MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Pager

[Rolls]

Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't talk
(voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work for
vioce chat?

[Peter S.]

I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
would ever even acknowledge my query.
As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
why.

Peter

"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
talk
> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
for
> vioce chat?
>
>

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
>would ever even acknowledge my query.
>As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their silence
>on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo Messenger
>works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to know
>why.
>
>Peter
>
>"Rolls" > wrote in message
...
>> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
>talk
>> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm using
>> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
>for
>> vioce chat?

Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
phrase your questions differently, Peter.

The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
(more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
which result in less bandwidth and more latency.

The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
talking about).

M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.

Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Peter S.]

Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
there is no problem in the wizard.
The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?

Thanks for your help,

Peter

"Chuck" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:00:50 -0500, "Peter S." >
> wrote:
>
> >I've been asking this question here several times and not one of the MVPs
> >would ever even acknowledge my query.
> >As if our questions have no relevance. They must be enjoying their
silence
> >on this issue. I get back at them by telling everyone that Yahoo
Messenger
> >works while MSN does not and they don't have the technical expertise to
know
> >why.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >"Rolls" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Brother in FL and me in TX each have Win XP Pro and 6.1.0207. We can't
> >talk
> >> (voice) but can yak all day and night with clear uninterrupted comm
using
> >> Yahoo Messenger. So what's the deal with getting MSN Messenger to work
> >for
> >> vioce chat?
>
> Actually, there will be an occasional article about the technical
> superiority of MSN Messenger vs Yahoo Messenger. You just have to
> phrase your questions differently, Peter.
>
> The bottom line is that MSN Messenger makes a more direct connection
> between the conversant computers, which gives it a more robust signal
> (more bandwidth, less latency). Yahoo Messenger uses relay servers,
> which result in less bandwidth and more latency.
>
> The fact that Yahoo Messenger voice and video will work thru a
> firewall (NAT router) and MSN Messenger won't is the point which
> Microsoft chooses to ignore. MSN Messenger is technically superior to
> Yahoo Messenger. Like Beta was to VHS (if anybody here knows what I'm
> talking about).
>
> M$ provides code for a corporate MSN Messenger server, so corporate
> customers can use MSN Messenger for audio / video conversations from
> behind their firewalls. The domestic users / small business owners
> are not interesting to M$ anymore. So we use Yahoo Messenger.
>
> Then there's MSN Messenger vs Windows Messenger...
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:42:18 -0500, "Peter S." >
wrote:

>Finally an intelligent response! Thanks Chuck. I followed the procedure
>recommended by MVP Jonathan Kay on his web site in which he says that the
>built-in firewall of XP opens the necessary ports for Messenger to pass the
>video/sound signals whereas other firewalls such as ZoneAlarm will block
>those ports. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm and enabled the XP firewall and all
>those ports - 5004 to 65535 - were still in stealth mode and I still
>couldn't get video and sound. I was even brave enough to disable the
>firewall completely and still no video/sound in the M.S. messengers although
>there is no problem in the wizard.
>The implication of all this is that they - the MVPs - have no idea why this
>thing will not work beyond the firewall issue. Some of my friends have no
>video/sound problems with the M.S. messengers using the Windows firewall and
>everybody can use Yahoo's messenger.
>You mentioned valid reasons pointing out that the Windows messengers are
>superior to the Yahoo Messenger because they use more direct paths between
>conversant machines. Could it be that even though I enabled the XP firewall
>the UNP&P was still not enabled and Messenger needs it for video and sound?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Peter

Peter,

UPnP is the key to it. And the problem, too, cause not all firewalls
/ NAT routers are UPnP capable. Not only do YOU need a UPnP capable
router, but your friend on the other end needs one, if you want to
converse with him.

And you both need Windows Messenger, not MSN Messenger, if you want to
use both video and sound.

Miss just one of these details between the two of you, and you're
another case posting here "I can hear my bud but he can't hear me..."
/ "Can't connect..." / "No picture..."... I had a Windows Messenger
a/v conversation working once. The sound was definitely nice. The
picture was tiny (M$ has been promising to improve that), but clearer
and smoother than Yahoo Messenger.

But that was just once. 90% of the time, Yahoo Messenger is the only
solution.

M$ is so smug about all of it too. Technically superior audio /
video. Windows Messenger (developed by one M$ division) has audio /
video but lacks file transfer ability. MSN Messenger (developed by a
different M$ division) works on Windows 2000, but won't do audio (or
is it video, I forget).

One day, Yahoo will solve the bandwidth / latency problem. Then M$
will lose that edge too. Like Sony and Betamax lost to VHS Premium
Quality.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.