Windows 98 support

Can I install WLM on Windows 98?

Unfortunately not, it is XP and later only. The last version of
Messenger that you can install on 98 is MSN 7.0.

Scøtt
Live Messenger FAQs - http://wlm.scottisafool.co.uk/

Calvin Leung wrote:
> Can I install WLM on Windows 98?

You cant even install it on windows 2000.

MS wants to shove everyone to vista....

It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
but they don't want to. (for the MS worshipers .. NO ITS NOT ABOUT
SECURITY! DOPES!)

They have various ways of forcing people to do this without showing a really
dark side,
because that would be bad for publicity and sales. Its really all about
marketing and money making.

Perhaps MS needs an opponent of such magnitude that it will make them do
some serious computing,
and not the low quality, ridiculous, unacceptable work they are doing in the
vista era.

But unfortunately there is none. Not Linux nor Macs can.. at least for
now....

So we will eat it and smile... and convince ourselves that what we see is
nice....

"Calvin Leung" <Calvin > wrote in message
news:55AF5865-3C60-4EAF-BD4C-...
> Can I install WLM on Windows 98?

Hi,

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:%23vBG2$...
> MS wants to shove everyone to vista....
Actually Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work properly on Vista. Voice/video is broken
on some installs, as is Remote Assistance, toasts, and a bunch of other things. In the
latest beta build (not beta 2), it's even worse with display corruption although there are
workarounds.

> It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
> but they don't want to.
That is highly debatable. When you start adding various platforms to support you increase
the cost. Cost of development, cost of testing, cost of support. WLM makes extensive use of
a number of libraries that are only available in Windows XP (feel free to do a dependency
analysis). Now lets say they include that updated library but that library breaks two major
applications in use today on Windows 2000. Then what?

It'd have to be debugged, rewritten, whatever. This is a business economic decision, nothing
more.

Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM working on previous
Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).

--
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
--

Gee.... I cant see how hundreds of thousands of very complex programs can
still work on older platforms (and still are being tested on them by the
developers) yet Microsoft as you claim is incapable of making a messenger
that is compatible with its own OS versions. If almost everyone else can pay
programmers to make sure that it works on all platforms then I am sure MS
could if they wanted to.

But the DON'T want to. As I said, they have a way of pushing people to get
latest versions of
windows by offering some free software that will not run on older windows.
They did it with windows media player, Internet explorer, and they are doing
it with WLM.

If this is not the case, and what you say is true, then they are only
disrespectful to their customers
that bought their product in the past, total morons, or just lazy.

As for them being afraid to install more dlls, that's the strangest excuse I
have ever heard when it comes to Microsoft. When you install other ms
products I have not seen them be stingy about installing dlls... or other
super bloated crap just to get a few things running...

I *could* forgive them to not make it for the 9x platform.... but not
win2k.... that is an insult
to our intelligence.

As for WLM not working on vista, they will fix this of course... its just
not their priority now...

Bottom line its all about money, but not in the sense that they don't have
the resources to pay a few programmers to make it compatible,
but in the sense that they want people to keep updating their windows,
because that means each person has to pay ms a couple of hundred dollars
each couple of years so everything will work. Its residual income.
Capitalists love that!

I am not saying that this is totally bad.... by forcing people to get the
latest and the greatest it means everything in technology is being cycled
more and new advancements are made. The consumers benefits by this, since
new windows means new computers, and new computers means sales, that create
competition, that drive hardware prices down.... Keeping your windows95
computer and still using it could be possible,
but that indeed would create stagnation that would retard the industry, and
computer advancements.

We must understand the true nature of the situation and not live in a world
of delusion. It is exactly as I have described.


"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hi,
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:%23vBG2$...
>> MS wants to shove everyone to vista....
> Actually Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work properly on Vista.
> Voice/video is broken on some installs, as is Remote Assistance, toasts,
> and a bunch of other things. In the latest beta build (not beta 2), it's
> even worse with display corruption although there are workarounds.
>
>> It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
>> but they don't want to.
> That is highly debatable. When you start adding various platforms to
> support you increase the cost. Cost of development, cost of testing, cost
> of support. WLM makes extensive use of a number of libraries that are
> only available in Windows XP (feel free to do a dependency analysis). Now
> lets say they include that updated library but that library breaks two
> major applications in use today on Windows 2000. Then what?
>
> It'd have to be debugged, rewritten, whatever. This is a business
> economic decision, nothing more.
>
> Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM
> working on previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>
> --
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
> Associate Expert
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
> You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
> --
>
>
>

Hi,

Of course they don't want to, as I said before it's a business decision.

In general, Windows 2000 and below is out of Mainstream support and as such, you can't really
expect them to support the platform. Older versions of Messenger are still supported and
available for the older operating systems.

But yes, of course it's about money, no one is disputing this -- that is what capitalism and
corporations are all about. If you don't like something in the capitalist market, you vote
with your dollar (or in this case, use a different Messenger client).

--
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
--


"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:...
> Gee.... I cant see how hundreds of thousands of very complex programs can still work on
> older platforms (and still are being tested on them by the developers) yet Microsoft as you
> claim is incapable of making a messenger that is compatible with its own OS versions. If
> almost everyone else can pay programmers to make sure that it works on all platforms then I
> am sure MS could if they wanted to.
>
> But the DON'T want to. As I said, they have a way of pushing people to get latest versions
> of
> windows by offering some free software that will not run on older windows.
> They did it with windows media player, Internet explorer, and they are doing it with WLM.
>
> If this is not the case, and what you say is true, then they are only disrespectful to
> their customers
> that bought their product in the past, total morons, or just lazy.
>
> As for them being afraid to install more dlls, that's the strangest excuse I have ever
> heard when it comes to Microsoft. When you install other ms products I have not seen them
> be stingy about installing dlls... or other super bloated crap just to get a few things
> running...
>
> I *could* forgive them to not make it for the 9x platform.... but not win2k.... that is an
> insult
> to our intelligence.
>
> As for WLM not working on vista, they will fix this of course... its just not their
> priority now...
>
> Bottom line its all about money, but not in the sense that they don't have the resources to
> pay a few programmers to make it compatible,
> but in the sense that they want people to keep updating their windows, because that means
> each person has to pay ms a couple of hundred dollars
> each couple of years so everything will work. Its residual income. Capitalists love that!
>
> I am not saying that this is totally bad.... by forcing people to get the latest and the
> greatest it means everything in technology is being cycled more and new advancements are
> made. The consumers benefits by this, since new windows means new computers, and new
> computers means sales, that create competition, that drive hardware prices down....
> Keeping your windows95 computer and still using it could be possible,
> but that indeed would create stagnation that would retard the industry, and computer
> advancements.
>
> We must understand the true nature of the situation and not live in a world of delusion. It
> is exactly as I have described.
>
>
> "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Hi,
>>
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:%23vBG2$...
>>> MS wants to shove everyone to vista....
>> Actually Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work properly on Vista. Voice/video is broken
>> on some installs, as is Remote Assistance, toasts, and a bunch of other things. In the
>> latest beta build (not beta 2), it's even worse with display corruption although there are
>> workarounds.
>>
>>> It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
>>> but they don't want to.
>> That is highly debatable. When you start adding various platforms to support you increase
>> the cost. Cost of development, cost of testing, cost of support. WLM makes extensive use
>> of a number of libraries that are only available in Windows XP (feel free to do a
>> dependency analysis). Now lets say they include that updated library but that library
>> breaks two major applications in use today on Windows 2000. Then what?
>>
>> It'd have to be debugged, rewritten, whatever. This is a business economic decision,
>> nothing more.
>>
>> Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM working on
>> previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Kay
>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
>> Associate Expert
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
>> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
>> All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
>> You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM
> >working on previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).

I was thinking of giving it a shot myself for win2k.. you say that the
effort is futile?

Does it depend on something strange? I have seen something in the add remove
options that is related to WLM
(windows driver package) perhaps that has something to do with it?

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hi,
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:%23vBG2$...
>> MS wants to shove everyone to vista....
> Actually Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work properly on Vista.
> Voice/video is broken on some installs, as is Remote Assistance, toasts,
> and a bunch of other things. In the latest beta build (not beta 2), it's
> even worse with display corruption although there are workarounds.
>
>> It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
>> but they don't want to.
> That is highly debatable. When you start adding various platforms to
> support you increase the cost. Cost of development, cost of testing, cost
> of support. WLM makes extensive use of a number of libraries that are
> only available in Windows XP (feel free to do a dependency analysis). Now
> lets say they include that updated library but that library breaks two
> major applications in use today on Windows 2000. Then what?
>
> It'd have to be debugged, rewritten, whatever. This is a business
> economic decision, nothing more.
>
> Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM
> working on previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>
> --
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
> Associate Expert
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
> You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
> --
>
>
>

I believe that's just for VoIP phones.

Scøtt
Live Messenger FAQs - http://wlm.scottisafool.co.uk/

John Jay Smith wrote:
>> Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM
>>> working on previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>
> I was thinking of giving it a shot myself for win2k.. you say that the
> effort is futile?
>
> Does it depend on something strange? I have seen something in the add remove
> options that is related to WLM
> (windows driver package) perhaps that has something to do with it?
>
> "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Hi,
>>
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>> news:%23vBG2$...
>>> MS wants to shove everyone to vista....
>> Actually Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work properly on Vista.
>> Voice/video is broken on some installs, as is Remote Assistance, toasts,
>> and a bunch of other things. In the latest beta build (not beta 2), it's
>> even worse with display corruption although there are workarounds.
>>
>>> It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
>>> but they don't want to.
>> That is highly debatable. When you start adding various platforms to
>> support you increase the cost. Cost of development, cost of testing, cost
>> of support. WLM makes extensive use of a number of libraries that are
>> only available in Windows XP (feel free to do a dependency analysis). Now
>> lets say they include that updated library but that library breaks two
>> major applications in use today on Windows 2000. Then what?
>>
>> It'd have to be debugged, rewritten, whatever. This is a business
>> economic decision, nothing more.
>>
>> Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM
>> working on previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Kay
>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
>> Associate Expert
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
>> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
>> All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
>> You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Hi,

It's referencing updated libraries that aren't on Windows 2000 -- for a start.

--
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
--

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:%...
> >Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM
>> >working on previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>
> I was thinking of giving it a shot myself for win2k.. you say that the effort is futile?
>
> Does it depend on something strange? I have seen something in the add remove options that
> is related to WLM
> (windows driver package) perhaps that has something to do with it?
>
> "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Hi,
>>
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:%23vBG2$...
>>> MS wants to shove everyone to vista....
>> Actually Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work properly on Vista. Voice/video is broken
>> on some installs, as is Remote Assistance, toasts, and a bunch of other things. In the
>> latest beta build (not beta 2), it's even worse with display corruption although there are
>> workarounds.
>>
>>> It would be a piece of cake for them to make it compatible.....
>>> but they don't want to.
>> That is highly debatable. When you start adding various platforms to support you increase
>> the cost. Cost of development, cost of testing, cost of support. WLM makes extensive use
>> of a number of libraries that are only available in Windows XP (feel free to do a
>> dependency analysis). Now lets say they include that updated library but that library
>> breaks two major applications in use today on Windows 2000. Then what?
>>
>> It'd have to be debugged, rewritten, whatever. This is a business economic decision,
>> nothing more.
>>
>> Many people who are experts in reversing have tried and failed to get WLM working on
>> previous Windows verisons (it just ending up being a big mess).
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Kay
>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger/MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
>> Associate Expert
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
>> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
>> All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2006 Jonathan Kay.
>> You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:...
> Gee.... I cant see how hundreds of thousands of very complex programs can
> still work on older platforms (and still are being tested on them by the
> developers) yet Microsoft as you claim is incapable of making a messenger
> that is compatible with its own OS versions. If almost everyone else can
> pay programmers to make sure that it works on all platforms then I am sure
> MS could if they wanted to.
>
> But the DON'T want to. As I said, they have a way of pushing people to get
> latest versions of
> windows by offering some free software that will not run on older windows.
> They did it with windows media player, Internet explorer, and they are
> doing it with WLM.
>
> If this is not the case, and what you say is true, then they are only
> disrespectful to their customers
> that bought their product in the past, total morons, or just lazy.
>
> As for them being afraid to install more dlls, that's the strangest excuse
> I have ever heard when it comes to Microsoft. When you install other ms
> products I have not seen them be stingy about installing dlls... or other
> super bloated crap just to get a few things running...
>
> I *could* forgive them to not make it for the 9x platform.... but not
> win2k.... that is an insult
> to our intelligence.

Partly agree, but probably it does use some new APIs related to theming and
such.
I know all about making things compatible with Windows 2000.

I created some tools for Active Directory (snap-ins) it's -not- just
unicode/multibyte support but it is about APIs that do not exist on 2000. In
once case, I could 'work-around' by writing some COM class, totally from
scratch (2000 lines of code).
Now if Live messenger, uses the firewall APIs etc, it simply won't work on
2000.

> As for WLM not working on vista, they will fix this of course... its just
> not their priority now...
>