Re: CU-SeeMe - Does Audio work on a Modem?

Brian Godette (
Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:14:59 -0700

At 03:32 PM 1/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Nice advertising :)
>>I don't quite see how conferencing on a private server is any different
>>than conferencing on a fairly unused public server with respect to the
>>quality of transmission and reception of audio.
>All of these are possibilities:
>1. The "private" server is a faster machine with more memory
>2. The "private" server has scheduling, and thus the usage levels are under
>the control of the owner
>3. The private server has a better, more reliable connection to the Internet.
>4. In a private environment, as an Admin I may know who has what equipment;
> Thus I know that someone using a 486 PC won't be trying to run CU 3.1 with
>G.723 audio and then saying it doesn't work ;-)
>5. In a private environment, I'm more able to take time with the clients to
>make sure that their PC/MACs are set up correctly and that they have
>effective quality mikes.
>6. The private server is MeetingPoint and not the Cornell reflector. (Yes,
>another ad...;-)

Hmmm, some bizaar logic here...

Point 1.
Unless MPCS is some mighty big memory and CPU hog I don't see where "faster
machine with more memory" comes into the equation.
<sarcasm, but true>
For your edification, ERef, in one of it's more current renditions (one
revision down from the current code), consumes a WHOPPING 1592KB of memory,
427 of which are shared with the OS (Linux), and takes a SPEEDY 386-33 to
saturate a T1 connection with an amazingly HUGE 40% CPU utilization. This
is of course with all that it's doing to "correct" protocol errors present
in the older WP clients, every single AUX packet has to be checked and
possibly modified, every chat recovery request has to be repaired.

Point 2. Irrelevent as even the old Cornell versions can be scheduled just
as effectively with cron.

Point 3. Also irrelevent as a private server has no more/less chance of
having a reliable connection compare to a public server.

Point 4. see point 3, same rules apply, takes only one question to know
what the other person has.

Point 5. see point 3, same rules apply.