Re:Initialization Strings

Bill Woodland (wcw@bga.com)
Mon, 13 May 1996 04:39:20 -0500


>From: ir004161@pop3.interramp.com
>Subject: Initialization Strings
>
>Dear List,
>
>I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the poor performance I'm
>experiencing with CUSM might be attributable to error correction
>and/or data compression in the modem(s) I use. Can someone supply
>recommended modem initialization strings?
>
>System #1: Pentium 120Mhz, 16 MB ram, DOS 6.22, WFW 3.11, 28.8
>V.34/V.42/V.42bis modem, White Pine Enhanced CUSM, B&W QuickCam.
>
>System #2: 486-DX 100Mhz notebook, 16 MB ram, DOS 6.22, WFW 3.11,
>28.8 V.34 PCMCIA modem, White Pine Enhanced CUSM, B&W QuickCam, SB
>compat. sound card.
>
>System #3: Same as #1 except Motorola BitSurfr on a 57.6 KB ISDN
>line.
>

The setup strings for the modems would depend on the actual modem itself.
For most cases, a standard "at&f&d0&c1" should suffice, and let the modem
negotiate with your ISP's modem to do whatever compression they can both
handle. Your ISP's modems

>Performance (All systems): Most windows fill very slowly, frequently
>never completely, lots of "PicassoCam" effect, like a jigsaw puzzle
>put together wrong. KBPS/FPS rarely venture above 0/0. Performance
>equally bad on a reflector with only 3 or 4 participants as one with
>15-20. Even 1:1 connections have been disappointing. Particularly
>puzzling: Data activity LEDs on the BitSurfr indicate data is
>coming/going at a frantic rate, yet CUSM doesn't seem to be doing
>anything with the data, hence my first supposition. If I close
>actively sending windows, the ones remaining open do not noticably
>improve. No amount of diddling with send/receive rates has had any
>effect. Could my ISP be at fault? I've tried three different ones
>and have yet to get satisfactory performance. Currently using PSI
>and Erols (both support dial-up ISDN) Would like to email with
>anyone in the Washington DC/Baltimore area who has a successfully
>operating system.

Yes, your ISP could be part of the problem. The performance would also
depend on your ISP's type of connection to internet, and the reflector's
type of connection. Most of them are on a T1 line, from what I've heard, so
they can only handle 1.5 megabits/second. Set your max transmit and receive
to around 28 and adjust from there for best results.

I have had trouble at times like this, too. I leave my max set to 24, and
sometimes it takes a long time for just one window to fill in. Sometimes I
see, from looking at the lights on the modem, that I am receiving almost
constantly, even tho I don't see any actual updates on the screen. I think
they still have some work to do with respect to these things.

>In situations when it is not possible to send video, is it possible
>or permissible to "send" a QuickCam still so that refs that do not
>allow lurkers will at least allow you to connect? How? i.e., how to
>"fool" CUSM into thinking a cam/capture device is connected.

Try CUDOODLE from Bill Neisius. This driver transmits a section of your
screen as if it's the output from a Quickcam or similar. I've played around
with it, and I can open NOTEPAD and move it into the CUDOODLE window area,
and people can see the text I'm typing into NOTEPAD. This is at least
better than being denied access to a reflector due to excessive lurkers.
CUDOODLE is available from:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ne/neisius/

>
>Also wondering about using programs like CineVideo, Freevue, and
>Vidcom for 1:1 after initial contact/hand shaking/IP exchange over
>CUSM.
>
>Other suggestions gratefully accepted. Private/list replies.
>

See my previous msg re Freevue.

Bill Woodland (wcw@bga.com)
Squeek on Undernet IRC
Channel Manager #CU-SeeMe
PC only, no MAC questions, please.
http://www.realtime.com/~wcw/