Re: White Pine CUSeeMe Version 3.1.1]

David Toole (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:36:07 -0400

I am aware of the release notes. However, Wayne's original message sounded as
though all problems may have been fixed. No mention was made of 3.1.1 software now
selectively working with different types of refs, and not with others. I appreciate
his post and just wanted to clarify the situation. It doesn't much matter to me as a
Cu-SeeMe user that some reflectors work and some don't. I just know that this
software is incapable of working properly with all reflectors and therefore causes
problems when switching. IMHO, software should work, period.

David Toole

Wayne Fisher wrote:

> As documented in the CUSeeMe 3.1.1 Release Notes (reference
>, the problems you
> are experiencing may occur using either Brian Godet's ERef software, or the
> Cornell Reflector Software, or old White Pine 2.0x reflector software (and yes,
> there is a free upgrade to version 2.1 of the White Pine reflector software is
> you are a registered user of 2.0x)..... you may want to check the release notes
> (URL given above) to find out which versions of reflector software are supported
> by version 3.1.1.
> Hope this helps....
> - Wayne
> > >It has been my experience that Cu-SeeMe 3.1.1 DOES NOT fix problems with the
> > >color MPEG codec not transmitting when users change reflectors. I have been
> > >using this version since the first day it was posted on the White Pine site,
> > >and have experienced numerous instances where I am not transmitting after
> > >changing refs. In my case it appears to be no better than version 3.1.
> > >
> > >What's more, I have "talked" with many others on reflectors who are
> > >experiencing the same problem. Many users have come to the conclusion that
> > >the "build 25" bug still exists in 3.1.1. Clearly, the problem still exists.
> > >If I were the only one experiencing it, I would suspect my system or
> > >configuration. However, within just a few hours of release of the new
> > >version Cu-SeeMe users were once again complaining that the "switiching
> > >problem" still exists.
> > >