[JDEV] Videoconferencing with jabber /Re:[speex-dev]Videoconferencing with speex and jabber

[Richard Dobson]

> > Of course not all machines will have equal specs, but if they were
bought
> > within the last 3-5 years they will likely be plenty powerful enough for
our
> > requirements as far as CPU power goes.
>
> lol, sorry, richard, you have no experience what is needed to actually
> encode and decode data, i think ... ;-)

Why wouldnt a 400-500Mhz PC be able to compress/decompress simple voice
streams? Its not like we are trying to decode DVD quality MPEG2? Surely you
are not suggesting we need the latest 2.4Ghz PC's to be able to do this?? If
we do this whole thing will surely fail in the consumer space where a lot of
people will be using such machines.

> > But the point is that you do not have to manually code it and in so
doing do
> > it in the processor, using such things as directx means it is far more
> > optimised and will take advantage of any sound hardware (or processor
> > extensions such as SSE) you have to accellerate this. This is in
contrast to
> > server mixing that will have to be manually done in the processor as it
> > needs to be re-encoded and retransmitted.
>
> in fact server encoding can use direct x hardware, too. why shouldn't
> it?

Not that I am aware of, my experience of using this in Direct X is that you
just pass the streams into it an it deals with them and outputs the streams
to the sound card, unless you want to hook up a cable to the line out on the
sound card and pump it back into the line in?

> > > Then we both don't know ;) But most implementations probably won't be
so
> > > advanced, if this is even possible (and you made a good point about
> > > re-encoding, which I more seriously doubt you can optimize much)
> >
> > Yes the real problem is the re-encoding, not the mixing.
>
> not necessarily a problem. it can be optimized in many ways ...

Just because it can be optimized it does not make it any less of a problem.

> > > Out of sync mixing is *the* biggest annoyance about direct-link based
> > > conferencing if you ask me. Escp. when participants have severly
different
> > > connections. I find this unbareable to work with.
> >
> > Fine but not all people find it as much of a problem as you do.
>
> and not all people agree with this statement.

Thats fine, but I didnt say they did.

> of course it is needed to have a persistant network. and to remind
> again: it's needed to have video conferencing, too.

Why is it needed to have a persistant network of chat servers outside of
each conference? Whats wrong with just having them appear and disappear as
the particular chat does? Video conferencing is fine, but IMO the limited
discussions we have had on the subject have yet to find a viable solution,
why dont we just concentrate on one thing at a time and get that right
first.

Richard