Re: CUSeeMe Version 3.1

Gary Dietz (
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:46:02 -0500

Greetings and holiday cheers,

I don't have the time to get into yet another back and forth with Jason.

Try CU 3.1. If you like it, buy it (or upgrade). If not, you don't have
to. Ain't capitalism grand?

One more thing... Try CU 3.1 in a point-to-point call over a 28.8
connection using G.723 and MJPEG set at 30% with a good mic and your
squelch set correctly.

Oh, and another thing, if you are an instructor in the K-12 market or at
University, keep your eyes out on this an other listservers for a new
product announcement from White Pine.

(Yes, even *Jason* doesn't know about this one yet... And, even when he
does, he won't like it anyway ;-)


At 01:50 AM 12/12/97 -0600, Jason Williams wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Wayne Fisher wrote:
>> Just wanted everyone to know that White Pine's Enhnaced CUSeeMe Version
>> 3.1 is now available for download from the web
>> ( If you are a current registered user of
>> version 3.0, it is a free upgrade; if you are a current registered user
>> of version 2.x, it is a $29 dollar upgrade.
>But how much is it to purchase 2.1.1/2.1.2? :)
>> As a beta tester for White Pine, I can attest that version 3.1 is a MUCH
>> IMPROVED release as opposed to version 3.0.
>As a beta tester for 3.1 as well, I can tell you 3.1 is better than
>3.0...But is 3.1 OR 3.0 better than 2.1.1/2.1.2?
>Problems and inconsistencies I've noticed over the course of beta testing:
>1) While they have made importing PhoneBooks much more consistent, they
>leave off the ability to import min/max receive/send rates as well as
>Conference ID and passwords which are reflector specific. The Cornell
>version 0.92b2 allows importing of rates so each reflector can have
>different settings. White Pine's import/export features work, but there's
>currently no way to import rates, IDs, or passwords for the reflector
>2) Along the same lines, 3.1 only looks at the names to determine if it's
>a duplicate reflector. Ideally, you should be able to have the same name
>in twice and CU should handle it. Cornell 0.92b2 doesn't have this
>problem as it looks at the IP AND the ID to determine if it's a duplicate.
>The name is meaningless.
>3) While 3.1 fixes SOME of the problems with chat and attempts to make it
>much easier to private chat, it still has some inconsistenices. If you
>double click the bar above where you enter chat, it clicks off the private
>chat. I don't see why they can't extend that and double click to return
>to private chat as the 0.92b2 version does. It makes life a lot easier.
>But they at least gave an easy keyboard shortcut to private chat with
>people. Unfortunately, private chatting with WP 2.X people don't see
>private chat as private chat. It comes across as public chat due to White
>Pine's inability to put "<private>" or some indicator letting older
>versions know it IS private chat. Ironic that 3.X isn't backwards
>compatible with that respect.
>4) An aesthic issue concerning private chat...I like to have my incoming
>private text messages a different color so I can easily glance back at
>them. Cornell has it, White Pine doesn't. (I still don't quite
>understand why White Pine lacks what Cornell has since presumably White
>Pine gets the source code to all the latest Cornell versions.)
>> The program loads and executes much faster,
>It appears to load much faster...It seems to me it loads in chunks. So if
>you don't need the video display routines, it doesn't load them. Try
>loading up 2.1.1/2.1.2 and compare the times it takes to load 3.1 and
>connect somewhere. When 2.1.1/2.1.2 loads, it loads the entire program it
>seems (I could be wrong though). I know with 3.1, I load it and it loads
>up fast. Then I try connecting somewhere for the first time and the hard
>drive churns away loading the rest of it.
>> and has a lot of neat enhancements (including H.23
>> compliance and the ability to connect to other H.23 compliant
>> applications using the Meeting Point reflector software).
>I'm not sure if you've used MeetingPoint's H.323 abilities...but from what
>I've seen, it's a clunky way to claim compatibility. My guess is because
>there aren't any standards for chat, no one chatting with H.323 clients
>can see CU chat and vice-versa. Also, with H.323 clients, you never know
>exactly WHO is watching you. H.323 is still new, but I'm waiting for
>multipoint H.323 (last I heard, multipoint H.323 required multicasting).
>Also keep in mind, H.323 compatibility ONLY works with the use of a
>MeetingPoint reflector. There is no H.323 point to point compatibility.
>White Pine has yet to release a listing of MeetingPoint reflectors capable
>of accepting H.323 clients. A lot of the MeetingPoint reflectors I know
>of aren't setup for the "H.323 compatible" claim for 3.1 isn't
>all what it's cracked up to be. The only good source I know of for MPCS
>reflectors is my reflector scanner (oh..and thanks WP for fixing the
>link to it :) It is a move in the right direction though.
>> If you were
>> not too thrilled with 3.0, give 3.1 a chance... it just might knock your
>> socks off :)
>Most of the people that I know who weren't thrilled with 3.0 had a strong
>dislike of the new (and unimproved) interface. For those people, 3.1
>hasn't changed much. It still takes you 5 steps where 2 were required in
>2.1.1/2.1.2. I have yet to meet anyone that's used the contact cards for
>anything other than storing reflectors or multicasting or the White Board.
>One thing that's fairly nice is that they've fixed the horrendous
>close-all bug that's plagued Enhanced CU since 2.0. The expandable
>windows are nice too, though I miss the ability to write text on the
>localvid and the ability to use "stay on top" for each vid. It would also
>be nice if I could force the vid to a set size (160x120 for example).
>For the people who are happy with 2.1.X's interface and can live without
>the new H.263 video codec and the G.723 audio codecs (which, btw, can only
>really be taken advantage of over RTP which only the MeetingPoint
>reflector supports), than I'd stick with what you have.
>3.1 is a nice change from 3.0 (especially with the private chatting,
>though it's still not perfect), but it lacks some of the refinements.
>They DID fix the slowness with the Quickcams though :)
>I still have yet to hear any word back from White Pine concerning my audio
>problems...I did get 2.1.2 installed and audio working thru the "Microsoft
>Sound Mapper" which I can't seem to get 3.1 to recognize.
>Well..that's enough of my rambling...back to fixing up the Refmarshal
>proxy server. N10sive keeps on outdoing Refmarshal has
>sound support for friend/enemies/watches entering the reflector.
> * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx. | |
> * University of Texas at Austin | ___ |
> * BS Computer Science \_|_/
>*************** **************|

  Gary Dietz, Product Manager, Vertical Solutions 
  White Pine Software Incorporated
  542 Amherst Street, Nashua, NH 03063
  603-886-9050 x356    
Distance Learning Resource Center 
CU-SeeMe(R) Videoconferencing
MeetingPoint(tm) Conference Server 
Corporate Web Page