Re: Enhanced Version 2.1x and 3.0

Jason Williams (streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:34:52 -0500 (CDT)


On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Bashar Dahabra wrote:
> I personaly would not pay money today for the enehanced versions. I would
> pay money though for the Cornell. For its simplicity, it is stable, easy to
> setup and fast.

All I can say is.. AMEN! :)

> I could niether get any of the enhancd versions to work propbaly and kept
> getting all kind of configurations errors. Stack Overflow, Wrong Codec etc.

I've gotten it to work..but from what I've seen on my reflector, A lot of
people (especially Mac users) tend to use the Cornell version. I've met
very few people (actually, 2) that actually like the new 3.0/3.1
interface. Unfortunately for White Pine (and fortunately for the rest of
us), there's the Cornell versions as well as new programs like iVisit
coming out.

> I miss color, and think that there mght have been a deal struck by White
> Pine for Cornell not ot realse a color version of thier software to protect
> the market potential of White Pine.

Yeah..look at it from White Pine's perspective. For most people (ie:
modem users), the main advantage the White Pine has over the Cornell
version is color. It's slowly changing, but it's been my experience that
90% of the people I've met on CU-SeeMe have B&W quickcams. The color
advantage often times isn't worth the bugs and the hassle.

I'm waiting for the day that someone buys the license to the Cornell
version and adds in color support to it. It's similar to how Brian
Godette grabbed the source to the free reflector and beefed it up to do a
lot of what the White Pine version of the reflector does (and now even
does a few things the White Pine version doesn't). White Pine may be the
master licensee of CU-SeeMe, but that doesn't mean there can't be
competitors. M-JPEG support has already been added to the free OS/2
version from what I understand.

> That is fine but I think the product
> needs more work and less complications. Keep it simple...

I agree...But White Pine seems to take a different stance. "Make it much
more complicated and add a few more features to try and convince people
that it's worth the change."

With the preview release of 3.1 and from what I gather from the
documentation, 3.1 really shines with the Meeting Point reflector which
isn't out yet.

Cornell's ideology = keep it simple
White Pine's ideology = Bigger is better
My ideology = Bigger is better IF the changes improve the usability of the
program. In the Enhanced Versions, 3.0/3.1 makes it much more difficult
to use without enough added to make it worthwhile.

--
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/ **************|