Re: Versions and Reflector Sites

Gary Dietz (
Thu, 09 Oct 1997 06:57:52 -0400

At 02:17 PM 10/8/97 -0500, Jason Williams wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Pastor Chris M. Farmer wrote:
>> Jason Williams wrote:
>around a bulky camcorder. It worked great, but wasn't suited for a mass
>market like the Quickcam (and other parallel port cameras) serve.

Or the new USB cameras that are starting to hit the market.

>I've been there with NetMeeting but haven't
>seen anyone else there.

When I get back from the office from Interop, I can arrange to meet you
there if you like.

>So far, I haven't been THAT impressed with H.323 mainly because the
>NetMeeting user I was connected with thru CU-SeeMe couldn't see my vid at
>all...I'm hoping this will change. It's also quite spooky on the
>NetMeeting end of things because you never really know who is watching

Sorry Jason for your lack of being impressed ;-) Just to let you know, at
Interop yesterday, I used CU 3.1 with MS Netmeeting 2.0 over MeetingPoint
beta. I did this with a PM of MS's NetMeeting. It worked great, even with

Also, MPCS's T.120 whiteboard server will connect WP<-->WP or NM<-->NM
whiteboards (but not WP<-->NM until T.126). Thus, you can even have
bandwidth reduction and conference management of Whiteboard only, or
Whiteboard with VC sessions with MP.

CU-SeeMe lurkers don't appear on the NetMeeting side of things from
>what I can tell. I imagine this can be gotten around by restricting a
>conference to H.323 traffic only.

>From a NetMeeting POV, you know what other NM users are "watching" because
the single remote window is always the same for all NM users. It is based
on who spoke last, or a time based "switch" between senders.

It is true that NM users will not know who is watching them from CU-SeeMe

This is because NetMeeting and Intel H323 clients were not designed for
more than a p-2-p connection. That is why we show the CU 3.1 client to
those who "get group" and say "Hey, BTW, use NM if you like, it does work."

>webcams in the nursery so the parents can "monitor" their kids from the
>web. Supposedly it somehow upholds the bonds between parent and child
>even while the parent is gone. is grand :)

This idea is being pursued by Integrators as a viable business model. I
believe there are some daycare centers trying it now, but don't quote me.