Re: Quick-Cam for Windows

John Kit (kit@tkna.com)
Tue, 10 Oct 1995 19:15:23 -0400


I am sure they can. This may take time. (Can the developers please
stand up and comment :-) ) Anyways, I see this as a marketing push to
popularize cuseeme. To get to the masses to use cuseeme you must
have a cheep solution, the quick cam. Can't beat the price of only $99,
and you don't have to open up your computer. This is great for the
non-technical users. I got one myself. I guess this is why the quick cam
may get more attention than others. This is only my opionion though.

John Kit

> From: Roger Lee Boston <rboston@tenet.edu>
>
> Well.
> Your comment about Cornell 'having' to write a patch brings up an
> interesting thought -- if a patch can be written for a NON STANDARD
> camera like the quick cam, thenwhy could not a similar kind of patch be
> prepared for the INDEO video card, or the Video Blaster Rt300, or ... in
> other words leave Cu SeeMe intact as is and just insert some kind of
> conversion program into the mix?
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, Alex Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > Well after a definitive test of the Quickcam for Windows, I regret that
> > it is practically unusable with CUSEEME. It seems the picture is
> > hacked up across the top and splits the screen in the 16 shades, but is
> > way too bright and unreadable in 64 shades.
> >
> > Cornell said they would have to write a patch of some sort to make it
> > work with CUSEEME. I was hoping it would work also!!! (sob.)
> >
> > alex@tyrell.net
> > PathFinders
> > Microsoft Solution Provider
> > www.pathfinders.com
> >
>