If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Live or Win Msgr for video call?
I have XP systems at two offices connected by VPN. Is using one of the
messenger programs the best way to set up a video/audio connection? No fancy app sharing just being able to see/talk to one another spontaneously. Re versions, I've read about Win, Live, and Yahoo messengers. They don't come right out and say it but I get the idea that Live and Yahoo route these connections through their respective systems. Rather than just shortest internet path from A to B, it's A to MSN to B. Or am I mistaken? I'm kind of assuming they must get in the loop someplace because the only reason they have for offering these services is to make money on, what, advertising, selling extra services? Whereas Win messenger is just system to system, or am I wrong there too? Is there any built-in, native direct system-to-system way to send voice/video? Or maybe third party programs that do that? Thanks Tom |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Live or Win Msgr for video call?
Greetings Tom,
Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger will both try a direct connection first. If that fails, then Windows Messenger will just give up, Live Messenger will relay the connection through the service. Windows Messenger doesn't 'get in the loop' anywhere with this as the application was paid for by purchasing Windows. Live Messenger will give you a 3-4 second flash animation advertisement before the video begins. Another option not mentioned here is Skype, which also will try direct and then utilize it's peer to peer network. Although it's encrypted from contact to contact even on P2P, so it doesn't matter all that much. -- Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com (c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature or citation -- "njem" wrote in message ... I have XP systems at two offices connected by VPN. Is using one of the messenger programs the best way to set up a video/audio connection? No fancy app sharing just being able to see/talk to one another spontaneously. Re versions, I've read about Win, Live, and Yahoo messengers. They don't come right out and say it but I get the idea that Live and Yahoo route these connections through their respective systems. Rather than just shortest internet path from A to B, it's A to MSN to B. Or am I mistaken? I'm kind of assuming they must get in the loop someplace because the only reason they have for offering these services is to make money on, what, advertising, selling extra services? Whereas Win messenger is just system to system, or am I wrong there too? Is there any built-in, native direct system-to-system way to send voice/video? Or maybe third party programs that do that? Thanks Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Live or Win Msgr for video call?
Thanks for the info. Just for the sake of understanding it better, I
assume even Live or Skype, even when making a "direct" connection, must at least touch base with their servers to keep track of who's available, and sort of a DNS service so the attempt at a direct connection has some IP address to try to connect to. I haven't needed to do this before and I'm kind of surprised with all the media abilities built-in anymore that there isn't a simple direct way. Imagine if you had two PCs at the far ends of a big building that aren't even on internet. You would think they could connect this way. Or is that where the old Win messenger would have come it? It operates by user name but maybe it does its own local management of user names on a LAN rather than using an outside server for that? Some of the older network systems (Novell and such) used to have a util to send pop-up messages to others on your LAN using the PC network names as designation. I guess I imagined there would be something like that but modernized with video/audio. Maybe if Win messenger is doing its own in-house user name management it sort of is doing that. Of course it's also discontinued now. Thanks, Tom On Jul 4, 9:46 pm, "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote: Greetings Tom, Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger will both try a direct connection first. If |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Live or Win Msgr for video call?
Thanks for the info. Just for the sake of understanding it better, I
assume even Live or Skype, even when making a "direct" connection, must at least touch base with their servers to keep track of who's available, and sort of a DNS service so the attempt at a direct connection has some IP address to try to connect to. I haven't needed to do this before and I'm kind of surprised with all the media abilities built-in anymore that there isn't a simple direct way. Imagine if you had two PCs at the far ends of a big building that aren't even on internet. You would think they could connect this way. Or is that where the old Win messenger would have come it? It operates by user name but maybe it does its own local management of user names on a LAN rather than using an outside server for that? Some of the older network systems (Novell and such) used to have a util to send pop-up messages to others on your LAN using the PC network names as designation. I guess I imagined there would be something like that but modernized with video/audio. Maybe if Win messenger is doing its own in-house user name management it sort of is doing that. Of course it's also discontinued now. Thanks, Tom On Jul 4, 9:46 pm, "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote: Greetings Tom, Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger will both try a direct connection first. If |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|