








(5)
Your rating: Now say why...


| Downloads:24,868 |
| Version Downloads:1,331 |
| Type:Internet : Internet Utilities |
| License:Demo |
| Date:07 Sep 2011 |
| Platform:PPC / Intel |
| Price: $35.00 |
Overall (Version 3.x):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Features:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ease of Use:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Value:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stability:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
+2
+21
zitronenmelissa reviewed on 12 Aug 2011
The setup is very easy with some features, but not overloaded. It uses ~ 22 MB RAM running in the background/menubar. It works very well with a Headset or with Speaker and build in Microphone.
+1: It´s runs very stable & smooth.
+1: It´s multilanguage.
-1: I don´t like the GUI that much, but this is not important : )
5 stars ***** for a great working App!
by the way: the connection/phone quality always depends on your provider and of course on the right login data ; )
+12
Skeller reviewed on 22 Jul 2011
Couldn't move the main window to my second screen
+2
+122
Jetsetter reviewed on 12 Apr 2011
If a person is already working with voice over IP-based, it is only necessary to configure it to work with iSoftPhone.
To make calls, you only need an Internet connection. Calls from one computer to another - for free and communicate with subscribers of fixed and mobile payment is still required. (However, these calls can be made free of charge, if such record numbers as users of IP-telephony.)
ISoftPhone application also features an integrated Bonjour technology from Apple. It identifies other iSoftPhone users in the LAN, with whom you can communicate without the mediation communications provider IP-based.
Client iSoftPhone adds IP-based Unified Communications Cisco Unified Communications, contributing to a more productive business communication with each other and with clients.
I want to emphasize that the program iSoftPhone is the best of its kind!
Thanks to the developers for a worthy product!
Best Regards Vitaly!
+1
+1
MR.MM reviewed on 02 Feb 2011
-11
-1267
+2
+118
And so, I’d be thrilled if you'd do a little research on this issue, if only to disabuse yourself of the notion that moving to a 64-bit architecture will dramatically benefit all or even most applications. In fact, 64-bit will only speed up certain types of computation, and even those are unlikely to gain much more than 20% or so. Of course, there are some that will benefit substantially — as long as your definition of 'substantial' is no more ambitious than 35%. But a lot of apps that can benefit a lot already have made the change, simply because sticking with 32-bit after 64-bit became the norm would’ve been tantamount to chucking money out the window (and into your competitor's window).
I realize I just laid on you basically the same turd as those flatbutts did repeatedly over the last year, with the only notable distinction being that I didn't throw it at your face angrily. But sometimes the only way to tell your friends from your enemies is to take note of the ones who aren't laughing while they piss on you.
-5
-1267
+1
+186
Furthermore, no matter how many gigantic, boldfaced, neon colored warnings a developer posts on his app's ReadMe, in its MacUpdate.com post, or even within the app itself, to instruct users who don't have 64-bit CPUs to change that app back to 32-bits in the Get Info dialog, you know there will be hundreds and even thousands of unsavvy folks out there who won't figure that out or who will simply get angry at discovering that their Mac doesn't run in 64-bit mode, and I wouldn't want to be the developer of the app that illustrated that to them. For that reason alone, I don't fault makers of low-complexity app that won't benefit from 64-bits for not rewriting them until it's finally necessary because Apple releases a thoroughly 64-bit ONLY operating system that fully supports it.
+1
+14
+1
+1
Also, I can't dial normal extensions, sometimes I can change a codec to PCMA or something like that on the list and then it helps but then it seems that this particular function has nothing to do with being able to dial extensions. I spent a half hour trying to call my medical clinic this morning.
Also the customer service bites. John Seehy seems to be the only English speaking guy because someone else mentions him in the comments.
What a waste of money! Too bad because its a nice design but it really doesnt work well. Who can have an SIP/VOIP phone that doesn't allow you to dial extensions????
+4
Jozgta reviewed on 27 Jul 2010
+1
+1
Thedonsmith reviewed on 21 Feb 2010
There is one feature that I have requested. A key that will substitute for a # key. I do a lot conference calls that require everyone to login and that nearly always requires a #key. Other than that, this is the best product.
+1
+6
Zunga reviewed on 20 Nov 2009
-3
-3
to date john sheehy/ isoftphone is still unable to provide me the correct setting to use their application: it is by far the $35 best wasted!
DO NOT BUY IT: it is virtually impossible to find a working port!
chris
+2
+70
Its not their fault if your settings do not work. Try to check your firewall and router settings.
An no, I am not affiliated with the company.
+1
+139
If you want to use a Sip or Softphone sofware, then you often have to check or set your router and firewall settings (eg you might need to open some ports), so that it can work properly.
:)
+1
Norz rated on 30 Nov 2011
+2
Widber rated on 17 Nov 2011
+2
Widber rated on 17 Mar 2011