Re[2]: White Pine "Plans"
29 May 95 22:31:00 -0500

You make some good points but there are aspects that if White Pine
plays its cards right, will come out on top.

Modems in the future will support higher data rates. Only a couple
of years ago engineers believed that the fastest you could
communicate over an unconditioned phone line was 9600 bps with some
measure of reliability. We are in the 28.8 era with up to 230kbps
compression. Modems are expected to use printer ports in the
future due to the higher throughput possible. By the way, I liked
the 300 baud thing....

Secondly, if WhitePine includes all these features, there should be
an option to turn things on or off. If you are on a LAN, you may
want everything - WAN, only a few features - internet or dial-ip,
perhaps the minimal as possible (okay picture with sound).
Controlling the frame rate is a good example. If they turn
everything on without leaving the user with an option, then they
will be just like their competitors. Even I would not want the
product then.

I am interested in 32bit versions (which should compress/decompress
faster) for Windows, or/and an otimized native PowerPC versions.

I just hope they put out free beta versions, probably only allowing
point to point, or connectivity for 5 minutes, etc. That will help
bait the hook.

Perot Systems Corporation
|| Thought for Today: Use the other hand.....


> Year end enhanced commercial version
> Estim. street price $100
> QuickTime Savvy
> Imporved frame rate (faster than the 12 frame limit)
> Compatibility to the H.320 and T.120 standard
> Application Sharing
> White board
> Improved Audio
> Windows NT based reflector

All this, with 300 baud modems (_my comment_:))

I really don't think that these people know what they are up against. The
CU-delvelopers are probably privately snickering about the above list. Meebe

on some future Power PC-type chip running at about 400 Mhz, or some trick
special-purpose coprocessor chip, but for now...

If they think that it just needs some cleanup, polish, and a few more

I just don't think users really understand what atomic rocket science it is
to develop efficent _and_ fast compression techniques, and then what coding
it can be like when you are looking up individual instruction clock cycles
in obscure manuals. The CU algorithm is probably a good balance of what the
"average" pc or mac can do, audio, network "stack" speed limitations, etc.

Bearing in mind that CU-SeeMe is free and I have no biz commenting on it,
the user interface (the Windows version, anyway) is kinda crummy...the
reason, of course, is that the developers have probably devoted 90% of their

time in the compression, 9% in compatibility with particular PC/MACS, and
1% in the UI.

I had to eat my hat before concerning how well iphone works, but in this
case, I think my hat is safe.

Steve Loboyko
Software Engineer
VSI Solutions, Incorporated
11285 Elkins Rd Suite G-1
Roswell GA 30076

<Zero length text item>