From: "Gary Britt" 

Me confused? Impossible .  I saw once on my wife's XP box that XP
will do uPnP with the router, assuming its turned on at the router and in
XP.  I keep it turned off in both places because I didn't want her XP
computer deciding what ports to open or close on the router.  Am I
mistaking XP's abilities in this area?

Gary

"Rich"  wrote in message news:433c885d{at}w3.nls.net...
   7.5 I believe requires Windows XP.  I think 7.0 supported Windows 2000
but it doesn't support AV as well as 7.5.

   You only need UPnP if you want easy NAT traversal.  You can do without
but it may require you to configure your network to get what UPnP would
provide automatically.

   You appear to be confused over what UPnP features are provided by Windows
XP.  My guess is that the feature to which you are referring is the user
interface for network UPnP devices available in Windows XP.  This has
nothing to do with whether your network devices support UPnP.  Applications
like MSN Messenger can exploit UPnP regardless of whether you have the UPnP
UI enabled.

Rich

  "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:433c2822$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  I've used MSN Messenger 7, 7.5 being able to do direct machine to machine
  sounds good.  Does it require XP and turning on XP's control of open ports
  on the router via uPnP to work machine to machine audio/video?  Or can it
be
  manually configured as to ports to use and then manually set the router's
  port forwarding to the specific machines in question?  I don't run XP, my
  wife has it though, but it won't be on my end.  I refuse to turn on XP's
  uPnP control of open ports on the router also.

  Gary

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:433c1ce2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     NetMeeting is almost obsolete.  Current applications do much better in
  everything from NAT traversal to audio and video quality.  My suggestion
for
  an adhoc conversation is to use MSN Messenger 7.5.  Audio and video are
  direct machine to machine.  If you have a major meeting I would suggest
  considering something meatier like LiveMeeting.

  Rich

    "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
  news:433bf0db{at}w3.nls.net...
    Recently Scott in our NY office and I tried a Net Meeting session
between
    our two laptops, using a LinkSys USB2 camera.  We are connected via a
    private T-1 between the offices, with a Cisco 1720 router on each end,
so
  we
    can use private IP addresses, and connect direct machine to machine.
Our
    results were no better than using a pubic reflection server.  Audio was
    poor, video was jerky, audio was at many times out of sync.  This is
with
    the built-in Net Meeting provided in XP-Pro.  There is no way I'd try or
    even suggest using that for a major meeting in a conference room.

    We configured both sides to be on a local corporate lan, but the speeds
    showing on the network usage were tiny.  There was no way we could
figure
    out to make it anything other than the same as an ICQ Video Chat setup.

    --

    Glenn M.
    "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
    news:433b1f19$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    > Well I think you understand how well it works.  Not at all.  It comes
  from
    > a
    > design that was based upon wide open, no NAT, direct modem
connections,
    > and
    > it was never fixed because MS wanted everyone to use MSN Chat instead.
    > You
    > can get some things to work like remote desktop viewing and if you're
    > lucky
    > video and audio from one place to the other, but not video and audio
in
    > the
    > other direction simultaneously.  You can get text chat to work and
maybe
    > some of the whiteboard stuff and file sending.  Its simultaneous
    > video/audio
    > from two or more sources that won't work ever unless you are wide open
  to
    > the net on both ends.
    >
    > Gary
    >
    > "Richard B."  wrote in message
    > news:lm2mj1tui247e3musjks1f5li6bd4jvqs7{at}4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:10:11 -0400, "Gary Britt"
    >>  wrote:
    >>
    >> >Netmeeting is near impossible to make work properly through routers
at
    > each
    >> >end, unless you turn on uPnP in the router and let XP at both ends
    > control
    >> >what ports are open
    >>
    >> Most everything goes through a router at some point, how does it work
    >> at all? 
    >>
    >> Sounds like my firewall would block it several time over.
    >>
    >> - Richard
    >
    >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5