321–330 of 334 posts
IMO the crappifying had a lot to do with centralizing of Skype's backend for USLEO intercepts. At one point in time, Skype was the Signal of its day.
Skype has become horrible long ago when original team sold it. I remember Skype when its binary was several megabytes and there was no Facebook inside. And now it became slow (at least on Windows XP) and buggy - for example I have no notifications sound anymore and it is unable to accept incoming calls. Judging by interface lagginess they have put at least several modern Javascript frameworks inside. And maybe someth…
Are you still using XP? If yes, can I ask why?
I guess I will have to upgrade either to Windows 7 or to Debian (if it won't work too slow) because many applications including browsers don't work on XP anymore.
I might have a complete misunderstanding of the situation, but I see three main explanations: 1) Microsoft has absolutely no interest in Skype being a viable option, and wants Skype users to adopt some other Microsoft product. Why doesn't Microsoft tell Skype users "Well, Skype is done, just use MSN." 2) People responsible for Skype are optimizing for some metrics, which is opposite to user satisfaction. What is that…
I have witnessed Skype to go from almost perfect video & chat communicator to absolute crap over almost 10 years, and I feel very sad that it has come to rip off Snapchat. There is no alternative like the old Skype now in the desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I had the downvote feature just for your comment. Unworkable? Are you kidding? It's absolutely brilliant. It's exactly what I want. Give me a feature set. Give me a separate UI which interacts with that feature set. Let me pick and choose both of them, completely separately. That's what an API is supposed to be and do.
With 10 toggleable features you add 1023 additional app configurations. This quickly becomes incredibly difficult to maintain and test. Picking and choosing a feature set for most applications sits in the completely infeasible plane.
I find it rather interesting that there have been tons of applications that have, historically, had optional features. Many of them work quite well.
Too bad today's appointment said, "We need to do a normal phone call on a phone.". I wanted to say, Sir, it's 2017.
But I digress.
Still need to find something accessible that lets me use legacy MAC OS and IOS to call phones. Feels more like regression than progression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Skype was the first app that would allow to talk for free across the globe even on poor (modem) connections.
Not even close. Just off the top of my head, Roger Wilco is 5 years older, and TeamSpeak is also older than Skype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you still using XP? If yes, can I ask why?
Yes, because it uses less resources than newer OSes. Windows 7 for me has no advantages over Windows XP but works slower. The only good thing in Windows 7 is search field integrated into main menu. I guess I will have to upgrade either to Windows 7 or to Debian (if it won't work too slow) because many applications including browsers don't work on XP anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you still using XP? If yes, can I ask why?
Yes, because it uses less resources than newer OSes. Windows 7 for me has no advantages over Windows XP but works slower. The only good thing in Windows 7 is search field integrated into main menu. I guess I will have to upgrade either to Windows 7 or to Debian (if it won't work too slow) because many applications including browsers don't work on XP anymore.
Windows 10 is pretty resource efficient. There's even a stripped back 'long term support one' which is incredibly lightweight. Anyway, RAM is incredibly cheap now, I don't think you should be risking getting totally pwned for the sake of an investment in a few GB of ram.