February 9, 2009 at 09:47Rambler ICQ vs. QIP Infium: customer comparison
QIP - shit. Those unable to tune the Miranda are simply unable to tune it. She's worth it.
I do not like QIP and do not try to promote it. The essence of the article and discussion is that the ICQ6 interface is bad, and not that QIP is good.
QIP is worse than any other alternative client. It's my opinion.
Background.
There is one character in the circle of my friends. Whenever possible, this character uses the official ICQ client as an Oscar client. He explains this by the fact that all sorts of QIP, Miranda, etc. parasitize on someone else's protocol. When asked about what to do with the majority who are sick of the ICQ6 interface, the character claims that the program’s interface is normal. When asked about resource consumption, he says that QIP once consumed 2% of the CPU at zero at ICQ. At one point, I was tired of rushing words, I launched the virtual machine, installed QIP Infium and Rambler ICQ there (as the two most popular clients in Russia from the pages under consideration) and ask passers-by for support or criticism.
History.
(Carefully, traffic)
1. Download the distribution.
Rambler ICQ installation file size is 15.8 MB. Infium - 4.9 MB. Despite the fact that QIP has more functions, the question arises ...
Well, okay. Suppose that the developers of ICQ have prepared for us many, many delicious things. Install, run.
2. The window of contacts.
Pre-hidden everything that I could hide. Also, the size of the windows are adjusted to each other.
In this picture we see that ICQ has huge fields. At the top is a huge headline, an Xtraz fixed panel, a search bar, and at the bottom an advertisement with tabs. QIP, by contrast, squeezed all the icons to the smallest readable size, leaving a heap of icons requiring clarification.
Immediately we see that ICQ does not want to fit into the theme of Windows (XP in this case), it catches the eye in the window title and scroll.
At the same time, an artifact is visible that remains from dragging another window over the ICQ contact list. It should be said that the artifact can last at least a minute if you do not touch the window.
For me, as a user, it is important here that the space left for the contacts themselves is two times less in ICQ (in height) than in QIP. A trifle? I think not.
2. The chat window.
Let's move on to the most interesting. Why is the most interesting thing is chat? Because it is in it that most of the time devoted to the messenger is spent. As in the previous paragraph, everything that is removed is removed, as well as the window sizes are made identical.
Oh pa! It turns out that there is no bun in a single quip.
Again a huge headline. Again hypertrophied buttons under the heading. Again, non-inclusion in the Windows theme, but now the scroll is also angular. Banner again.
The result - in QIP, the space for the chat itself is two and a half times higher and slightly wider (due to the fields).
The artifact on the right is a notification from Kopete from the host system.
3. window size.
I wanted to reduce the windows for the previous screenshot. The first was ICQ. First I tried to do this with WinMover. It didn’t work (for the first time failed). then he led the mouse into a corner, and there is no pen. Okay, I’m aiming at the edge ... It turns out that it can resize at one moment only horizontally or only vertically. Began resizing - rests on an unknown limit. It turns out that there is a minimal chat window size, and rather big, as it seemed to me. Well, three more minuses of ICQ. At the same time, QIP chat was successfully resized by WinMover to its minimum size. The result is this:
At the same time, we note that with standard settings, QIP shows the tail of the story, but ICQ does not. I could not change the behavior of the latter.
4. Mouseover.
Hover over the contact in the list. ICQ has questionable utility fields e-mail, WWW, phone number, but there is no potentially interesting name and surname from the profile, as well as guesses about the client:
5. Metacontacts.
Do you want metacontacts in ICQ? We have them! True, only in QIP among those studied today:
In ICQ, with one click, a menu appears with a set of possible actions. In the absence of metacontacts, a completely adequate option, IMHO.
6. We change the statuses-rezatusy
From above ICQ, from below QIP.
In order to change the status in ICQ, you need to get to the smallest button, and then at the second level of the menu, select the desired item. Want to change X status? Then you to the third level. Ah, you haven’t set the duck yet? Use the personal status editor.
On the other hand, in QIP, the most elaborate menus are made for these actions. Simple and tasteful.
7. Use of resources.
Perhaps for owners of gigabytes of RAM and gigahertz on multi-core processors, this item is unimportant, but still.
ICQ usually uses 2..5% of the virtual processor, with rare 0 and 7..8%. QIP, as a rule, adheres to zero, sometimes crawling out to 2..5, but immediately returning.
About the memory. I still could not figure out what Windows is an important indicator of memory usage, but in any case, the difference is obvious:
At this point, ICQ is offline, QIP is the other way around.
8. Trivia specific to me.
On my virtual machine, Windows gets along with two wonderful softwares - WinMover andBlackBox for Windows . WinMover is engaged in dragging and resizing windows as in niksovyh WM, and BlackBox gives 4 tables and cool window design. At the same time, WinMover makes the windows magnet to the edges of the screen.
So here. The QIP contact list is magnetized to the edges even without WinMover, saving my few pixels if I want it to be hidden. And ICQ does not magnetize even with WinMover. Both are able to get into the dock, no complaints here.
As I wrote, ICQ windows are not processed by WinMover at all. Moreover, they are not decorated with BlackBox. Although it is even attached to Safari ... It seems that ICQ uses some of its curved graphics library for rendering, which leads to artifacts, consuming extra memory, making the distribution heavier and subjective slowdown.
Total
Of the two clients examined, I would choose QIP Infium, because it weighs less (both on disk and in operative), corresponds to the design theme of my system, saves space on my monitor, responds to my actions subjectively faster, does not bother with advertising and allows perform the most frequent actions as quickly as possible. It is also multi-protocol and supports metacontacts. And for the sake of this convenience, I would be ready to periodically unscheduledly update and along with tens of thousands (hundreds? Millions?) Violate the terms of contracts with AOL and with the authors of QIP .
From passing by waiting for words of support or specific criticism, the second is desirable to justify. Yes, and the first too. What forgot where wrong?
Your words may affect the outcome of a local QIP dispute vs. ICQ
PSI would prefer Miranda, but it's not about her. Yes, and I do not use either Windows or Oscar. So, my choice is Kopete + XMPP with respect to the choice of others, if they can reasonably substantiate this choice.
I do not like QIP and do not try to promote it. The essence of the article and discussion is that the ICQ6 interface is bad, and not that QIP is good.
QIP is worse than any other alternative client. It's my opinion.
Background.
There is one character in the circle of my friends. Whenever possible, this character uses the official ICQ client as an Oscar client. He explains this by the fact that all sorts of QIP, Miranda, etc. parasitize on someone else's protocol. When asked about what to do with the majority who are sick of the ICQ6 interface, the character claims that the program’s interface is normal. When asked about resource consumption, he says that QIP once consumed 2% of the CPU at zero at ICQ. At one point, I was tired of rushing words, I launched the virtual machine, installed QIP Infium and Rambler ICQ there (as the two most popular clients in Russia from the pages under consideration) and ask passers-by for support or criticism.
History.
(Carefully, traffic)
1. Download the distribution.
Rambler ICQ installation file size is 15.8 MB. Infium - 4.9 MB. Despite the fact that QIP has more functions, the question arises ...
Well, okay. Suppose that the developers of ICQ have prepared for us many, many delicious things. Install, run.
2. The window of contacts.
Pre-hidden everything that I could hide. Also, the size of the windows are adjusted to each other.
In this picture we see that ICQ has huge fields. At the top is a huge headline, an Xtraz fixed panel, a search bar, and at the bottom an advertisement with tabs. QIP, by contrast, squeezed all the icons to the smallest readable size, leaving a heap of icons requiring clarification.
Immediately we see that ICQ does not want to fit into the theme of Windows (XP in this case), it catches the eye in the window title and scroll.
At the same time, an artifact is visible that remains from dragging another window over the ICQ contact list. It should be said that the artifact can last at least a minute if you do not touch the window.
For me, as a user, it is important here that the space left for the contacts themselves is two times less in ICQ (in height) than in QIP. A trifle? I think not.
2. The chat window.
Let's move on to the most interesting. Why is the most interesting thing is chat? Because it is in it that most of the time devoted to the messenger is spent. As in the previous paragraph, everything that is removed is removed, as well as the window sizes are made identical.
Oh pa! It turns out that there is no bun in a single quip.
Again a huge headline. Again hypertrophied buttons under the heading. Again, non-inclusion in the Windows theme, but now the scroll is also angular. Banner again.
The result - in QIP, the space for the chat itself is two and a half times higher and slightly wider (due to the fields).
The artifact on the right is a notification from Kopete from the host system.
3. window size.
I wanted to reduce the windows for the previous screenshot. The first was ICQ. First I tried to do this with WinMover. It didn’t work (for the first time failed). then he led the mouse into a corner, and there is no pen. Okay, I’m aiming at the edge ... It turns out that it can resize at one moment only horizontally or only vertically. Began resizing - rests on an unknown limit. It turns out that there is a minimal chat window size, and rather big, as it seemed to me. Well, three more minuses of ICQ. At the same time, QIP chat was successfully resized by WinMover to its minimum size. The result is this:
At the same time, we note that with standard settings, QIP shows the tail of the story, but ICQ does not. I could not change the behavior of the latter.
4. Mouseover.
Hover over the contact in the list. ICQ has questionable utility fields e-mail, WWW, phone number, but there is no potentially interesting name and surname from the profile, as well as guesses about the client:
5. Metacontacts.
Do you want metacontacts in ICQ? We have them! True, only in QIP among those studied today:
In ICQ, with one click, a menu appears with a set of possible actions. In the absence of metacontacts, a completely adequate option, IMHO.
6. We change the statuses-rezatusy
From above ICQ, from below QIP.
In order to change the status in ICQ, you need to get to the smallest button, and then at the second level of the menu, select the desired item. Want to change X status? Then you to the third level. Ah, you haven’t set the duck yet? Use the personal status editor.
On the other hand, in QIP, the most elaborate menus are made for these actions. Simple and tasteful.
7. Use of resources.
Perhaps for owners of gigabytes of RAM and gigahertz on multi-core processors, this item is unimportant, but still.
ICQ usually uses 2..5% of the virtual processor, with rare 0 and 7..8%. QIP, as a rule, adheres to zero, sometimes crawling out to 2..5, but immediately returning.
About the memory. I still could not figure out what Windows is an important indicator of memory usage, but in any case, the difference is obvious:
At this point, ICQ is offline, QIP is the other way around.
8. Trivia specific to me.
On my virtual machine, Windows gets along with two wonderful softwares - WinMover andBlackBox for Windows . WinMover is engaged in dragging and resizing windows as in niksovyh WM, and BlackBox gives 4 tables and cool window design. At the same time, WinMover makes the windows magnet to the edges of the screen.
So here. The QIP contact list is magnetized to the edges even without WinMover, saving my few pixels if I want it to be hidden. And ICQ does not magnetize even with WinMover. Both are able to get into the dock, no complaints here.
As I wrote, ICQ windows are not processed by WinMover at all. Moreover, they are not decorated with BlackBox. Although it is even attached to Safari ... It seems that ICQ uses some of its curved graphics library for rendering, which leads to artifacts, consuming extra memory, making the distribution heavier and subjective slowdown.
Total
Of the two clients examined, I would choose QIP Infium, because it weighs less (both on disk and in operative), corresponds to the design theme of my system, saves space on my monitor, responds to my actions subjectively faster, does not bother with advertising and allows perform the most frequent actions as quickly as possible. It is also multi-protocol and supports metacontacts. And for the sake of this convenience, I would be ready to periodically unscheduledly update and along with tens of thousands (hundreds? Millions?) Violate the terms of contracts with AOL and with the authors of QIP .
From passing by waiting for words of support or specific criticism, the second is desirable to justify. Yes, and the first too. What forgot where wrong?
Your words may affect the outcome of a local QIP dispute vs. ICQ
PSI would prefer Miranda, but it's not about her. Yes, and I do not use either Windows or Oscar. So, my choice is Kopete + XMPP with respect to the choice of others, if they can reasonably substantiate this choice.