Windows Live

beta release

[tbear]

Not sure where to post this, but here is as good as anywhere........
Windows on-line [news.yahoo.com]
Didn't I read about this some years ago. Microsoft wanting to put their programmes online and charge access rather than selling the programmes offline...?

[aleksl]

Darn if this "technology" has not struck a wall. What else do they can come up with except for email, stock quotes and weather? Man, I've seen this sooooo many times I'am about to quit this computer crap altogether.

[rant]
I already regret running Windows as my web server OS. Imagine paying for FTP server ('cause native Micro$oft's sucks), for ISAPI filter, for database, for a bunch of .NET components, for custom developed components, etc. etc. list goes on. Freakin' Linux folks have it easy, free open source tools...?
[/rant]

anyone owns dead.com, wanna start competition to this stinker?

[richlowe]

Yawn.

[Kubano]

Nice movement by MSN.

But take a look to a very normal search in MSN.

Normal Search in MSN [search.msn.de]

With those Spam problems still appearing, MSN will remain in the same position forever.

First of all Search Results improvements, then nice Start Pages!

[jonrichd]

It's interesting to note that one of the developers Gates dragged out for the introduction was Ray Ozzie. Ozzie was the developer who originally came up with the concept for Lotus Notes, and later Groove Networks. He's always been interested in online collaboration.

[encyclo]

Just trying this out: it looks like it is nothing more than a big bucket of hype, a second-hand domain, a heap of AJAX coding even more buggy than start.com and a fundamentally-flawed initial concept. They haven't got around the big AJAX flaw that the app doesn't properly preserve state (so don't try clicking the back button if you go wrong). They can't be bothered with any semblance of cross-browser support.

As for the "live" approach, this is nothing more than the old "thin client" idea which has been around for decades. There have many attempts to bring it back, all of which have failed. Big companies love the idea because of the level of control - it is just one big app and everyone is on the same page. But can you really envisage accepting the idea of storing everything on a remote server over which you have no contol? Would you trust your personal or confidential documents to a company dependent on revenue from your subscription to the service. What happens if you don't pay? Do you lose everything?

Users have always resisted and clung on to their fat clients (PCs) despite all the viruses, worms, rootkits and the like, because they have the control over their own space and documents on their own machine. Not just the technically-savvy, but the overwhelming majority of users. Despite all the Web 2.0 hype, "live" Windows is a non-starter unless it finds a role in a PC-centric environment. What's more, unless the live offering rapidly becomes considerably better than this current very poor effort, then the threat is going to be minimal.

[Rogi]

With the AJAX thing not keeping state and back-button problem... they might have considered this and have a 'fix' for IE7?

I think MS knows what they're doing and this is either a
'In case competitors want to do it.. we did it first'
or
They'll promote this heavily through integration of everything MS (msn search, start, live, hotmail/msn messenger, etc etc) and then having it as default for new Longhorn and IE7. In this case... when the average (broadband) user gets used to this and viral marketing (i.e. word of mouth, etc) spreads it... it can quite possibly become the 'norm'.

[aleksl]

encyclo: ...the idea of storing everything on a remote server...

I've got 3 words for Google$ and M$ execs about that: USB FLASH DRIVE.