Re: Videophone vs. CU and "hi tech"

Dennis J. Streveler (
Tue, 07 May 1996 16:30:08 -0700

At 03:00 PM 5/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>At 09:07 AM 5/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 11:49 AM 5/4/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Dear Cuseeme buddies:
>>>I have been experimenting with the cuseeme stuff now for about a month and
>>>have it running really well off a 14.4 w/out a cam. However, I am running
>>>it at home w/a cam at 288 and that seems to be no problem when traffic is
>>>My question is more dealing with the software that comes with the quickcam.
>>>It is called *connectix videoconferencing.* Of course, it is not compatible
>>>w/cuseeme and I am not sure if it is working or not. Does anyone have
>>>connectix videoconfering and what are there experiences with the product.
>>>It appears to be very hi-tech than cuseeme I was just wondering if more than
>>>just me have it.
>>>p.s. -people should use the *cudemon dialer* to connect to sites. It does
>>>the hardwork of finding sites b/c it has a database that can be updated and
>>>it is good addon piece to cornell's version.
>>Hello James,
>>I am just curious. When you say that Videophone is more "hi tech" than CU, I
>>wonder if you could be a bit more precise. Why does it appear more "hi tech"
>>to you?
>>PS I am curious because I study UI (human-computer interfaces) for computer
>>products and I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
>>Dear Dennis and Cubuddies:
>I guess that was possibly a wrong choice of words, (Hi Tech). It appears to
>be more reliable piece of software and handles bandwith better. Of course
>these are all speculations since there has not been a single person that I
>have seen or log onto with this particular application. But what I will do
>is the following:
>1. My bro-in-Law has the same Connectix Videophone and I will ask him to
>connect with me from Va. to NY via modem to modem not tcp/ip. Further, we
>will experiment with the video as well as the audio. The attempts will be
>tcp/ip and modem to modem with documentation on the experiment for your
>viewing pleasure.
>Last I would suggest that people try the Freeview video phone that is being
>distributed via the net free. Their web page is It is a
>little different than cuseeme whereas you all connect to a server and log on
>by nicknames other ip#s. I notice for my system a clearer picture and the
>audio as well as visual works okay. Of course you will have problems at
>first with the appropriate connection but it nice that all you have to do is
>put in a name and not and address everytime.
>One more thing d/l craigs cudemon for cuseeme and freevuedemon. They assist
>in the leg work of getting a whole lot of reflector lists or writing numbers
>that you do not want to remember.
>Hope this helps.....
>Oh one more thing -Kent State reflector is a good test reflector if you want
>to see something.

Hello James,

Thanks for the info. On your suggestion I am going to give Freeview a run.
It is one of the few video applications which I have not yet tried.


PS Regarding putting in all those numbers in CU, I believe ECU allows
"symbolic names" (unresolved names to speak in Internet-speak) so that helps
somewhat, and of course you can store them in your phonebook, so you have to
enter them only once.

PS Yes, Kent State IS a good reflector. It is fast, reliable, and a good
bunch of folks use it. I agree.

Dennis J. Streveler, Ph.D., | Internet:
Systems Consultant | CIS: 71036,1645
| CUSeeMe:
"Future Technologies in Medicine" +------------------------------
"International Software Development | 415 239-1441
Methodologies" | 415 469-9476 fax
"Human-Computer Interface Design +------------------------------
for Casual Users" | 127 Lake Merced Hill
| San Francisco CA 94132 USA

My job? To send the appropriate electrons hurtling around the globe.