why would anyone switch from iChat/AIM to MSN these days? Microsoft would do better to make sure the systems collaborate and not compete.

I d/ld Adium for my daughter today, as she wanted the profile picture feature that her friends are using on Windows MSN 7. Adium delivers it, along with multi-protocol support.

For Mac users working among Windows users on a corporate network, however, this is good news.

MSN is the best messenger, if you use ichat you are locked on mac world, none of my friends uses mac except me, so ichat is useless.

Quote

Guest wrote:
MSN is the best messenger, if you use ichat you are locked on mac world, none of my friends uses mac except me, so ichat is useless.

Unless you want to talk to those millions of AOL users, of course ....

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
MSN is the best messenger, if you use ichat you are locked on mac world, none of my friends uses mac except me, so ichat is useless.

Unless you want to talk to those millions of AOL users, of course ....

Or AIM, for that matter.

Still no support for audio or video... MS just doesn't take Mac seriously.

Corporate IT. Okay, that's two words but it's a full explanation. Where I work, the IT organization has standardized across the board with Intel/Microsoft technology. Yes, it sucks, but for right now our remaining Macs cannot do any IM at all, not even with our local Microsoft messaging server.

I'm hoping this is good news for our Mac users.

Until MSN Messenger can deliver full-screen full-frame cross-platform zero-configuration audio-video messaging, there are zero reasons to switch from iChat. I have dozens of friends/relatives on WinTel who use AIM (and not all of them are on AOL) and iChat works flawlessly. As for ubiquity, according to some recent stats, AOL's AIM and ICQ are still the king of the market with more than half (I believe it's around 58%), with Yahoo, MSN and others fighting it out for the bottom half. That said, anecdodal evidence inicates that MSN has very strong following overseas (perhaps they don't exactly like the 'A' in AIM...).

If Yahoo can consider Mac worthwile for video, what does it say about MacBU (Microsoft's Mac Business Unit)?

Quote

Guest wrote:
Still no support for audio or video... MS just doesn't take Mac seriously.

Does mac take MS serious?

Not counting those 22 million AIM/AOL users....more than double the users on MSN...


AOL, which launched AIM in May 1997, is still the dominant player, with more than 21.5 million users in the U.S. as of August 2000.

Microsoft's MSN Messenger Service, launched in July 1999, grew to 10.3 million users in the U.S. by August 2000.

Its ICQ Chat client claimed 9.1 million users in the U.S. as of August 2000.

Yahoo! Messenger, launched in June 1999, grew to 10.6 million users in the U.S. by August 2000.

I am using Adium and, apart from a few random crashes and slower file transfers, it's miles ahead of Microsoft's latest half-hearted effort for the Mac platform...MacBU's support of the Mac market is simply pathetic when it comes to features compared to the Windows counterparts, especially in free products like MSN.

Once nice feature introduced in the version of iChat that comes with Tiger is that it supports both AIM and Jabber. Jabber is open source and a good choice for those who want to set up their own IM system.

There are third party messenger services that will allow you to talk on a LAN with your Mac. Try http://www.quickpopup.com/ I've used it before on an all windows network and it works pretty well. The hard part will be getting the IT department to agree to buying or using it.

You're missing a close anchor tag on the "Mactopia Messenger Web site." link and a close italic tag on the last paragraph starting "Editor's Note" (there are two close paragraph tags instead).

Well, CNN for one is now using it. And since they equip their field reporters with Powerbooks and iSight cameras, it's defacto for them to start using it for broadcast.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=12301

Quote

Guest wrote:
MSN is the best messenger, if you use ichat you are locked on mac world, none of my friends uses mac except me, so ichat is useless.

You're not locked into a Mac world with iChat. iChat is compatible with AIM (AOL instant messenger)

You're locked into a Microsoft world using MSN Messenger. Though it can prove difficult to get friends to move from MSN to AIM who are using PCs. Especially the less technical literate.

Surprised that there's no mention of video in this new version of MSN. Not that the video conferencing is as 'easy' on iChat as it's made out to be. It can involve a lot of buggering about with ports on routers etc at both ends and even then you may not get anywhere.

Which is odd as it works without any problems everytime with Yahoo's messenger.

I tend to just have all three messengers open. I don't really like "all in one" messengers, there is always some compromise. It's not like moving windows between people in one application is very much different than moving between different windows in different apps.

I follow the link and there is no 5.0 there...just 4.whatever What's up with that??

Quote

bobarito wrote:
I follow the link and there is no 5.0 there...just 4.whatever What's up with that??

"Editor's Note: At the time this story was filed, Messenger for Mac 5.0 had not yet been posted on the Mactopia Web site. The MacBU has told The Mac Observer it will be released and posted Tuesday."

It is now listed on the Microsoft site, 'but' you just get an error page when you click 'download'. I'm sure they'll sort it out.

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/mac/download/misc/messenger50_download.xml

MS's link was broken. This one works.
-BRett

How much as I would like it otherwise here on the European continent MSN is king.
I know one person (in the UK) who uses AOL(but no AIM), and a few Mac users.
The rest of this flock of sheep is using MSN.
Even ICQ is way behind.

And it is not that we hate the "A" in AOL/AIM, it's just that we don't see the point of it.
Strange guys, those Europeans.

Quote

Guest wrote:
How much as I would like it otherwise here on the European continent MSN is king.
I know one person (in the UK) who uses AOL(but no AIM), and a few Mac users.
The rest of this flock of sheep is using MSN.
Even ICQ is way behind.

And it is not that we hate the "A" in AOL/AIM, it's just that we don't see the point of it.
Strange guys, those Europeans.

Who's all this 'we'? : ) It could be that people think you need AOL to use AIM.

Oh look the new MSN allows you to have your iChat face by your name, now that's progress!

Incredible...MS has surpassed itself in incompetence...just downloaded it and the ONLY real-life difference is the brushed metal look...simply amazing what those can(not) do...I cannot even see my buddies' avatar pictures...

Back to Adium, thank you very much.

I am a Mac user, but I use messenger, because most of my friends use PC and they love MSN7.0. Aside from that, I have AIM account, and I have ICQ account too, but I only use MSN now.
I saw many Mac/AIM lovers trying to poke out all the funny stats saying how AIM /AOL is dominant "in the US". Two major mistakes, first, your statistics are way too old (August 2000? what time is it? ) Second, you only count US people as users? How short-sighted you are. C'mon! This is a earth-village nowadays! Not US. US is not the superpower anymore, and most people outside of this country hated you. Ok, aside from the politics, what I want to say is as the latest news I read around few months ago, MSN already got the most "active" users. (That statistics took only accounts been using for more than 10 times in the past 6 month into count, which is much more accurate! I won't surprise if ICQ got most users even now, because it was so dominated 5 or 6 years ago! Same to AIM, which is free and accompany with the millions of free AOL account distributed during the dial-up era!)
I admit MSN5.0 is not as good as some of the messenger system in Mac world. But people use it only because it's more convenient to talk to a larger population in PC's world. For popularity, I think MSN is the king for sure. But in Mac world, probably people still like ichat better. Which I found ichat got its own drawback too.
But that's another story.

Yep, they have always been short-sighted, it's amazing...indeed, the fact that you are able to live in a self-sufficient manner for years does NOT mean you don't have to care about others, or at least have a clue about other people. Sorry, isn't Switzerland the same as Sweden??? Laaaaaaaame.

Well, that's why others not only "hated" them, they still do. The rest of the world, which is way bigger than the American bubble, really lives on MSN. AIM/iChat are simply unknown or unused, either in Europe or Latin America (not disregarding other regions of the world).

Ha, you Americans. Thinking only of yourselves. Think of me instead! I'm more important than you. How arrogant to focus on what is around where you live.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Ha, you Americans. Thinking only of yourselves. Think of me instead! I'm more important than you. How arrogant to focus on what is around where you live.

I agree, foreign ass.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Ha, you Americans. Thinking only of yourselves. Think of me instead! I'm more important than you. How arrogant to focus on what is around where you live.

Which is why, as of April 2005, the USG and corporations (not including individual donations) gave over $1.98BN for tsunami relief alone, and nearly $19BN in foreign aid in 2004.

Maybe the US should try isolationism for a while, since that seems to be what the "rest of the world" wants. Pull out of the WMF, World Bank and UN funding for a couple of years. That comes with Isolationism. After all, why help those who seem to harbor nothing but hate and contempt for your country, as a previous guest seems to feel the rest of the world views the US (how much have you really traveled around the world to reach that conclusion?)

And yes, I do realize you (the guest I quoted above) were being sarcastic.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Ha, you Americans. Thinking only of yourselves. Think of me instead! I'm more important than you. How arrogant to focus on what is around where you live.

Which is why, as of April 2005, the USG and corporations (not including individual donations) gave over $1.98BN for tsunami relief alone, and nearly $19BN in foreign aid in 2004.

Maybe the US should try isolationism for a while, since that seems to be what the "rest of the world" wants. Pull out of the WMF, World Bank and UN funding for a couple of years. That comes with Isolationism. After all, why help those who seem to harbor nothing but hate and contempt for your country, as a previous guest seems to feel the rest of the world views the US (how much have you really traveled around the world to reach that conclusion?)

And yes, I do realize you (the guest I quoted above) were being sarcastic.

You've pulled out a long time ago, if you didn't know...talk about Internation Criminal Court, talk about Kyoto Protocol, talk about the ever-disproportional aid to Israel...just to quote The Times, so that our fellow "American" gets a better clue:

"WHEN it comes to giving aid to developing countries, is the United States hero or villain? It gives a smaller percentage of its national output as aid than any other major country, a meagre 0.15 per cent, or 15 cents of every $100. The figure has been declining for decades. It is well below the 0.41 per cent that is the average of major countries and even further off the 0.7 per cent UN target that Tony Blair is trying to move the wealthy world towards. Britain currently gives 0.34 per cent."

And no, U.S. is not "America"; America is a continent, as most of you don't know after almost 300 years of Monroe Doctrine.

Four countries meet the desired .70% UN target. That's it. 4. The U.S. is NOT the only country to miss that goal (and it is a goal, not a requirement). Even so, it is still the largest contributor, giving more than most of the EU combined (and about twice what the 4 "compliant" countries give combined). The next largest total contributor is, believe it or not, Japan (good on 'em), with slightly less than $9B. That is more than France, Germany, Italy or the UK (all of whom still give quite a bit).

The administration's objection to the ICC is that there is no guarantee that it will not be used for politically motivated prosecutions. Whether one agrees with this position or not, that is the position.

There is no proof that the Kyoto Protocol would, in fact, have any effect whatsoever on global warming. This is even the position of most of those that support it. The science surrounding it is iffy at best. The cost, however, is very high. The U.S. is also not the only country that hasn't ratified it (Australia has not either). The Russians, by their own admission, signed it purely for political reasons, not the science.

Actually, "America" consists of three parts: North, Central and South. It is not one continent. It is most of the western hemisphere. So much for the geography lesson.

The Monroe Doctrine was 1823, not 1723. If you are going to try to give Americans history lessons, at least get the dates right.

I also suggest you study the history of Europe a bit more before pointing fingers at the U.S.:

"The sun never sets on the British Empire"
The attempted conquest of the Eurasian land mass (and Africa) by Germany. (oh, yeah...who stopped this one?)
The Spanish Conquistadors (I'm sure that Central and South America are just thrilled with them)
Napoleon
The Ottoman Empire
The Romans

Aid to Israel? Unfortunately, they have religious claim to land that is also claimed by just about every other major religion too. Yes, the U.S. chooses to aid them. But disproportional to what?

Oh, yeah....and MSN sucks.Regardless of where it is used.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Four countries meet the desired .70% UN target. That's it. 4. The U.S. is NOT the only country to miss that goal (and it is a goal, not a requirement). Even so, it is still the largest contributor, giving more than most of the EU combined (and about twice what the 4 "compliant" countries give combined). The next largest total contributor is, believe it or not, Japan (good on 'em), with slightly less than $9B. That is more than France, Germany, Italy or the UK (all of whom still give quite a bit).

The administration's objection to the ICC is that there is no guarantee that it will not be used for politically motivated prosecutions. Whether one agrees with this position or not, that is the position.

There is no proof that the Kyoto Protocol would, in fact, have any effect whatsoever on global warming. This is even the position of most of those that support it. The science surrounding it is iffy at best. The cost, however, is very high. The U.S. is also not the only country that hasn't ratified it (Australia has not either). The Russians, by their own admission, signed it purely for political reasons, not the science.

Actually, "America" consists of three parts: North, Central and South. It is not one continent. It is most of the western hemisphere. So much for the geography lesson.

The Monroe Doctrine was 1823, not 1723. If you are going to try to give Americans history lessons, at least get the dates right.

I also suggest you study the history of Europe a bit more before pointing fingers at the U.S.:

"The sun never sets on the British Empire"
The attempted conquest of the Eurasian land mass (and Africa) by Germany. (oh, yeah...who stopped this one?)
The Spanish Conquistadors (I'm sure that Central and South America are just thrilled with them)
Napoleon
The Ottoman Empire
The Romans

Aid to Israel? Unfortunately, they have religious claim to land that is also claimed by just about every other major religion too. Yes, the U.S. chooses to aid them. But disproportional to what?

Oh, yeah....and MSN sucks.Regardless of where it is used.

You don't have a clue, do ya?

1 - Read again the related news, and you're gonna see that the U.S. is among (if not THE) lowest contributors in the group of developed countries. Obviously your absolute values are gonna be higher, since you've got the highest GDP of the world...but what matters here is the proportion, and you're far below. Besides that, much of they call "U.S. aid" is in fact TIED aid; so yep, you can never act without hidden interests or agendas.

2 - Cut the crap, please...you don't sign for the ICC because you KNOW you're gonna be in trouble with your muddy military hands. What you call "political prosecution" the rest of the world calls "fear of guilt". Abu Ghraib someone? Guantanamo Bay? Cuban invasion? DISPROPORTIONATE military and financial aid to Israel as one of the main reasons for the neverending conflict with Palestinians?

3 - The U.S. hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol because it's not in their financial interest, period. You couldn't care less about global warmth, but you are great hypocrites when trying to enforce your own stupid morality lessons on the rest of the world, notably the weaker ones. The Kyoto Protocol would be a relevant advance already, but Dubya and others backed away, of course.

4 - Actually, "America" IS a continent or, if you prefer, a continent formed by 3 sub-continents. But it's OK, you call yourselves "America" for a long time, I can understand that. And you still think that Brazil speaks Spanish and everybody lives in the Amazon.

5 - I know when the Monroe Doctrine was "created"; my point (that you didn't get, of course) was that the U.S., ever since their independence, have tried to subvert other countries in the continent and impose their own imperial views on the so-called "latinos" (another stupid term that you've created).

6 - I am not taking fingers away from Europe or anywhere else, so don't be a glib...I am talking about current global responsibilities, and you act like you have none.

7 - Disproportional to any other kind of direct foreign help, without any relationship to size, GDP, poverty or whatever...just the great lobby in D.C.

8 - By the way, congrats for the 60 years of the atomic bombing in Japan; it's amazing how you still believe it was a good thing. The thousands and thousands of dead civilians thank you for that; as the thousands and thousands of dead civilians in Germany in WWII.

Read again your post above, and you're gonna see NO apologies in your text. That's your greatest problem, you NEVER admit you're wrong.

Ah, and we're still searching for the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq...

Can't have a civil discussion without insulting, can you?

Brazilians speak Portuguese (although most of the native language speakers were wiped out by the Portuguese, so this makes sense).


The Monroe Doctrine was put in place to stop Europe from carving up the Americas (north, central and south) into european colonies and raping their resources to finance and supply european armies. Specifically, it was to stop France, Russia and Spain. England actually supported it for those very reasons, and backed it with their own power when the flegling colonies (the original 13) couldn't do it on their own. Was it popular with every "Latin American" country? No. But it did give them a fighting chance to assert their independence from their european masters. And it is odd that, even though they supposedly resented the doctrine, they continually called upon the US to mediate in their struggles.

Got news for ya...most countries (no, actually all countries) have an agenda. To think otherwise is naive.

Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Ahh, you mean the supposed horrible torture of innocent people? I don't think most people in the world would think that a naked pyramid is horrible torture. Humiliating? Yes. Ever been to a fraternity initiation? But it plays on the emotions, and thus we shall all make a big deal about it. Meanwhile, find out what true torture is (ask those held in Hanoi). Dismemberment is torture. Castration is torture. Genital electrocution is torture. Wearing a leash and collar sorta pales in comparison. Have some bad things happened? I'm sure that they have. Are people going to be punished over it? Some have and others will.

Latin America was not a term started by the US. It was started by Napoleon III when he made Maxmilian the emperor of Mexico. At least according to many authoritative sources.

Don't be so glib? Thank you, Mr. Cruise, for your insightful retort.

Atomic bombing of Japan? It probably saved as many or more lives as it took. On both sides. That is based upon the projected casualties for an invasion of Japan, which was viewed as the only way to end the war in the Pacific. The projections were in the millions. Casualties for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were between 100,000 and 200,000. But that was not a European war, was it? It was just going to be primarily US casualties along side the Japanese. So I guess the invasion alternative would have been better. And you do realize, do you not, that Germany was working on an atomic weapon too? As was Japan? Would have been real interesting if they had succeeded. Was it a horrible event? Definitely. And I hope, as do most sane people, that it is never repeated. And complaining about the thousands of dead in Germany is a slippery slope. There were millions on innocent civilians exterminated by Germany from 1939-1945. Or did the holocaust NOT happen? And BTW Dresden wasn't just the US. Britain was also there. And Germany also firebombed cities. Among other things.

Were you looking for apologies? I did not intend to put any in there. I also did not intend to take a euro-centric view of everything.

And I'm sure Europe has never been wrong about ANYTHING. The european view is always the right one.