BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Paper detail

Performance Assessment of WhatsApp and IMO on Android Operating System (Lollipop and KitKat) during VoIP calls using 3G or WiFi

This paper assesses the performance of mobile messaging and VoIP connections. We investigate the CPU usage of WhatsApp and IMO under different scenarios. This analysis also enabled a comparison of the performance of these applications on two Android operating system (OS) versions: KitKat or Lollipop. Two models of smartphones were considered, viz. Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy S4. The applications behavior was statistically investigated for both sending and receiving VoIP calls. Connections have been examined over 3G and WiFi. The handset model plays a decisive role in CPU usage of the application. t-tests showed that IMO has a better performance that WhatsApp whatever be the Android at a significance level 1%, on Galaxy Note 4. In contrast, WhatsApp requires less CPU than IMO on Galaxy S4 whatever be the OS and access (3G/WiFi). Galaxy Note 4 using WiFi always outperformed S4 in terms of processing efficiency.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
R. C. de OliveiraH. M. de OliveiraR. A. RamalhoL. P. S. Viana
Performance
Open graphReviewsDiscussion

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic
Imported metadata coverageMissing code, dataset, citation and institution fields are tracked without dominating the paper.Details
Citations: 0Reviews: 0Saves: 0Code: not linkedDataset: not linkedInstitutions: 0

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Like0Dislike0Score 0

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Save to reading list0
Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

R. C. de OliveiraH. M. de OliveiraR. A. RamalhoL. P. S. Viana

Institutions

No institution affiliation has been imported for this paper yet.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form
Log in to review

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form
Log in to comment

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.