Does anyone use webcam chat?

[Gary Sheynkman]

I always wondered if anyone (except those crazy macheads) use the video chat feature of either AOL or MSN

[Honda_Civic_Si]

Who needs to see the person when you are chatting? I don't want to see them pick their nose thank you very much!

-Justin.

[JR]

I always wondered if anyone (except those crazy macheads) use the video chat feature of either AOL or MSN

I've used it a couple times. My in-laws are a province over and my sister is in Ireland so it's great to be able to see them every once in a while. I must admit though, that I'm surprised how little I use it. It's still not seamless enough for my tastes.

Having said that, I do use it for work almost daily. I live in Calgary but work for our Toronto office. My boss has a webcam and most of our meetings are video chats.

[Philip Colmer]

One of the fundamental problems with most web-chat solutions available at the moment is that they don't work well or at all if your network environment uses NAT - network address translation.

[In case you don't know what this means, it is a mechanism where the IP address used by your PC is translated as your outgoing data passes through a boundary, such as your connection to the Internet. Return traffic hits the new IP address and then is again translated back by the boundary device so that it reaches your computer]

This problem annoys me a great deal because it is often lazy programming and lack of thought to the protocol design that results in this mess. Microsoft are one of the biggest culprits in this area - too many of their protocols embed the computer's IP address into the data that gets sent to the other end. Since a NAT device only deals with the header of the packet and not the content, the data version of the IP address doesn't get translated and the protocol breaks :evil:

So, at the moment, the answer for me is no, but I'd like to :(

--Philip

[Janak Parekh]

This problem annoys me a great deal because it is often lazy programming and lack of thought to the protocol design that results in this mess.
Not really. The real problem is NAT itself. Most internet protocols based on IP were never designed for NAT, which is really a kludge to deal with the lack of address space. Once we switch to IPv6, we really don't need it, but unfortunately it's become fixed in the mindset of people so I doubt it'll ever go away.

But yes, from a practical standpoint it's indeed hindering adoption.

--janak

[Russell]

I always wondered if anyone (except those crazy macheads) use the video chat feature of either AOL or MSN

speaking of "crazy mac heads" this article is a definite read for those who want warm fuzzies about web cams. You may have to log in. David Pogue of the NY Times talks of his experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/technology/circuits/04POGUE-EMAIL.html?ex=1075957200&en=c7821550a584d009&ei=5070

[Gary Sheynkman]

ah yes...the office consumer. JR, tell me, how good is the video quality and how fast is the connection you use. It would be great to set up a video chat with my dad half way around the world

[JR]

ah yes...the office consumer. JR, tell me, how good is the video quality and how fast is the connection you use. It would be great to set up a video chat with my dad half way around the world

The video quality is incredible. We both use the "Large Video" setting in Netmeeting and the picture quality is great. Very rarely does it pixelate and when it does, I suspect it's due to processor load, not bandwidth.

I'm communicating from Calgary to Toronto which is about 1400km I think. I'm not sure what our connection is, but I do know we have a solid architecture between our offices. The main complaint I have is the sound. We don't even bother because of the lag. He turns on his speakerphone and I put on my headset and we're good to go.

We are also in the midst of implementing a distance conferencing / learning solution which will use VOIP and broadcast video. If it's not two-way, the video and audio is pretty good too. The audio is multipoint as everyone wears a headset and the moderator can allow participants to speak. It's pretty cool.

[Tom W.M.]

I once tried it with a webcam borrowed from a friend, but we could never get it to work. Of course, I now know about sixty times as much as I knew then, and I now have broadband...and NAT. :?

[coffeeFreak]

I use webcam to chat with my girl friend pretty much everyday. I am studying abroad in US, but my family and my girl friend are in Thailand, and that's about 8500 miles away from where I am (Northern CA). The speed is okay, it really depends on their connection. Sometime it's about 2fps :D But that's good enough just to see each other. (I'm on 1.5mbps ADSL)

As for NAT-traversing, I never experience such problem with MSN messenger. AFAIK, MSN messenger uses IE default internet connection setting if it figures out it's behind NAT/proxy, so it works okay (slower than if I don't have NAT on).

[encece]

I have a webcam and use it on my personal website as a novelty. I would love to videochat with family and friends, especially with my young son, but no one else I know has a camera nor the inclination to buy one. I am a geek to them. In reality...I probably just need to make geekier friends.

The first person on my hitlist to get and use a camera is, believe it or not, my ex. It would be a great way for our son to talk to the other parent when he is at each of our houses.

But for reasons other than that, or the like, I probably would choose not to videochat most times.