From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C5C4DC.54CA4B00
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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=20
  our two laptops, using a LinkSys USB2 camera.  We are connected via a=20
  private T-1 between the offices, with a Cisco 1720 router on each end, =
so we=20
  can use private IP addresses, and connect direct machine to machine.  =
Our=20
  results were no better than using a pubic reflection server.  Audio =
was=20
  poor, video 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 =
or=20
  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=20
  showing on the network usage were tiny.  There was no way we could =
figure=20
  out to make it anything other than the same as an ICQ Video Chat =
setup.

  --=20

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


------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C5C4DC.54CA4B00
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
NetMeeting is almost =
obsolete. =20
Current applications do much better in everything from NAT traversal to = audio=20
and video quality.  My suggestion for an adhoc conversation is to
= use MSN=20
Messenger 7.5.  Audio and video are direct machine to =
machine.  If you=20
have a major meeting I would suggest considering something meatier = like=20
LiveMeeting.
Rich
 

  "Glenn Meadows" <gmeadow{at}comcast.net>">mailto:gmeadow{at}comcast.net">gmeadow{at}comcast.net>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:433bf0db{at}w3.nls.net...Re=
cently=20
  Scott in our NY office and I tried a Net Meeting session between =
our two=20
  laptops, using a LinkSys USB2 camera.  We are connected via a =
private=20
  T-1 between the offices, with a Cisco 1720 router on each end, so we =
can=20
  use private IP addresses, and connect direct machine to machine.  =
Our=20
  results were no better than using a pubic reflection server.  =
Audio=20
  was poor, video was jerky, audio was at many times out of =
sync.  This=20
  is with the built-in Net Meeting provided in XP-Pro.  There =
is no way=20
  I'd try 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, =
but the=20
  speeds showing on the network usage were tiny.  There was no =
way we=20
  could figure out to make it anything other than the same as an ICQ =
Video=20
  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
  comes from > a> design that was based
upon wide open, no =
NAT,=20
  direct modem connections, > and> it was
never fixed =
because MS=20
  wanted everyone to use MSN Chat instead. >
You> can get =
some=20
  things to work like remote desktop viewing and if you're >=20
  lucky> video and audio from one place to the other, but not =
video and=20
  audio in > the> other direction
simultaneously.  =
You can=20
  get text chat to work and maybe> some of the whiteboard stuff =
and file=20
  sending.  Its simultaneous >
video/audio> from two =
or more=20
  sources that won't work ever unless you are wide open to> the =
net on=20
  both ends.>>
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">> <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>=20">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>=20
  wrote:>>>>
>Netmeeting is near impossible to =
make work=20
  properly through routers at>
each>> >end, unless =
you turn=20
  on uPnP in the router and let XP at both ends> =
control>>=20
  >what ports are
open>>>> Most everything
goes =
through a=20
  router at some point, how does it work>> at all?=20
  <g>>>>>
Sounds like my firewall would block =
it=20
  several time over.>>>> -
Richard>>=20


------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C5C4DC.54CA4B00--

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