Rambler ICQ vs. QIP Infium: customer comparison
QIP - shit. Unable to tune Miranda simply unable to tune it. It is 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.
Prehistory
There is one character in the circle of my friends. This character as an Oscar client, if possible, uses the official ICQ client. He explains this by saying that all sorts of QIP, Miranda, etc. parasitize on another protocol. On the question of what to do to the majority who are sick of the ICQ6 interface, the character claims that the interface of the program is normal. On the question of resource consumption, he says that QIP once devoured 2% of the CPU at zero from ICQ. At one point I was tired of throwing words, I launched a virtual machine, put QIP Infium and Rambler ICQ there (as the two most popular client pages in Russia) and I ask those who pass by support or criticism.
Story.
(Gently, traffic)
1. Downloading the distribution kit.
The size of the Rambler ICQ installation file is 15.8 MB. Infium - 4.9 MB. Given that QIP has more functions, the question arises ...
Okay. Suppose that the developers of ICQ have prepared us many, many treats. Install, run.
2. Contact window.
Previously hidden all that I could hide. Also, the dimensions of the windows fit together.
In this picture we see that ICQ has huge fields. At the top is a huge header, a non-removable Xtraz panel, a search bar, and below is an advertisement with tabs. QIP, on the contrary, squeezed all the icons to the minimum of the readable size, leaving a jumble of icons requiring explanation.
Immediately we see that ICQ does not want to fit into the theme of the Windows design (XP in this case), this is striking in the window title and scrolling.
At the same time, an artifact is visible, left over from dragging another window over the ICQ contact list. It should be said that the artifact can hold at least a minute, if you do not touch the window.
For me, as a user, it’s important that the place that remained under the actual contacts is two times smaller for ICQ (in height) than for QIP. Trifle? It seems to me no.
2. Chat window.
We turn to the most interesting. Why the most interesting is a chat? Because it is in it that most of the time given to the messenger is spent. As in the previous paragraph, everything that is removed is removed, and the window sizes are made identical.
Oh-pa! It turns out that not in a queue there is a bun.
Again a huge headline. Again, the hypertrophied buttons under the heading. Again, the inscription into the topic of Windows, but now the scrolling is also awkward. Again banner.
The result - in QIP, the space under 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. size of windows.
I wanted to reduce the windows for the previous screenshot. The first was ICQ. First tried to do it with WinMover. It did not work out (for the first time). Then he led the mouse into the corner, and there is no pen. Okay, I take aim at the edge ... It turns out that it can resize at one time only horizontally or only vertically. Began to resize - rests on an unknown limit. It turns out that there is a minimum size of the chat window, and a rather big one, as it seemed to me. Well, three more minuses ICQ. At the same time, the QIP chat was successfully optimized with WinMover to its minimum size. The result is:
At the same time, we note that with the standard settings, QIP shows the tail of the story, but ICQ does not. I could not change the behavior of the latter.
4. Mouseover.
We will move the mouse to the contact in the list. ICQ has the dubious usefulness of the e-mail, WWW, phone number fields, but there are no potentially interesting first and last names from the questionnaire, as well as customer guesses:
5. Metacontacts.
Do you want metacontacts in ICQ? We have them! However, 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 is quite an adequate option, IMHO.
6. Changing statuses-restraints
Top ICQ, bottom QIP.
In order to change the status in ICQ, you need to get into the smallest button, and then at the second level of the menu, select the desired item. Want to change the X-status? Then you are on the third level. And, you have not put the duck? Use the editor of personal status.
On the other hand, QIP made for these actions the most thoughtful menus. 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 getting out to 2..5, but immediately returning back.
About memory. I could not figure out what is an important indicator of memory usage in Windows, but in any case the difference is obvious:
At this moment ICQ is offline, QIP is the opposite.
8. Specific details for me.
On my virtual machine, Windows gets along with two great software - WinMover and BlackBox for Windows . WinMover is engaged in dragging and resizing windows as in nix WM, and the BlackBox gives 4 tables and a cool design for windows. At the same time, WinMover makes windows magnetized to the edges of the screen.
So here. The QIP contact list magnetises to the edges even without WinMover, saving my few pixels if I want it to be shed. And ICQ does not even magnet with WinMover. In the dock, both are able to get up, here without any complaints.
As I already wrote, ICQ windows are not processed by WinMover in any way. Moreover, they are not decorated with BlackBox. Although it is attached even to Safari ... One gets the impression that ICQ uses some of its crooked graphics library for rendering, which leads to artifacts, the consumption of extra memory, the weighting of the distribution, and subjective inhibition.
')
Total
Of the two clients reviewed, I would choose QIP Infium because it weighs less (both on disk and operatively), corresponds to the theme of my system, saves space on my monitor, responds to my actions subjectively faster, does not bother with advertising and allows The most frequent actions to make as quickly as possible. It is also multiprotocol and supports metacontacts. And for the sake of convenience, I would be willing to periodically update it out of plan and along with tens of thousands (hundreds? Millions?) To violate the terms of contracts with AOL and with the authors of QIP .
I’m waiting for words of support or concrete criticism from those who passed by, the second one is desirable to substantiate. And the first one too. What forgot where wrong?
Your words may affect the outcome of a local dispute QIP vs. ICQ.
PS I would prefer Miranda myself, but this is 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 justify 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.
Prehistory
There is one character in the circle of my friends. This character as an Oscar client, if possible, uses the official ICQ client. He explains this by saying that all sorts of QIP, Miranda, etc. parasitize on another protocol. On the question of what to do to the majority who are sick of the ICQ6 interface, the character claims that the interface of the program is normal. On the question of resource consumption, he says that QIP once devoured 2% of the CPU at zero from ICQ. At one point I was tired of throwing words, I launched a virtual machine, put QIP Infium and Rambler ICQ there (as the two most popular client pages in Russia) and I ask those who pass by support or criticism.
Story.
(Gently, traffic)
1. Downloading the distribution kit.
The size of the Rambler ICQ installation file is 15.8 MB. Infium - 4.9 MB. Given that QIP has more functions, the question arises ...
Okay. Suppose that the developers of ICQ have prepared us many, many treats. Install, run.
2. Contact window.
Previously hidden all that I could hide. Also, the dimensions of the windows fit together.
In this picture we see that ICQ has huge fields. At the top is a huge header, a non-removable Xtraz panel, a search bar, and below is an advertisement with tabs. QIP, on the contrary, squeezed all the icons to the minimum of the readable size, leaving a jumble of icons requiring explanation.
Immediately we see that ICQ does not want to fit into the theme of the Windows design (XP in this case), this is striking in the window title and scrolling.
At the same time, an artifact is visible, left over from dragging another window over the ICQ contact list. It should be said that the artifact can hold at least a minute, if you do not touch the window.
For me, as a user, it’s important that the place that remained under the actual contacts is two times smaller for ICQ (in height) than for QIP. Trifle? It seems to me no.
2. Chat window.
We turn to the most interesting. Why the most interesting is a chat? Because it is in it that most of the time given to the messenger is spent. As in the previous paragraph, everything that is removed is removed, and the window sizes are made identical.
Oh-pa! It turns out that not in a queue there is a bun.
Again a huge headline. Again, the hypertrophied buttons under the heading. Again, the inscription into the topic of Windows, but now the scrolling is also awkward. Again banner.
The result - in QIP, the space under 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. size of windows.
I wanted to reduce the windows for the previous screenshot. The first was ICQ. First tried to do it with WinMover. It did not work out (for the first time). Then he led the mouse into the corner, and there is no pen. Okay, I take aim at the edge ... It turns out that it can resize at one time only horizontally or only vertically. Began to resize - rests on an unknown limit. It turns out that there is a minimum size of the chat window, and a rather big one, as it seemed to me. Well, three more minuses ICQ. At the same time, the QIP chat was successfully optimized with WinMover to its minimum size. The result is:
At the same time, we note that with the standard settings, QIP shows the tail of the story, but ICQ does not. I could not change the behavior of the latter.
4. Mouseover.
We will move the mouse to the contact in the list. ICQ has the dubious usefulness of the e-mail, WWW, phone number fields, but there are no potentially interesting first and last names from the questionnaire, as well as customer guesses:
5. Metacontacts.
Do you want metacontacts in ICQ? We have them! However, 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 is quite an adequate option, IMHO.
6. Changing statuses-restraints
Top ICQ, bottom QIP.
In order to change the status in ICQ, you need to get into the smallest button, and then at the second level of the menu, select the desired item. Want to change the X-status? Then you are on the third level. And, you have not put the duck? Use the editor of personal status.
On the other hand, QIP made for these actions the most thoughtful menus. 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 getting out to 2..5, but immediately returning back.
About memory. I could not figure out what is an important indicator of memory usage in Windows, but in any case the difference is obvious:
At this moment ICQ is offline, QIP is the opposite.
8. Specific details for me.
On my virtual machine, Windows gets along with two great software - WinMover and BlackBox for Windows . WinMover is engaged in dragging and resizing windows as in nix WM, and the BlackBox gives 4 tables and a cool design for windows. At the same time, WinMover makes windows magnetized to the edges of the screen.
So here. The QIP contact list magnetises to the edges even without WinMover, saving my few pixels if I want it to be shed. And ICQ does not even magnet with WinMover. In the dock, both are able to get up, here without any complaints.
As I already wrote, ICQ windows are not processed by WinMover in any way. Moreover, they are not decorated with BlackBox. Although it is attached even to Safari ... One gets the impression that ICQ uses some of its crooked graphics library for rendering, which leads to artifacts, the consumption of extra memory, the weighting of the distribution, and subjective inhibition.
')
Total
Of the two clients reviewed, I would choose QIP Infium because it weighs less (both on disk and operatively), corresponds to the theme of my system, saves space on my monitor, responds to my actions subjectively faster, does not bother with advertising and allows The most frequent actions to make as quickly as possible. It is also multiprotocol and supports metacontacts. And for the sake of convenience, I would be willing to periodically update it out of plan and along with tens of thousands (hundreds? Millions?) To violate the terms of contracts with AOL and with the authors of QIP .
I’m waiting for words of support or concrete criticism from those who passed by, the second one is desirable to substantiate. And the first one too. What forgot where wrong?
Your words may affect the outcome of a local dispute QIP vs. ICQ.
PS I would prefer Miranda myself, but this is 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 justify this choice.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/51450/
All Articles