Re: Versions and Reflector Sites

Jason Williams (streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:49:19 -0500 (CDT)


On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Gary Dietz wrote:
> 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 haven't seen these yet just heard about them. My guess is there will be
as big of a market for them eventually that there have been for the low
cost Quickcam (even though I've heard their frame rates might be even
worse than the Quickcam and demand more from the processor).

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

Sure..just email me when you get back.

> 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
> audio.

To be clear, I was on Netmeeting, she was on Netmeeting and I could see
her fine. I was on CU 3.1, she was on Netmeeting and I could see her but
she couldn't see me (even though I was using the H.263 codec). I haven't
had a chance to try out the audio with it yet.

> 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.

Ahh..another standard for whiteboarding. From the email I got about 3.0
from a WhitePine employee, he mentioned that the WhiteBoard is really only
available to those with higher bandwidth. I've never had any success at
whiteboarding on a 28.8kbps modem. Perhaps I expect too much though. At
this point, I've never had the need to use the whiteboard. (I also don't
recall seeing a Whiteboard available for downloading for use with the
preview version of 3.1)

> 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.

I want to talk to you more about this. I know MeetingPoint has a few
controls for this. I've only seen the one person I was testing it with so
I haven't figured out how things are supposed to work. There's the main
MPCS window and people are switched in and out of it? Does that mean that
one window switches every few secs/minutes to show the video of others?

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

I was hinting at perhaps limiting a conference to only allow H.323 clients
(with the right audio/video codecs). I'm not sure how lurkers are handled
though. I had an experience when I was playing with NetMeeting on the
White Pine MeetingPoint Commons reflector where someone I hadn't seen at
all started talking with audio to me. I wondered who that might be since
I couldn't see them.

> 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.

Hehe..It's good to know the only target is no longer the commercial market
with lots of internal LANs.

--
streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |
streak@mail.utexas.edu       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |
streak@cs.utexas.edu         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~streak/ **************|