Reviews of ICQ

1. 

   Reviewing 7.5.5242 (May 18, 2011)

   Used to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
2. 
   smanofsteel76

   Reviewing 7.2 Build 3525 (Jan 10, 2011)

   IC-who?
3. 
   zxlotusxz

   Reviewing 7.1 Build 2096 (Mar 24, 2010)

   The only reason I ever used this messenger was because it was the first instant messenger on the internet literally, and I used to play Ultima Online, which is arguable still one of the better MMOs out there in comparison of features and rules sets.
   
   and well I despise this after they forced a password policy change and if you were using a 3rd party messenger you didn't get a notification about the password policy change and you got locked out of your account.
4. 
   Dark-Phoenix

   Reviewing 6.5 Build 6342 Beta (Sep 9, 2009)

   ICQ 6.5 as with 6.0 is essentially the same bloatware. We (ICQ users) want it to be slim, fast and take less then 10Mb ram at any given time. Can you manage that? well you could with 5.1... so WTF? it should take now 60-80Mb and work so slow? Disappointing.
   
   Oh well, still got 5.1 (yes, it can be still used).
5. 
   rotjong

   Reviewing 6.5 Build 6342 Beta (Oct 10, 2008)

   ICQ was great when Mirabilis owned it. Once AOL acquired Mirabilis things just headed downhill. Slow release cycles. Buggy releases. The program became enormously bloated. AOL finally went the Lite route but they went too far the other direction and left out important features. AOL killed off the use of ICQ for the vast majority of people who once loved it. The new look is interesting but I'd prefer more normal than flashy. I still have my old original UIN. I've moved on to other things. I remember when MSN Messenger was garbage and ICQ was awesome. Now Windows Live Messenger is hands and shoulders above ICQ. AOL doomed ICQ when it became the owner of two IM clients (AIM & ICQ) and effectively brought about the death of ICQ as a competitor in the IM universe.
   
   I've used the newer versions including this one. It works. It still has the basic characteristics of the original program. I moved on. I'm rating this a 3 because it does what is intended. I can't give higher because I feel the product is inferior to what it should be given its history and what it could be if they spent more time working on it. I would like to give it a lower mark but I cannot because it does do what it is supposed to.

Discuss ICQ

No comments yet