iChat, one man's meat ...
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 7 Dec 2009 12:06 On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:22:37 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > >> As for you and I ... we know we are probably opposite ends of the >> Marmite scale, 'cute' for you is often 'pointless' to me and that's >> fine. Maybe you like things that are different and I like things that >> are familiar. > >Wouldn't that be an indication that you both like things that are >familiar? I like different things that are familiar that's for sure. ;-) Using iChat was like finding the steering wheel on the left and the pedals on the right. All the other cars had them both on the same side (the side I was sitting). ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Peter Ceresole on 7 Dec 2009 12:07 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > As for you and I ... we know we are probably opposite ends of the > > Marmite scale, 'cute' for you is often 'pointless' to me and that's > > fine. Maybe you like things that are different and I like things that > > are familiar. > > Wouldn't that be an indication that you both like things that are > familiar? I certainly do. -- Peter
From: Peter Ceresole on 7 Dec 2009 12:14 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > Because the guys that did iChat are *better* at interfaces than the > > other guys? > > > > Which I think is true. > > In this case, compared to adium, I think they are way off the mark. > Adium is much better as an interface than iChat by default. but it also > has the advantage of different networks, plus the ability to change your > interface to one you prefer. Does it let you do video chats? Because that was the deciding factor for me when I started to use iChat. Any IM application that won't do video as well as text and audio chats seems pretty pointless to me. As for the interface, it's partly a matter of personal taste of course, but objectively the way iChat places and displays the contributions is clearer than any others I have seen- even if I didn't use them, because of the limited capabilities of the clients. -- Peter
From: Woody on 7 Dec 2009 13:21 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Because the guys that did iChat are *better* at interfaces than the > > > other guys? > > > > > > Which I think is true. > > > > In this case, compared to adium, I think they are way off the mark. > > Adium is much better as an interface than iChat by default. but it also > > has the advantage of different networks, plus the ability to change your > > interface to one you prefer. > > Does it let you do video chats? Because that was the deciding factor for > me when I started to use iChat. Any IM application that won't do video > as well as text and audio chats seems pretty pointless to me. I am sure there are some. Video and audio chat is something that I never want to do (actually so much so that having a video or audio element to it I would see as a negative), so I have never looked into it. I don't see that video has anything to do with instant messages, it is a separate video conferencing thing. > As for the interface, it's partly a matter of personal taste of course, > but objectively the way iChat places and displays the contributions is > clearer than any others I have seen- even if I didn't use them, because > of the limited capabilities of the clients. I would call it subjective rather than objective I would say. I find adium clearer. The real reason I don't use iChat is partly as it doesn't connect to more than one network, so I would have to run multiple applications anyway, and partly as you don't get the choice. The grouping of people in Adium I find a lot more logical, and don't find the left right thing really adds anything to the clarity of the conversation. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Chris Ridd on 7 Dec 2009 13:41
On 2009-12-07 18:21:42 +0000, Woody said: >> As for the interface, it's partly a matter of personal taste of course, >> but objectively the way iChat places and displays the contributions is >> clearer than any others I have seen- even if I didn't use them, because >> of the limited capabilities of the clients. > > I would call it subjective rather than objective I would say. I find > adium clearer. The real reason I don't use iChat is partly as it doesn't I use Adium for the small amounts of IM that I do, because it doesn't crash or misbehave so much with XMPP "buddies". But they're all ghastly piles of cack, really. -- Chris |