Google Video Chat - a status report - Grade B-

I've been updating my initial post on Google Video Chat, but I think I've enough experience now to offer a status report. I've been testing XP to XP, and XP to OS X connections using Firefox.

1. It takes a lot of CPU capacity. Practically speaking I think you want a dual core machine. It takes a lot of CPU capacity on OS X machines. On XP, compared to other video solutions, it's relatively efficient. It's Intel only of course, so G5 need not apply.
2. The XP connections are pretty stable. If there's a nasty firewall involved, especially a nasty firewall with lousy bandwidth (some hotels for example) things get choppy and sound lags. If the connections are decent the results are quite good.
3. OS X to XP connections are unstable. They work within a LAN, and they may work point-to-point with reasonably good connections, but when you add firewalls and VPN into the mix it falls apart.
4. Google's Chat Help Forum is pretty worthless and so is their FAQ. I can't find any significant documentation.
5. The workflow for establishing a "trust relationship" so that chat is possible is awkward and cryptic.
6. The Chat contacts list UI is a mess, don't bother with it. Things work best if you type the gmail address of the person you wish to contact. Searching for a name then reviewing the menu of options isn't too bad.
7. The Gmail integration is awkward.
8. Google's notification / availability status workflow is a mess.
9. Be sure to use the Settings menu of Gmail -> Chat Settings -> test connection.

I'd grade Google's Video Chat effort as C+. That sounds bad, but the rest of the class is B- to F, and the B-kids are trending downwards and might drop out of school.

I'll update the grades in a month or so.

Update 1/6/09: I bumped the grade in the post title to B-. We've been doing more corporate testing and have found:

1. The voice quality when used with our Logitech Vision Pro (OS X, but we use them on XP machines because they don't require drivers and don't burden the CPU to do light correction and focusing) webcams is superb.
2. Even on our creaky Dell laptops and feeble VPN network connections we can run both a point-to-point video conference and a LiveMeeting 2003 screen sharing session at the same time. Video degrades gracefully and audio remains excellent. This is actually pretty amazing, if you try to use LiveMeeting's native low quality video alongside LiveMeeting screensharing the video simply dies.

All the other problems persist, but the fundamental technology on XP is truly amazing.

Now if they can fix their OS X problems and come up with a $#!Now if they can fix their OS X problems and come up with a $#!$&^ notification solution ...
amp;^ notification solution ...

Update 2/24/09: Grade A-: The OS X client now seems comparable to the Windows client. Both drop sessions every hour or so. The quality can be astounding. Usability is astoundingly bad however. Still, beats Skype and iChat easily.

Update 10/29/09: We had too many connection drops for this to be really feasible for use at work. We're retrying with 'nice to have' non-critical video only connections. We assume this is more issues with our network than with GVC. I have discovered a way to separate the chat from the image; if you have Google Talk installed (XP only) you have an extra chat window, so that can be managed separately from the video-associated chat box.

Mac OS 10.5.6 problem - the quick summary

The 10.5.6 installer was screwed up. It may be fixed now, but most geeks will download the entire 700MB+ Compo Update.

There are other things broken however ...

Mac OS 10.5.6 problems? Apple suggests shampoo | Register Hardware

.... It should also be mentioned that Apple's 'advice' doesn't address any of the other problems experienced by 10.5.6 updaters, such as dropped network connections, audio 'pops' upon restart, Mail.app refusing to quit or failing to connect, problems with Apache and Contribute, and iSights going blind. (Oh, and if this last one has happened to you, make sure to reset both the SMU and the SMC.)...

I'll wait another week.

Google -- please give me those backlinks ...

Come on Blogger, please give me backlinks ...

Gordon's Notes: WordPress's possibly related posts -- I want this from Blogger

.... This feature is core to my memory extension strategy ....

I want a Google Blogger "possibly related posts" feature that follows links and tags and, heck, textual analysis to create entries -- and that lets me choose whether to restrict to my own domains or open it up....

Google, I'll give you money if you do this.

Pretty puh-lease?

PS. Oh, yeah. And fix BlogThis, and give us label (tag) feeds, and emulate Yahoo Pipes! and ...

Update for the PS - 2/2/09: Damnit, there are label feeds -- it's just not documented.

Blogger is not updating web pages correctly -> the fix

I've just discovered that nothing I've published since Dec 11th is appearing on the primary web page (front page) of Gordon's Notes.

My posts are all visible in Blogger, they are being published, they are appearing in the monthly indices, they show in my feeds, but the main page isn't displaying them.

Weird Blogger bug. I'll see if I can fix it by switching templates.

Update: It was easy to fix. I made some small edits to the most recent post that displayed on the main page, then saved it as draft. All the missing posts then appeared on the front page. I then republished the "bad" post and all seems well. If that hadn't worked I would have tried editing the oldest "hidden" post.

Macintouch - scanning tips

I'm reasonably good with a scanner, but I still appreciate these tips ...

Macintouch - Scanners

... Just to give an upper bound on the required resolution, standard 35mm film has a resolution of approximately 4000 lines per inch. Printed material is lower resolution, though I do not happen to know it off hand.

If you are scanning slides or negative, there is no point at scanning the film at more than 4000 pixels per inch; there simply is no additional information beyond that resolution.

For printing, a quick rule of thumb is the image resolution should be three times the printer resolution. If you have a 100 line per inch printer, then your image should be 300 pixels per inch after any size conversions (e.g. an image that will be 4x4 inches on a page should be 1200x1200 pixels for a 100 line per inch printer).

Note that on a typically 72 dpi monitor, the same image will only need to be 288x288 pixels)...

Microsoft's amazing WLW team also did Onfolio?!

I was happily scanning the release notes for the sure-to-excel WLW 2009 release when I came across a surprise note ...

Windows Live Writer 2009 RC released « whateverblog.

... On a more reflective note, this was the first full milestone (Beta to RC) we did without Charles Teague, our dev lead and voice of reason since the earliest days of Onfolio...

Onfolio is the only Windows app besides Windows Live Writer that I use and admire. I'm quite sad that Microsoft bought it only to kill it.

So one team did both products.

They must be Minnesotans.

I hope Microsoft is paying 'em very well!

Windows Live Writer news: 2009 and Blog This for Firefox 3.0

The really big news on one of my favorite apps from any vendor is that Joe Cheng has released a version of the "Blog This" add-on for Firefox 3. So we don't have to follow Joe's prior workarounds. Unfortunately it's in "sandbox mode" and won't be generally available until it collects a number of positive reviews.

So take a moment, register as a Firefox add-on tester, and contribute your five star review with a big thank you to Joe. My guess is he had to make time from his Microsoft duties to get this out.

In comparison, the announcement of a new version of WLW is a minor detail: Windows Live Writer 2009: Release Candidate. I mean, it's not like WLW 2.x was missing very much. The only WLW version news that would excite me would be a Mac version, which falls into the hell freezing category.

There's nothing in the features list I care about. Really, what I'd most like is a way to search against the titles of the post history list, and have other ways to manage the list of past posts. [See updates. Turns out the preview has some nice fixes to minor bugs and some great new features – like searching the list of retrieved past posts.]

WLW 2009 is bundled with "Windows Live Essentials", but I think you can choose which to install.

I'll wait for the release version. It's hard to improve on something as fine as WLW 2.x. Except, of course, by releasing the Firefox Blog This add-on.

Update: Joe commented that Firefox "Blog This" is a certified Microsoft product, not solely his project. Joe also tells us that the new version of WLW has the title search feature I wanted, implemented as filter.

Guess I'll have to test earlier than expected!

Thanks for the correction Joe, and thanks for your work and that of the WLW team.

Update 12/23/08: Blog This! is still stuck in the sandbox, so it needs more reviews. Works great, of course. WLW 2009 preview looks very good, so I’m glad I didn’t wait. I love the “filtering” feature – but I think it’s better than title filtering. I think it’s searching entire posts. They’ve also fixed the minor but annoying bug where the display of some labels/categories/tags for Blogger was truncated. The problem’s been long understood, but it wasn’t serious enough to justify a patch outside of this update. You have to uncheck a few things, but the new Windows Live installer will eventually agree to simply update WLW 1 and the IE toolbar.