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

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" <njem@q.com> wrote in message
news:460a901a-aec8-4c4f-b350-361867b01638@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> 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

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]"
<msnewsrepl...@jonathankay.com> wrote:
> Greetings Tom,
>
> Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger will both try a direct connection first. If

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]"
<msnewsrepl...@jonathankay.com> wrote:
> Greetings Tom,
>
> Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger will both try a direct connection first. If