> So, you're saying that the video conferencing server idea would be a bad > one. I can accept it, but could you give a little more depth as to the > reasons why? I was so sure I'd hit upon a marketing dream...
Two biggies: 1) video conferencing (and multimedia) is very CPU intensive, a poor choice for the relatively weak 390 CPUs. 2) efficient hosting of multimedia requires efficient use of IP multicast to reduce network flooding. Most of the "IBM supported" network interfaces do not handle multicast well at all. Thus, this is probably a poor match for the 390 solution.
