MS is forcing Windows Live and MSN Messenger users to upgrade

Forums › Microsoft Windows › MS is forcing Windows Live and MSN Messenger users to upgrade

stu28

273 posts

Ultimate Geek

#15931 16-Sep-2007 13:57

Sat Sep 15, 6:00 PM ET

Microsoft Corp. is forcing Windows Live and MSN Messenger users to upgrade to the newest version due to a security update included in that release, according to a posting on a Microsoft blog.

Anyone using 6.2, 7.0 and 7.5 versions of MSN Messenger or Windows Live Messenger 8.0 will be guided through the upgrade process to Windows Live Messenger 8.1 when they try to log in to their chat client, according to a blog posting by a security product manager at Microsoft calling himself "Anand." This will replace the option upgrade notice that users have been given when using those versions of the product since January, he wrote.

"Some of you might feel this inconvenient, but in order to protect you and protect the health of the network we have chosen to take this step," the blog entry said.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070915/tc_pcworld/137194

:-(

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79253 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#86845 16-Sep-2007 15:09

And the point is? Some people go crazy if they can't get the latest version of some software, some go crazy if there's an update.

The Messenger client has been updated many times - as you can see by the article the current version 8.1 will replace even versions 6.x... So why cry?

gehenna

8497 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87221 19-Sep-2007 18:58

freitasm: And the point is? Some people go crazy if they can't get the latest version of some software, some go crazy if there's an update.

The Messenger client has been updated many times - as you can see by the article the current version 8.1 will replace even versions 6.x... So why cry?

i think the point is noone should be forced to change anything on their system. if someone wants to continue using an older version of an application, thats their business. they shouldn't be left with no option. similarly - MS shouldn't be patching systems that have auto updates turned off....and they are...but that's a different thread :)

personally, i'd trade up to trillian pro....give messenger the flick completely. there's not much in there that trillian can't do anyway.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87226 19-Sep-2007 19:21

gehenna: i think the point is noone should be forced to change anything on their system. if someone wants to continue using an older version of an application, thats their business. they shouldn't be left with no option. similarly - MS shouldn't be patching systems that have auto updates turned off....and they are...but that's a different thread :)

personally, i'd trade up to trillian pro....give messenger the flick completely. there's not much in there that trillian can't do anyway.

I disagree. You want to use their service, they get to dictate the client software. If the continued safe operation of their network depends on forced upgrades, then so be it. If you had a contract giving you rights to use/connect that version beyond its lifespan, then thats a different story.

Its just evolution, and without being able to drop support for old technology, then you cant expect new technology to be developed at anywhere near the same pace.

gehenna

8497 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87228 19-Sep-2007 19:26

tonyhughes:
gehenna: i think the point is noone should be forced to change anything on their system. if someone wants to continue using an older version of an application, thats their business. they shouldn't be left with no option. similarly - MS shouldn't be patching systems that have auto updates turned off....and they are...but that's a different thread :)

personally, i'd trade up to trillian pro....give messenger the flick completely. there's not much in there that trillian can't do anyway.

I disagree. You want to use their service, they get to dictate the client software. If the continued safe operation of their network depends on forced upgrades, then so be it. If you had a contract giving you rights to use/connect that version beyond its lifespan, then thats a different story.

Its just evolution, and without being able to drop support for old technology, then you cant expect new technology to be developed at anywhere near the same pace.

but then what about apps like trillian and adium that work across multiple networks and are outside the realm of MS control. sure you can ride the public transport out to lower hutt after work but its a lot more comfortable driving your own car. the road is the internet, the traffic is text from point to point. how can anyone have a monopoly on that?

cokemaster

Exited
4927 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87231 19-Sep-2007 19:35

how can anyone have a monopoly on that?

I'm not one to speak of Microsoft often however:

MSN standards for Microsoft Network - Does sounds like its owned by umm the government?
It is owned by Microsoft, a private entity. Not a public utility
Because it is a private entity, they can do whatever they like under their terms and conditions. Heck if they wanted to pull it down now - they could if they decided too!
Adium, Trillian, etc are unsupported/unofficial clients. If Microsoft makes changes - too bad. BTW - none of these clients display MSN advertising like the official clients do. These clients mimic a MSN client to get connectivity.
Every network, computer, structure, system etc is replaced or modified by something better or more secure, or at the owners discretion.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on instant messengers. There is AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, Jabber, IRC etc. If you and others don't like the changes MSN are doing - change - there is choice out there.
I have a few bridges for sale... some have rivers underneath.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87232 19-Sep-2007 19:36

gehenna:
tonyhughes: I disagree. You want to use their service, they get to dictate the client software. If the continued safe operation of their network depends on forced upgrades, then so be it. If you had a contract giving you rights to use/connect that version beyond its lifespan, then thats a different story.

Its just evolution, and without being able to drop support for old technology, then you cant expect new technology to be developed at anywhere near the same pace.

but then what about apps like trillian and adium that work across multiple networks and are outside the realm of MS control. sure you can ride the public transport out to lower hutt after work but its a lot more comfortable driving your own car. the road is the internet, the traffic is text from point to point. how can anyone have a monopoly on that?

Given that it is an excellent FREE service I think Microsoft are well within their rights to say you need to upgrade your client to continue using the service, especially as the reason for the forced upgrade is a security issue.

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87233 19-Sep-2007 19:38

cokemaster:
how can anyone have a monopoly on that?

I'm not one to speak of Microsoft often however:
MSN standards for Microsoft Network - Does sounds like its owned by umm the government?
It is owned by Microsoft, a private entity. Not a public utility
Because it is a private entity, they can do whatever they like under their terms and conditions. Heck if they wanted to pull it down now - they could if they decided too!
Adium, Trillian, etc are unsupported/unofficial clients. If Microsoft makes changes - too bad. BTW - none of these clients display MSN advertising like the official clients do. These clients mimic a MSN client to get connectivity.
Every network, computer, structure, system etc is replaced or modified by something better or more secure, or at the owners discretion.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on instant messengers. There is AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, Jabber, IRC etc. If you and others don't like the changes MSN are doing - change - there is choice out there.

Well you couldn't say it any better than that!!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87237 19-Sep-2007 19:50

Agreeing strongly with c.m. above.

Its not about a monopoly, its about a commercial operation choosing to support only its most recent versions.

I fail to see how its unreasonable in any way.

ictgeeknz

255 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#87254 19-Sep-2007 20:55

bradstewart:
Given that it is an excellent FREE service I think Microsoft are well within their rights to say you need to upgrade your client to continue using the service, especially as the reason for the forced upgrade is a security issue.

IMHO, I'd like to see older versions of Microsoft Windows (Windows 95, 98, Me) 'deactivated' from connecting to the WWW. Yes, there are still people connecting on dial-up modems with Windows 95. These network clients are more of a threat than old versions of MSN Messenger.

Panq

42 posts

Geek

#87281 19-Sep-2007 23:05

Is anyone else enjoying the irony of Microsoft blocking older versions of their own software from using their network, while allowing third party intant messasging clients to use it freely? :)

I don't really see what the complaints are about, to be honest. I use the latest version so that I can access all the latest features. If I didn't mind not having these features, there is definitely better third party software out there (MirandaIM is pretty awesome).

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87297 20-Sep-2007 07:43

ictgeeknz: IMHO, I'd like to see older versions of Microsoft Windows (Windows 95, 98, Me) 'deactivated' from connecting to the WWW. Yes, there are still people connecting on dial-up modems with Windows 95. These network clients are more of a threat than old versions of MSN Messenger.

Completely missing the point - the internet is not a network that Microsoft build/own/maintain/secure, and Windows is a product that people paid money to be able to use for as long as they wish within the terms of the licence that came with it.

ictgeeknz

255 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#87313 20-Sep-2007 08:51

tonyhughes: Completely missing the point - the internet is not a network that Microsoft build/own/maintain/secure, and Windows is a product that people paid money to be able to use for as long as they wish within the terms of the licence that came with it.

I know that.

My point here is, if Microsoft can install software on your PC telling you your version of Windows is not genuine - then why can't there be a notification saying that your version of Windows is no longer supported, and is a subject to security vulnerabilities?

Wouldn't it make for a safer WWW?

cokemaster

Exited
4927 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#87322 20-Sep-2007 09:34

They do - on the microsoft website.

Just because your running out of date software, doesn't mean your vendor should snip the connection for it. Besides - one should be running virus scanners and firewalls.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

ictgeeknz

255 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#87332 20-Sep-2007 10:25

cokemaster: They do - on the microsoft website.

Just because your running out of date software, doesn't mean your vendor should snip the connection for it. Besides - one should be running virus scanners and firewalls.

IMHO, having information on the Microsoft website isn't enough. As I implied, why can't there be a visual notification on the desktop, like the one for Windows Genuine Advantage?

If the user decides to ignore the information, so be it.

I'm the sole Network Admin at my place of work. You become a control freak. Everything must be patched. Snipping connections of computers with particular security vulnerabilities, would be my solution.

Going off-topic but,

Isn't there enterprise software out there, that does this? Which will refuse a client connection if it doesn't meet certain software/version criteria? I think I saw it at a HP event, I can't remember... or was it IBM network management software?!?