft's ready to move you to unified messaging.
Photos: Microsoft's eye on videoconferencing

[piperdown]

I'll be buying that as soon as...

...they release the docs on the protocols of said systems. Otherwise they're smoking crack.

[catch23]

I have to admit

I thought the 'HIGH IMPACT' and 'Microsoft is about to outline ' to be idiotic.
When they actually outline, or better yet release software that does what they outlined, let me know.

One can't code to hype alone...

[paulsecic]

Hack

Someone will hack it 5 days later.

[Maccess]

Another Microsoft FIRST!

..if only Yahoo didn't do it years ago with a Yahoo ID.

[e-mail]
myyahooid for Yahoo Messenger
myyahooid for Yahoo Voice
and the hundred other Yahoo services.

I can't believe CNET didn't bother to do some research before publishing an inaccurate press release.

So what exactly is new?

[lkrupp]

A matter of trust...

No one trusts Microsoft anymore. And with good reason. This latest
"innovation" will be yet another proprietary technology that will
only work with Windows, excluding every other operating system or
platform.

[Penguinisto]

From a security standpoint -

If email or IM goes down or is compromised (read: a new vulnerability is discovered in either major client), you still have voice mail to fall back on. If voice mail hoses up (not very often), you still have email and IM as a ready backup.

Given Microsoft's (seriously) questionable level of security and interoperability w/ client apps that are not theirs, the last thing I'd ever want is to try to explain to the bosses why their email, IM's AND voice mail is all horked up. I also suspect that there will be only one type of email client that will actually work with this scheme (Outlook), one type of IM client (MSN Messenger), and prolly one type of voice mail (guess who is busily building that right now?)... not good at all from a security standpoint, let alone the fact that the users under my care often use Thunderbird for email, a wide range of solutions for IM, and older but solid gear for voicemail. Many don't use Windows at all.

Homogenization, esp. w/ those clients, is just begging for compromise.

I'll stick with using skill and scripting to make the three work together while retaining their separate domains, thanks much.

[Ipod Apple]

stick with using skill

http://www.analogstereo.com/mazda_truck_b_series_owners_manual.htm

[pjdw]

Building off Microsoft Architecture

Would anyone trust Microsoft a second time? As a person with a PC I went from the original WIN 95, through those time consuming tweaks to make software compatible with the OS, only to find a new and "improved" version of windows come out ever 18 months or so that was worse than the finally working well version after all was said and done.
Truthfully, I am tired of all the changes that require a business to update every 5 years if they can stretch it out that long.
All I want is a system that will function for me well with graphics (no conflicts) and is easy to understand. Perhaps some intelligent person can
do a little computer genetics and come up with a McPC that has the insides of a Mac but calls their programs something similar to what a PC does so the transition is not as confusing? Or just simply have an explanation saying (Mac Command) is the same as the PC's (Pc Command) for those of us who are not prone bilingual communication when under time constraints to get 'er done.
Any entrepeneurs out there to develope a McPC?

[Earl Benser]

Sorry, MS.....

... This is one more of your 'earthshaking' products that gets
dumped before it gets started. When you can't make a decent OS,
everything else is garbage too.

[Andrew J Glina]

Making an OS

Well they have made a decent OS. I am using it right now. What is wrong with it? I regually have it running for 30+ days with no problems. It is Apple who can only package an OS, just like all of their products. Apple is no more than a label on cheap sweat-shop Chinese products. Their OS doesn't even support hibernation (or "Safe-Sleep") without the latest OS and a few hacks.

[ysrang]

Too difficult, MS

Architecture, Software etc don't sound like comfortable terms to the users. Google and Yahoo never use those techy-only words. Please think about the average end users who are not Ivyleague.

[Penguinisto]

Yes and no...

Windows is a useable basic OS - if you never go online with it, never use critical programs on it, never store critical data on it, and never really work the machine.

OTOH, for those of us who practically live online (but don't want to expose ourselves to a whole raft of viruses just by browsing the web), use programs that push the limits of computation (3D apps come to mind in my case), or store things in there that we'd rather not lose or be forced to restore from backup every six months to a year (usually due to a Registry gone corrupt beyond belief)... well, we'd prefer something else until/unless windows can step to the plate and actually perform as advertised.

There's also the little matter of not wanting a megacorp to snoop in on my computer's contents at whim, but that's another matter entirely.

Until Windows can meet or exceed those needs? OSX, Linux, and FreeBSD will suit my purposes just fine.