From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C5C51C.61866140
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.

    --=20

    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
    >
    >



------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C5C51C.61866140
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   7.5 I
believe requires =
Windows=20
XP.  I think 7.0 supported Windows 2000 but it doesn't support AV
= as well=20
as 7.5.
 
   You only
need UPnP if you =
want easy=20
NAT traversal.  You can do without but it may require you to =
configure your=20
network to get what UPnP would provide automatically.
 
   You
appear to be confused =
over what=20
UPnP features are provided by Windows XP.  My guess is that the =
feature to=20
which you are referring is the user interface for network UPnP devices = available=20
in Windows XP.  This has nothing to do with whether your network =
devices=20
support UPnP.  Applications like MSN Messenger can exploit UPnP =
regardless=20
of whether you have the UPnP UI enabled.
 
Rich
 

  "Gary Britt" <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:433c2822$1{at}w3.nls.net...I've=20
  used MSN Messenger 7, 7.5 being able to do direct machine to =
machinesounds=20
  good.  Does it require XP and turning on XP's control of open =
portson=20
  the router via uPnP to work machine to machine audio/video?  Or =
can it=20
  bemanually configured as to ports to use and then manually set the =

  router'sport forwarding to the specific machines in =
question?  I=20
  don't run XP, mywife has it though, but it won't be on my =
end.  I=20
  refuse to turn on XP'suPnP control of open ports on the router=20
  also.Gary"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:433c1ce2$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  NetMeeting is almost obsolete.  Current applications do much =
better=20
  ineverything from NAT traversal to audio and video quality.  =
My=20
  suggestion foran adhoc conversation is to use MSN Messenger =
7.5. =20
  Audio and video aredirect machine to machine.  If you have a =
major=20
  meeting I would suggestconsidering something meatier like=20
  LiveMeeting.Rich 
"Glenn Meadows" <gmeadow{at}comcast.net>">mailto:gmeadow{at}comcast.net">gmeadow{at}comcast.net>
wrote =
in=20
  messagenews:433bf0db{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;=20
  Recently Scott in our NY office and I tried a Net Meeting session=20
  between  our two laptops, using a LinkSys USB2
camera.  =
We are=20
  connected via a  private T-1 between the offices, with a =
Cisco 1720=20
  router on each end, sowe  can use private IP
addresses, =
and=20
  connect direct machine to machine.  Our 
results were no =
better=20
  than using a pubic reflection server.  Audio
was  poor, =
video=20
  was jerky, audio was at many times out of sync.  This is =
with =20
  the built-in Net Meeting provided in XP-Pro.  There is no way I'd =
try=20
  or  even suggest using that for a major meeting in a =
conference=20
  room.  We configured both sides to be on a local =
corporate lan,=20
  but the speeds  showing on the network usage were
tiny.  =
There=20
  was no way we could figure  out to make it anything other =
than the=20
  same as an ICQ Video Chat setup.  --
  Glenn =

  M.  "Gary Britt" <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message  news:433b1f19$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  > Well I think you understand how well it works.  Not at =
all.  It=20
  comesfrom  > a 
> design that was based =
upon wide=20
  open, no NAT, direct modem connections,  >
and  =
> it=20
  was never fixed because MS wanted everyone to use MSN Chat =
instead. =20
  > You  > can get some things to work like remote =
desktop=20
  viewing and if you're  >
lucky  > video and =
audio from=20
  one place to the other, but not video and audio in  >=20
  the  > other direction
simultaneously.  You can get =
text chat=20
  to work and maybe  > some of the whiteboard
stuff and file =

  sending.  Its simultaneous  >
video/audio  =
> from=20
  two or more sources that won't work ever unless you are wide=20
  opento  > the net on both
ends.  =
>  >=20
  Gary  >  >
"Richard B." <TDNBW{at}barktopus.com>">mailto:TDNBW{at}barktopus.com">TDNBW{at}barktopus.com>
wrote =
in=20
  message  > news:lm2mj1tui24=
7e3musjks1f5li6bd4jvqs7{at}4ax.com... =20
  >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:10:11 -0400, "Gary
Britt"  =
>>=20
  <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>=20">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>=20
  wrote:  >> 
>> >Netmeeting is near =
impossible=20
  to make work properly through routers at  >
each  =

  >> >end, unless you turn on uPnP in the router and let XP at =
both=20
  ends  > control 
>> >what ports are=20
  open  >> 
>> Most everything goes =
through a=20
  router at some point, how does it work 
>> at all?=20
  <g> 
>>  >> Sounds like my =
firewall would=20
  block it several time over. 
>>  >> -=20
  Richard  >  =
>

------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C5C51C.61866140--

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