4 ms·

Windows: 5.0, Mac: 5.0, Linux: 2.1 I understand putting Mac and Windows versions before Linux versions, but a 3 version difference is starting to get ridiculou

by kilian 16y ago

Windows: 5.0, Mac: 5.0, Linux: 2.1 I understand putting Mac and Windows versions before Linux versions, but a 3 version difference is starting to get ridiculous. Skype for Linux 2.1 is perfectly usable (apart from sometimes forgetting all settings), but getting it up to the level of it's cross-platform brothers would be nice. Skype has been teasing "something" for Linux for like a year now, so I wonder what happened to that.

chmullig 16y ago
Yesterday the mac version was 2.8, so I think that's a bit of hyperbole.
- kilian 16y ago
  Version number aside, the difference in the offered functionality between mac 2.8 and linux 2.1 was considerable as well. I was merely using the version numbers to point out the difference in offered functionality.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
cdr 16y ago
I actually like the simplicity of the Linux 2.1 client a lot. I use version 3 (I think, maybe 4?) on Windows because I find the old interface a lot more usable than the 5.0 one.
- ItarPeyo 16y ago
  Agreed. The UI of Skype 5 for windows is bloated and confusing, but the 5.0 version for mac kept things simple while pimping up the looks and adding some features, so it doesn't resemble the latest windows version much. So a new version for Linux may not be just about making the UI more confusing.
binomial 16y ago
It's not quite a 1:1 correspondence. For example, high quality video came to Linux somewhere in 2.x, when Windows got it in 4.0. That said, I believe it took about a year to get it on Linux after Windows.
jawee 16y ago
As far as I can tell, Skype for Linux has all of the same core features as the other clients. The only things it is missing, which were missing in the Mac version AFAIK before this beta, were gaming and the ability to take pictures of the conversation. Although the snapshot ability would be nice, I greatly prefer the Linux interface to the clunky Windows one. I use Skype as my main IM client and video conference several hours a week, all under Linux..

by kilian 16y ago

chmullig 16y ago

Yesterday the mac version was 2.8, so I think that's a bit of hyperbole.

kilian 16y ago
Version number aside, the difference in the offered functionality between mac 2.8 and linux 2.1 was considerable as well. I was merely using the version numbers to point out the difference in offered functionality.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

cdr 16y ago

I actually like the simplicity of the Linux 2.1 client a lot. I use version 3 (I think, maybe 4?) on Windows because I find the old interface a lot more usable than the 5.0 one.

ItarPeyo 16y ago
Agreed. The UI of Skype 5 for windows is bloated and confusing, but the 5.0 version for mac kept things simple while pimping up the looks and adding some features, so it doesn't resemble the latest windows version much. So a new version for Linux may not be just about making the UI more confusing.

binomial 16y ago

It's not quite a 1:1 correspondence. For example, high quality video came to Linux somewhere in 2.x, when Windows got it in 4.0. That said, I believe it took about a year to get it on Linux after Windows.

jawee 16y ago

As far as I can tell, Skype for Linux has all of the same core features as the other clients. The only things it is missing, which were missing in the Mac version AFAIK before this beta, were gaming and the ability to take pictures of the conversation. Although the snapshot ability would be nice, I greatly prefer the Linux interface to the clunky Windows one. I use Skype as my main IM client and video conference several hours a week, all under Linux..