Cheap Conferencing with Messenger? - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Skype & Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+----- Thread: Cheap Conferencing with Messenger? (/showthread.php?tid=44581)
Cheap Conferencing with Messenger? by Tippaporn on 05-12-2005 at 11:33 AM
Question: Does Messenger make for a viable conferencing tool?
I need a conferencing solution and a quick one, even if it were only a temporary one. I'm an independent tool designer. My conferencing needs are quite simple, yet most conferencing vendors are either too expensive, too complex, or impose too many requirements on attendees (which would be my customers).
The main features I require would be a whiteboard, audio, and screen and application sharing where control could be passed back and forth. I don't need security or addressing features, or have a need for organizers and presenters. This would simply be a one-on-one conference to exchange ideas on virtual paper.
It appears that Messenger is set up with all the features I need: a whiteboard, application sharing, video, audio, chat, the ability to save chat files (does that extend to whiteboard sessions?), etc.
I'm looking for knowledgable and experienced input from Messenger power users who utilize the program to the max.
Thanks,
Pete
RE: Cheap Conferencing with Messenger? by mwe99 on 05-12-2005 at 11:36 AM
You could use Netmeeting to do that, like messenger but lacks some of the fun features.
RE: RE: Cheap Conferencing with Messenger? by Tippaporn on 05-12-2005 at 12:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by mwe99
You could use Netmeeting to do that, like messenger but lacks some of the fun features.
NetMeeting is a Microsoft product, correct? But I believe it will no longer be updated since there was a lawsuit surrounding the application for infringement. Microsoft had to pay a huge sum of money and abandoned the app. Don't know if it's still useful, though.
|