The biggest cause for pause with regard to Windows Live for me is the question of service continuity over the very very long term, especially as regards services that store data and/or photo collections.

The precedent for doubt here is what we might call Web 1.0 services AND Microsoft's own tendency to not stick with services and software over the very long run, except its core apps such as Word, Excel and PowerPoint.

Remember all the services from the previous web boom era ("Web 1.0") that offered such things as free "lifetime" online photo storage, free "lifetime" faxing and so forth? Most either were terminated or went commercial and tried to milk the free users for subscriptions, then failed; few had the kind of perpetual continuity that is required if we are to rely on these services that often lock up our content in proprietary ways that are not easy to migrate out of.

And let's consider Microsoft's track record of letting us get dependent on key desktop apps that they later drop, examples being FrontPage and PhotoDraw and more recently some sort of consumer-level image editin/managing software. And can you say Visual Basic 6 Professional edition?

But the firm's follow-the-market behavior with respect to online services is equally or more telling of the doubts one may have as to the long-run utility of Windows Live services. MS is forever morphing its MSN brand as well as teh core MSN email system.

There was once a service called LinkExchange that involved placing banner ads on a site and in return one got an ad on the system as well that rotated to other sites. MS bought up that service years ago but recently sent out a terse notice stating in part that "Effective 12:00 noon PDT on June 4th 2007 Microsoft will no longer offer its Banner Network Ad service. The service�s Banner Network Ad exchange and reporting tools will be decommissioned. In its place, we invite you to complete the Microsoft Publisher Program Interest Form to stay informed about Microsoft�s upcoming publisher program."

The banner ad service was not something that one would have a deep tie to and its ad format one could say was long in the tooth; but it's quick end with little chance to plan illustrates the problem. Problematically, I doubt that the marketplace is interested overall in Web 2.0 services with respect to anything that requires long-run longevity. Because the web experience thus far suggests that web services can vamoose without much warning. The problem being that such services need to endure over a very very long period in order to represent a safe repository for data in the long run.

I also would question the real dollar cost of these services. My humble 45 gigabyte data set would cost a fortune to store as web-stored backup at typical rates for online storage systems, whereas external hard drives are dirt cheap in comaprison.

It seems that you have two primary complaints.

Tied to Windows Platform: Dude, they call it Windows Live for a reason..its live services for Windows users. My guess is that they want to develop a feature set that will make future Windows OS clients as rich as possible. Today its applications, tommorrow it could be whole parts of the Windows OS.

Not Using 3rd Party Services/APIs: I agree to a point and i think they will do it eventually as they've licensed some technology in Windows. However, it would be smart on their part to keep dependencies to a minimum. I'm a firm believer of competitive offerings and don't want to hold Microsoft back from doing so.

A lot of the things you're pointing out are being addressed. There's a lot more coming this year.

"Tied to Windows Platform: Dude, they call it Windows Live for a reason.."

Right on! Joe, do you think that Apple similarly doesn't call theirs ".Mac" for a reason?

"Not Using 3rd Party Services/APIs: I agree to a point and i think they will do it eventually as they've licensed some technology in Windows."

They're already using XML services via 3rd-party API's in Popfly for creating mashup objects using Silverlight. It's a really great project, and hopefully it will be incorporated into the Windows Live cloud for integration into Spaces as well as the Live.com/Vista-sidebar Gadgets Gallery. There's already Silverlight-based Gadget projects under development and the platform is a good launch pad for anybody looking at getting into software development without having first decided on whether to concentrate on the desktop or on "web 2.0" (I hate that term).

www.popfly.ms

"A lot of the things you're pointing out are being addressed. There's a lot more coming this year."

Ah yes, the old manana excuse. Must be part of that "patience" strategy Steve Ballmer keeps talking about. Microsoft shareholders have been patiently suffering for over six years as this crew bumbles and stumbles through billions of dollars and multiple failures.

Patience my a$$, put up or shut up.

Does anyone else see that MS is looking for the "Live" tie in here between Windows and their new web services to create another set of lock in by hooking users on propitiatory drivers? It may start out standard enough or not, but since MS is not a company that wants to work on a level playing field with open standards, its not going be useful. For this reason alone I usually reject using MS software, wherever possible. In addition, as stated by Polarupgrade, at some point they will charge for it anyway, so best not to get hooked into using their services wherever possible.

There primary targets in this live endeavor are Google and Linux.

C B Malroy asks "Does anyone else see that MS is looking for the "Live" tie in here between Windows and their new web services to create another set of lock in by hooking users on proprietary drivers?

Exactly, although it is not really driver-related so much as simply another software lock-in. Microsoft is doing neither "web services" nor "Web 2' with Windows Live, but rather is creating windows-tethered services that merely sit on top of the Internet, rather than interconnect to the rest of the Internet.

Said another way, "We'll let you go the web-based software route, provided you simply use windows software on the web."

The approach rather defeats the whole purpose of web 2, which is why Windows Live does not move the IT sector to embrace it. It's WINDOWS LIVE, and is NOT the WEB LIVE, and therein lies the seed of non-interest overall.

"Microsoft is doing neither "web services" nor "Web 2' with Windows Live, but rather is creating windows-tethered services that merely sit on top of the Internet, rather than interconnect to the rest of the Internet."

That's why they don't call it "SaaS" (software as a service), but rather "software + services".

"Windows Live does not move the IT sector to embrace it."

It's not designed to - it's a consumer platform!

It's exactly the argument IT people are making against the iPhone (which I still hate for the same reasons) - with the feature set it includes, it's clearly obvious that it's NOT targetted towards IT, and yet the consumer side of certain IT people want it to be, just like they try to justify having MP3 players (or predominantly iPods) at work. If you want an IT device - choose a Windows Mobile phone instead. Ditto for the Microsoft services - collaboration and team portal sites are made with Sharepoint Services or Office Sharepoint Portal Server (or Office Live in the small-business segment), NOT Windows Live Spaces. REAL corporate email is setup with Exchange Server with client users on Office Outlook and/or Outlook Web Access, NOT Hotmail. Microsoft's enterprise communication is done through Office Communication Server, and to a lesser extent, Groove, NOT Windows Live Messenger. OneCare is NOT the kind of security service you want to be running in a corporation - Forefront is!

Really, I fail to see why the IT sector is concentrating so much attention on a consumer services offering....Not everything Microsoft does is IT-oriented.

live folders is a good name. why do they want to change the name again

Quote;
paulb :

live folders is a good name. why do they want to change the name again
-------------------------------------------------

The old product did not sell in droves the way M$ wanted it to. By giving it a new Name, changing it a little in meaningless way, they think it will appeal to users as a new product.

Sort of what they do to windows and office with every release, you know, warmed over reused old code with a lot of WGA and DRM thown in.

live folders is a good name. why do they want to change the name again
-------------------------------------------------

The old product did not sell in droves the way M$ wanted it to. By giving it a new Name, changing it a little in meaningless way, they think it will appeal to users as a new product.

Sort of what they do to windows and office with every release, you know, warmed over reused old code with a lot of WGA and DRM thown in.

If I remember correctly, the only way I could access the "Folder" functionality easily was by using MSN Explorer...which was an AOL-Case-wrapping of Internet Explorer.

Microsoft needs to stop making NEW services and focus on its "old" ones. Get LIVE.com up & running 100%...that means LETTING PEOPLE GET @LIVE.COM ADDRESSES!

I don't know why MS doesn't realize this but people FLOCK to WHEREVER they can get a new, FREE, email address. You probably won't convert sally@gmail.com to use MS Live Hotmail....but I'm sure sally071988@gmail.com wants a better name!

So much of this internet intermixing/cross-marketing/social networking hoopla everyone's going gaga over boils down to a very simple idea. Everyone wants the be known a little and whatever company makes it easier for Joe Blow or Plain Jane to experience all this stuff while allowing them to have some personality and choice will win in the long run.

Live isn't dead yet...but unless MS gets their act together very soon, it SHOULD BE.

SecondLife DVD Maker is a powerful and easy-to-use DVD Author and Burning tools . You can make your own DVD title with the movie captured by your DV or downloaded from the internet.

http://www.vista-download.net/audio-video/dvd-software/