MSN Messenger and sp2

[Jeff Wells]

Voice communications on msn messenger is significantly inferior (and
unworkable) with sp2.

I observe the following results concerning msn messenger.

Without sp2: With msn messenger running in text chat, i can ping (example)
yahoo and get result of 16 ms. When i am in an audio conversation on msn,
the ping (yahoo) is still 16 ms.

With sp2: With msn messenger running in text chat, i can ping yahoo with
the result of 16 ms. Upon initiating a 1:1 audio conversation on messenger,
the ping (of yahoo) soars to 1000 - 5000 ms (yes 1 to 5 seconds) indicating
that msn messenger is using extreme amounts of bandwith, and the audio is
atrocious and the connection shortlived. I can, however, exit the audio
conversation and the ping of yahoo returns to 16 ms.

Does anyone have any insight into what my problem with msn messenger might
be? 1:1 audio, without sp2, is excellent; with sp2, I cannot hold a 1:1
voice communication on msn messenger

 

[BarCom]

Trillian.

 

[Jeff Wells]

Dont use, never used, Trillian

Trillian.

 

[Stephen Harris]

Voice communications on msn messenger is significantly inferior (and
unworkable) with sp2.

I observe the following results concerning msn messenger.

Without sp2: With msn messenger running in text chat, i can ping
(example)
yahoo and get result of 16 ms. When i am in an audio conversation on msn,
the ping (yahoo) is still 16 ms.

With sp2: With msn messenger running in text chat, i can ping yahoo with
the result of 16 ms. Upon initiating a 1:1 audio conversation on
messenger,
the ping (of yahoo) soars to 1000 - 5000 ms (yes 1 to 5 seconds)
indicating
that msn messenger is using extreme amounts of bandwith, and the audio is
atrocious and the connection shortlived. I can, however, exit the audio
conversation and the ping of yahoo returns to 16 ms.

Does anyone have any insight into what my problem with msn messenger might
be? 1:1 audio, without sp2, is excellent; with sp2, I cannot hold a 1:1
voice communication on msn messenger

You may find the thread on microsoft.public.msn.messenger:
Re: Bandwitdh may not be the controlling resource
to have a bearing on your post; you can find it by doing a search
with groups.google.com

Another relevant group is microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger

I will quote "slim" from part of that thread (Re: Bandwidth....) :

"I've confirmed by beliefs with SP2 and MSN (Windows) Messenger
(unfortunetly).

I can say with 100% certainty that SP2 is not compatible with MSN or Windows
Messenger audio chat.

I formated my hard drive (in my second computer), did a fresh install of XP
with SP1 slipstreamed. No other programs installed. Started Windows
Messenger, started audio chat, ran a speed test while talking..numbers were
normal ...around 1400 Kbps down / 360 Kbps up.

I then upgraded to SP2. Turned off the firewall completely. Turned on
Windows Messenger. Ran a speed test, results were normal. Started an audio
chat. While chating, ran another speed test...numbers plumeted to around 55
Kbps down / 400 Kbps up. Internet is almost unusable while chating. Very
large delays in chatting. Ended chat, ran speed test, numbers back to
normal.

To confirm my findings (yet again), I uninstalled SP2 (via Add/Remove
Programs), launched Windows Messenger again, started audio chat, speed test
resulted in normal numbers.

It will only be a matter of time before others start posting similar
results."

Jonathon Kay is the resident MVP on those two forums I mentioned.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[Stephen Harris]

Dont use, never used, Trillian

Until this is fixed, you will need an alternative. Skype is free
and has excellent quality. But eventually they will start charging,
maybe a solution will be found in the interim. I use Skype for
audio and Msn 6.2 for the video part.

Skype also is not supported for win98. So I use RealTunnel
by Paradial www.realtunnel.com which has fairly good audio,
for my win98se computer. There is a smooth interface with
Msn 6.2; it is pretty automatic and the registration is free.

I tested the audio in the early evening and got the same
delayed and choppy audio you mentioned. But maybe strangely,
the results seemed to improve when I tested it around 4am.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[SlowJet]

Hi,

I don't know the facts but a year or two ago when I was
using voice on (MSN) Messenger (to and from London and
Indian) The default is Socks4 on port 1080.

I had to go through my proxy / firewall.
I couldn't hear them but they could here me (London).
Only chat worked (India) and was jerky and bunched up.
I remember switching to HTTP port 80 through the proxy
and it worked fine (London). Gave up on India voice then,
but now chat works better, still bunches up, slow.

My hairbrained though was the 1080 port is being opened
and closed where as the HTTP port 80 is always open.
Maybe I had a wed server runing then?

That's my story and I sticking to it.

SJ

 

[Jeff Wells]

Thanks a bunch, Stephen, for the info confirming my test/suspicions. I used
skype many monts ago, and, although it worked well, i saw little advantage
(for me) of msn messenger. Since the situation has changed, i will give
skype another try ... or .. i just might wait a bit to install sp2 on at
least one of my xp installs.

 

[slim]

Jeff, what type of internet connection do you have?

I know some people are having no problems, I'm wondering if it only an issue
with dsl (I have VOL with PPPOE connection).

 

[Jeff Wells]

dsl through pppoe here

Jeff, what type of internet connection do you have?

I know some people are having no problems, I'm wondering if it only an issue
with dsl (I have VOL with PPPOE connection).

 

[slim]

Interesting that we both have the same connection.