CUSeeMe & ProShare was Re: CUSM vs Protel (Intel's Interactive video format)

Jonn Martell (martell@ucs.ubc.ca)
Sun, 11 Dec 1994 01:47:07 -0500


I've used both the Intel "ProShare Video" and CUSeeMe (Windows) for several
months now. Now that the ProShare LAN product is released, I'm surprised
that I haven't seen any traffic relating to it.

I don't think you can really compare ProShare with CUSeeMe. Both are
probably the top in their area. I'll give a brief overview which is by no
mean complete. In short, each has advantages the other doesn't have. :-)

>From my experience (the following long):

Intel ProShare 200 (ISDN and LAN), ProShare 150 (LAN only)

A hardware based video conferencing product that requires 2 ISA slots (one
for the Intel Indeo Video board and the other for the ISDN/Sound board). I
think the 150 only has one card but it's a brand new product that I haven't
seen yet.

The current version (1.8) has just been officially released a few weeks
ago. It adds LAN based support on top of ISDN (the product was ISDN
only in previous versions).

For LAN support, you need an ethernet card that supports IPX, IP (LAN
Workplace/Novell TCP/IP only - no Winsock yet :( It also support NETBIOS
but I haven't tested which flavor - I suspect it supports Novell's
encapsulated NETBIOS but not NetBEUI...

The unit requires a "Conferencing Manager" that limits the bandwidth
utilization to whatever you set it to. The CM unit is not required for
ISDN since ISDN is point to point. For the LAN version, the docs mention
250 Kbps per (dual) session and 650 Kbps for high quality - I have yet to
test the actual requirements but they would vary depending on the
transmission and I would expect them to be within the documented range. A
Conferencing Manager is what CUSeeMe needs. The conferencing manager is a
must - education works but when the product becomes widespread, you cannot
expect to be able to explain the technology before people start using it.
Let's face it folks, people have problems unsubscribing from email lists!!
and that's a lot easier than figuring out bandwidth implications! ;-)

Getting back to ProShare... The ISDN requires dual channels (128 Kbps) -
which we have yet to test out because of Northern Telecom switch problems
(btw, does anyone know of a good & inexpensive campus ISDN switch or PBX???).

The biggest drawback to ProShare is cost (a few K$) and is limited to
one to one communications (unlike CUSeeMe). It's also limited to the Windows
platform (no support for Mac, NT or Unix although that might change in the
near future).

The biggest advantage is that it's an released product, it's color and the
sound is flawless. The package come with a great little earpiece that acts
as earphone and microphone. The product also has a whiteboard which
enables individuals to share documents, pictures and even applications.

In some way, CUSeeMe is more advanced because of the software compression,
one to many conferencing and cross-platform capabilities but
ProShare is more of a complete product and probably currently the best
price/performance system for Windows users.

A real hot product could be developed by combining ProShare with CUSeeMe -
it seems that each have qualities that complement each other. :-)

Now that the ProShare LAN is a released product, I would be really
interested in connecting to others using ProShare on the net.

And if the CUSeeMe Windows Team needs beta testers for Indeo support, let
me know... :-)

Some last comments while I'm on the soap box:
Please spell CUSeeMe correctly! and unsubscribe by emailing
LISTSERV@CORNELL.EDU *not* the list CU-SEEME-L@CORNELL.EDU - write it down
and stick the address on your monitor now! :-) This list is busy and
mis-directed email get *annoying* real fast! ;-)

......................................................................
Jonn Martell, Network Analyst, C&C, University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada. martell@ucs.ubc.ca
......................................................................

On Sun, 11 Dec 1994, Edwards Jonathan wrote:

> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 01:10:11 -0500
> From: Edwards Jonathan <edwaj@ss0.eng.wayne.edu>
> To: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
> Subject: CUSM vs Protel (Intel's Interactive video format)
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have been following the list for the past month and am curious if
> anyone has experience with both CUSM and Intel's Protel (something like
> that); and how the two compare. From what I have heard, Protel is in
> color and works over the Mac (and possibly PC) however it chews up a lot
> of bandwidth. At this point I am almost certain that it's commercial
> software, however ... not sure.
>
> Here in Detroit, there is talk that this software works over the PC, but
> ... I haven't seen proof to date.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jonathan Edwards ...... DETROIT.Net
>
> ....... Making the world smaller ....... via communications technologies
> ##########################################################################
>
>
>