Skype cordless phone & Windows ME

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by hophed@hotmail.com, May 1, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hi

    I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and would like to get a
    cordless phone for it. The Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to
    check compatibility.

    The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or 2000 in the minimum
    system requirements. I think I heard that Windows ME is based on
    Windows 2000. Does this mean that it should be OK?

    Many thanks for your advice, or recommendations for other Skype
    cordless phones which are compatible with ME.

    http://tinyurl.com/rj6cw

    The tinyurl is a shortened link to this page:

    http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...455701&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper
     
    , May 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thus spaketh :
    > Hi
    >
    > I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and would like to get
    > a cordless phone for it. The Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to
    > check compatibility.
    >
    > The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or 2000 in the
    > minimum system requirements. I think I heard that Windows ME is based
    > on Windows 2000. Does this mean that it should be OK?
    >
    > Many thanks for your advice, or recommendations for other Skype
    > cordless phones which are compatible with ME.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/rj6cw
    >
    > The tinyurl is a shortened link to this page:
    >
    > http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...455701&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper




    We recommend you dump the toy town skype hype and invest in a proper VoIP
    service and equipment.



    --
    Get out and vote in the upcoming local elections!
     
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, May 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and would like to get a
    > cordless phone for it. The Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to
    > check compatibility.
    >
    > The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or 2000 in the minimum
    > system requirements. I think I heard that Windows ME is based on
    > Windows 2000. Does this mean that it should be OK?


    ME is based on 95/98
    XP/2000 is based on NT
    I doubt it would work


    >
    > Many thanks for your advice, or recommendations for other Skype
    > cordless phones which are compatible with ME.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/rj6cw
    >
    > The tinyurl is a shortened link to this page:
    >
    > http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...455701&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper
    >



    Ditch skype and get yourself a proper VoIP provider that uses the
    industry standard SIP protocol you will then have a very wide choice of
    hardware that will not rely on your laptop/pc to work
     
    Mark, May 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    Thanks for the replies.

    I'd like to stick with Skype because I use it mainly for international
    calls where Skype is cheaper than Voip providers, plus there's no
    subscription.

    If there isn't a cordless phone that will work with Windows ME, can
    anyone recommend an adapter so that I can use a standard (cordless)
    phone with Skype?

    Thanks.
     
    , May 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Thus spaketh :
    > Thanks for the replies.
    >
    > I'd like to stick with Skype because I use it mainly for international
    > calls where Skype is cheaper than Voip providers, plus there's no
    > subscription.
    >
    > If there isn't a cordless phone that will work with Windows ME, can
    > anyone recommend an adapter so that I can use a standard (cordless)
    > phone with Skype?
    >
    > Thanks.



    I haven't yet found Skype to be cheaper to any international destination I
    call.



    --
    Get out and vote in the upcoming local elections!
     
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, May 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    I mainly phone China which is 1.4 p per minute on Skype (no
    subscription), and 4p per minute on vonage and freetalk (subscription)
    as far as i know.
     
    , May 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Jono Guest

    explained on 02/05/2006 :
    > I mainly phone China which is 1.4 p per minute on Skype (no
    > subscription), and 4p per minute on vonage and freetalk (subscription)
    > as far as i know.


    Sipdiscount 1ppm
    Voipcheap 0.5ppm
    Internetcalls 0ppm (landlines)
     
    Jono, May 2, 2006
    #7
  8. paul123 Guest

    Jono wrote:
    > explained on 02/05/2006 :
    > > I mainly phone China which is 1.4 p per minute on Skype (no
    > > subscription), and 4p per minute on vonage and freetalk (subscription)
    > > as far as i know.

    >
    > Sipdiscount 1ppm
    > Voipcheap 0.5ppm
    > Internetcalls 0ppm (landlines)


    not forgetting
    voipdiscount 0ppm (landlines and mobiles)
     
    paul123, May 2, 2006
    #8
  9. paul123 Guest

    0 €uro cents per min. really - still nowt whichever way you look at it
     
    paul123, May 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Thus spaketh paul123:
    > Jono wrote:
    >> explained on 02/05/2006 :
    >>> I mainly phone China which is 1.4 p per minute on Skype (no
    >>> subscription), and 4p per minute on vonage and freetalk
    >>> (subscription) as far as i know.

    >>
    >> Sipdiscount 1ppm
    >> Voipcheap 0.5ppm
    >> Internetcalls 0ppm (landlines)

    >
    > not forgetting
    > voipdiscount 0ppm (landlines and mobiles)



    I use VoIP Stunt mainly, they are free to China too.

    Vonage and Freetalk are rip-off services anyway compared to VoIP Stunt etc.



    --
    It's your local community, get out and vote for local issues in the upcoming
    local elections!
    www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk
     
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, May 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    Thanks for the suggestions. They're certainly cheap - I'll check them
    out.
     
    , May 3, 2006
    #11
  12. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    >
    > I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and would like to get a
    > cordless phone for it. The Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to
    > check compatibility.
    >
    > The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or 2000 in the minimum
    > system requirements. I think I heard that Windows ME is based on
    > Windows 2000. Does this mean that it should be OK?


    Windows ME is based on W98 (more bugs than a anthill...).
    W98 is based on W95.
    W95 is based on W3.11
    W3.11 is based on W3.0
    which was based on MS/DOS
    which was based on QDOS (Quick Dirty Operating System)
    QDOS was based on CP/M

    Mostly written (well hacked really) in assembler.

    Whereas Windows NT (-> 2000 -> XP) was a clean build, and written in C/ C++
    :
    :
    which do you think stands the better chance of working?
     
    R. Mark Clayton, May 3, 2006
    #12
  13. Ivor Jones Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:
    > I mainly phone China which is 1.4 p per minute on Skype
    > (no subscription), and 4p per minute on vonage and
    > freetalk (subscription) as far as i know.


    1.5p/min on Sipgate. A little more than 1.4 I grant you, but not a lot.
    Depends how much you're on the phone for, I suppose.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 3, 2006
    #13
  14. R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi
    >>
    >> I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and would like to get a
    >> cordless phone for it. The Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to
    >> check compatibility.
    >>
    >> The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or 2000 in the minimum
    >> system requirements. I think I heard that Windows ME is based on
    >> Windows 2000. Does this mean that it should be OK?

    >
    > Windows ME is based on W98 (more bugs than a anthill...).
    > W98 is based on W95.
    > W95 is based on W3.11
    > W3.11 is based on W3.0
    > which was based on MS/DOS
    > which was based on QDOS (Quick Dirty Operating System)
    > QDOS was based on CP/M
    >

    Err, QDOS and CP/M don't share the same codebase. (afaik there wasn't an
    x86 version of CP/M, although I could be wrong).

    > Mostly written (well hacked really) in assembler.
    >
    > Whereas Windows NT (-> 2000 -> XP) was a clean build, and written in C/ C++
    > :
    > :
    > which do you think stands the better chance of working?
    >

    I think what it was written in bears no resemblance to the who wrote it.
    (that's generally a lot more important).

    People don't want an OS that works anyway, otherwise we'd have all been
    using OS/2.
     
    Thomas Kenyon, May 3, 2006
    #14
  15. "Thomas Kenyon" <> wrote in message
    news:gUZ5g.27448$...
    > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hi
    >>>
    >>> I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and would like to get a
    >>> cordless phone for it. The Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to
    >>> check compatibility.
    >>>
    >>> The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or 2000 in the minimum
    >>> system requirements. I think I heard that Windows ME is based on
    >>> Windows 2000. Does this mean that it should be OK?

    >>
    >> Windows ME is based on W98 (more bugs than a anthill...).
    >> W98 is based on W95.
    >> W95 is based on W3.11
    >> W3.11 is based on W3.0
    >> which was based on MS/DOS
    >> which was based on QDOS (Quick Dirty Operating System)
    >> QDOS was based on CP/M
    >>

    > Err, QDOS and CP/M don't share the same codebase. (afaik there wasn't an
    > x86 version of CP/M, although I could be wrong).


    Just do a search on the two, or see
    http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/early.htm
    notice the use of the word "copied?".

    >
    >> Mostly written (well hacked really) in assembler.
    >>
    >> Whereas Windows NT (-> 2000 -> XP) was a clean build, and written in C/
    >> C++
    >> :
    >> :
    >> which do you think stands the better chance of working?
    >>

    > I think what it was written in bears no resemblance to the who wrote it.
    > (that's generally a lot more important).


    Not so.

    In assembler almost all the programmers mistakes make it into the final
    program.

    In a structured 3rd generation language (e.g. C) the many mistakes the
    programmer could make are simply not possible in the language, and many more
    will be weeded out at compile time. It is also relatively simple to
    generate "checked" versions of OS code, where more vigourous array bound
    checking is compiled in for testing purposes.

    In a structured 4th generation language (e.g. C++) the programmer is
    restricted to manipulating complex data structures in ways permitted in the
    definition, and scoping, type checking etc. is improved. In addition the
    code is closer to the actual design, so it is easier to read, understand and
    verify.

    >
    > People don't want an OS that works anyway, otherwise we'd have all been
    > using OS/2.


    Unix actually, but then a lot of people do...
     
    R. Mark Clayton, May 3, 2006
    #15
  16. R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > "Thomas Kenyon" <> wrote in message
    > news:gUZ5g.27448$...
    >
    >> People don't want an OS that works anyway, otherwise we'd have all been
    >> using OS/2.

    >
    > Unix actually, but then a lot of people do...
    >

    Did you ever use OS/2? (well a later version after IBM had re-written it).
    Was slick and bombproof. Very good desktop OS. (you could run windows
    applications under emulation faster than they would run natively in
    windows.)

    I've not used Unix for many years, (I'm more of a linux person now) Used
    Sun OS and Solaris for years, so I know a real OS when I see one :p
     
    Thomas Kenyon, May 3, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    On Tue, 02 May 2006 22:46:28 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
    <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:


    >Vonage and Freetalk are rip-off services anyway compared to VoIP Stunt etc.

    I don't call less than 1.60 a week for Freetalk a rip-off including
    all geographical calls and a local number which you do not get with
    the likes of voipcheap etc .
     
    , May 3, 2006
    #17
  18. "Thomas Kenyon" <> wrote in message
    news:AX_5g.1385$...
    > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >> "Thomas Kenyon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:gUZ5g.27448$...
    >>
    >>> People don't want an OS that works anyway, otherwise we'd have all been
    >>> using OS/2.

    >>
    >> Unix actually, but then a lot of people do...
    >>

    > Did you ever use OS/2? (well a later version after IBM had re-written it).
    > Was slick and bombproof. Very good desktop OS. (you could run windows
    > applications under emulation faster than they would run natively in
    > windows.)
    >
    > I've not used Unix for many years, (I'm more of a linux person now) Used
    > Sun OS and Solaris for years, so I know a real OS when I see one :p

    ....but never heard of CP/M 8086... I'm a bit suspicious: either you are not
    as slick as you picture yourself, or you're simply too young... :p

    --
    ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
     
    ßødincµs²°°°, May 3, 2006
    #18
  19. Ivor Jones Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in
    message news:
    > "Thomas Kenyon" <> wrote in
    > message news:gUZ5g.27448$...
    > > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    > > > <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > Hi
    > > > >
    > > > > I have a laptop running Windows ME. I use Skype and
    > > > > would like to get a cordless phone for it. The
    > > > > Linksys CIT200 looks good but I'd like to check
    > > > > compatibility. The data sheet (see link below) lists Windows XP or
    > > > > 2000 in the minimum system requirements. I think I
    > > > > heard that Windows ME is based on Windows 2000.
    > > > > Does this mean that it should be OK?
    > > >
    > > > Windows ME is based on W98 (more bugs than a
    > > > anthill...). W98 is based on W95.
    > > > W95 is based on W3.11
    > > > W3.11 is based on W3.0
    > > > which was based on MS/DOS
    > > > which was based on QDOS (Quick Dirty Operating System)
    > > > QDOS was based on CP/M
    > > >

    > > Err, QDOS and CP/M don't share the same codebase.
    > > (afaik there wasn't an x86 version of CP/M, although I
    > > could be wrong).

    >
    > Just do a search on the two, or see
    > http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/early.htm
    > notice the use of the word "copied?".
    >
    > >
    > > > Mostly written (well hacked really) in assembler.
    > > >
    > > > Whereas Windows NT (-> 2000 -> XP) was a clean build,
    > > > and written in C/ C++
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > which do you think stands the better chance of
    > > > working?

    > > I think what it was written in bears no resemblance to
    > > the who wrote it. (that's generally a lot more
    > > important).

    >
    > Not so.
    >
    > In assembler almost all the programmers mistakes make it
    > into the final program.
    >
    > In a structured 3rd generation language (e.g. C) the many
    > mistakes the programmer could make are simply not
    > possible in the language, and many more will be weeded
    > out at compile time. It is also relatively simple to
    > generate "checked" versions of OS code, where more
    > vigourous array bound checking is compiled in for testing
    > purposes.
    > In a structured 4th generation language (e.g. C++) the
    > programmer is restricted to manipulating complex data
    > structures in ways permitted in the definition, and
    > scoping, type checking etc. is improved. In addition the
    > code is closer to the actual design, so it is easier to
    > read, understand and verify.
    > >
    > > People don't want an OS that works anyway, otherwise
    > > we'd have all been using OS/2.

    >
    > Unix actually, but then a lot of people do...


    Don't knock OS/2, it was excellent in its day, unfortunately Windoze won
    the day.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, May 3, 2006
    #19
  20. ßødincµs²°°° wrote:

    > ...but never heard of CP/M 8086... I'm a bit suspicious: either you are not
    > as slick as you picture yourself, or you're simply too young... :p
    >


    Weird thing is, I remember Z80 CP/M and even a 68k port, but I don't
    remember the 8086 version (mind you, I didn't have much to do with 8086's.)

    Mind you, I remember Z80 co-pro boards to allow the BBC to run CP/M
    (which ran on a 6502).
     
    Thomas Kenyon, May 4, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    945
  2. Skype Cordless Phone

    , Nov 27, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    538
  3. dianasun
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,003
    dianasun
    Jun 1, 2006
  4. Rick Merrill

    Skype announced a new cordless phone

    Rick Merrill, Sep 5, 2006, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    470
  5. Paul
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    729
Loading...

Share This Page