Re: Difference in vid speeds between White Pine and Cornell

Phil (chrome@lcol.net)
Tue, 9 Jun 1998 04:37:39 -0400


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Williams <streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
To: CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>
Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: Difference in vid speeds between White Pine and Cornell

>On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Phil wrote:
>> If you have less than 64 megs of RAM it's likely to crash. However, it
>> runs rather well (within certain limitations) if you feed it 64 megs of
>> RAM and run a PCI bus video capture card.
>
>64 megs of RAM? Whew...I certainly hope CU 4.0 doesn't double the
>requirements of memory (or the file size/download time).
>>From the 3.1.1 readme at
>http://www.wpine.com/Products/CU-SeeMe/cu311-win-readme.html:
> Computer Requirements:
> Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0
> Pentium processor, 100 megahertz (MHz) minimum
> 16 megabytes (MB) of RAM (24 MB or more recommended)
> 10 MB of hard disk space
>
>So it looks like you're suggesting four times the amount of memory from
>the minimum listed in the readme. I've run it with 32 megs of RAM and it
>ran ok (ok is a relative term). Though I didn't run it for more than a
>few minutes so I don't know. :)

Microsoft says 8 megs is enough for Win95. Go figure. :)

After I installed the USR Bigpicture, my CU v3.1.025 started running much
faster but crashing all the time for no apparent reason. I was running 32
megs at that time. When I went to 64 megs, it stopped crashing. It didn't
crash when I had a color Quickcam on it, but it was so deadly slow that I'd
wait 15 or 20 seconds for a response to clicking one of the icons on the
main (not dialer) screen when online with a ref.

I suppose this means the USR's software is hoggier than the Quickcam. I
don't know where the threshold is, but 32 megs is inadequate for that
configuration. It's possible that 42 megs would work, but I hate to buy
small pieces of memory.

Phil