Windows Messenger Alternatives?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by newbino, Nov 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. newbino

    newbino Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    377
    Hi, I need to chat with people using Microsoft Messenger.

    Having read that MS Messenger is unsafe, and in general preferring non-MS programs, I am looking for an alternative.

    It should have, in decreasing priority, the following characteristics:
    1. be MS Messenger compatible (ie, able to chat with people using it - please do not suggest to ask them to switch)
    2. spyware-free
    3. light in resources (if portable it would be great)
    4. intuitive
    5. video chat
    6. cheap or free

    any suggestions welcome!
    thanks
     
  2. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
  3. Cerxes

    Cerxes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Posts:
    581
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    Pidgin, but without video chat.

    /C.
     
  4. Seer

    Seer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Posts:
    1,596
    Location:
    Singidunum
    My post would be same as C's, but with a different link.

    Miranda IM

    So, no 'video chat' there either...
     
  5. dread

    dread Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    195
    [SIZE=-1]Mercury Messenger. There is more. I would check out BigBlueBall and look around their forum and pages for me. Look at this and this. In their other-instant-messengers forum they list clients not listed in the other 2 links I posted. I would look in their MSN Messenger section to. I would like to say there is a difference between Windows Messenger and MSN/Live Messenger.
    [/SIZE]
     
  6. clambermatic

    clambermatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Posts:
    216
    I 2nd-the-motion with 'Cerxes'... Pidgin, is one of the lightest, even if u include their plugins.

    Pidgin is 'gtk-based', initially developed for Linux as add-on & it's certified "software-Libre". Lite & clean & worry-free on pests. Am using one for 2yrs now & i shud say it's adequate enough for its functions (none-video thou).

    There's another one that slip thru my mind for the moment... it's video-capable... err...shucks, can't recall!

    If you're did a lotta file-sharing via IM/Chat & consider 2be security concious, AIM's is a good choice.... much better than YM or even Messenger. Only drawback is you gotta subscribe for an AIM email a/c in order to have an AIM!
     
  7. newbino

    newbino Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    377
    Thanks to everybody for their replies, after some reading Pidgin looks like the first candidate for trialling.
     
  8. clambermatic

    clambermatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Posts:
    216
    err... just an afterthought, 'newBino'... the one that escape my mind in my last post here (hours ago) was TRILLIAN, yeah.

    This one has a caboodle of plugins, can work in conjunction with almost all of the major IM apps and also video-capable!
     
  9. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,633
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    I still use Yahoo Messenger but used to get a lot of good use from MSN untill they changed format and ruined even my email, but what do you expect for free right? All good things like that soon come to an end for one of two reasons, MONEY or IMPROVEMENTS :doubt:
     
  10. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Only the Pro version ($25.00) :)
     
  11. Cerxes

    Cerxes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Posts:
    581
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    Regarding the "spyware-free" request, I would avoid Trillian for a while until they have patched their vulnerabilities (Secunia). Either Pidgin or Live Messenger have any known exploits until todays date (yet...;) ).

    /C.
     
  12. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    AIM =? Americaonline Instant Messenger?

    is it really good security wise? I don't know much about IM's but that's good to know if true.


    -HandsOff
     
  13. clambermatic

    clambermatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Posts:
    216
    :isay: "AIM-im" has a strict file-sharing protocol buildin, and seldom (last i read one was more than 5mths ago) does it get reported on security breaches at 'secuirtyfocus dotcom'.
     
  14. dread

    dread Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    195
    In reality no messenger is really safe without having encryption installed. When you send a message to someone over messengers the messages are sent out in clear text form and can be read by others. SimpLite has a product for it so does ZoneLabs and there is others to. Some of the alternatives come with encryption and others has free plugins for encryption. Some are for messages and transfers others is just for messages. I have not seen a product that will encrypt video. Last time I checked the only way to have video encryption is using hardware which is not cheap.
     
  15. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    Could you just put the messenger in a sandbox?
     
  16. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    I don't see why not.At least with Sandboxie anyway.

    I used Trillian years ago and it worked for Yahoo and MSN.Don't know how good or secure it is now.
     
  17. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I know very little about encryption other than for archival purposes. It's aggravating, but no one I know will bother with it, so now the concepts have sort of faded out of my memory. I consider non use of encryption to be one of the big scams that is put over on the unsuspecting masses.

    What remember thinking, and hopefully I am wrong, is that the way communications is between a computer and one's ISP in no way precludes interception of messages and keys, because of the fact that dual key encryption is not used. I guess it is sort of off topic, but is there really a way to communicate securely if your ISP, and your browser, and your contacts are not interested? (Not to mentions NSA tapping into the messages before they reach there destination).


    -HandsOff
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.