RE: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tzafrir Cohen Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 7:50 AM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS? On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 05:19:05AM -0400, Tom Rymes wrote: [snip] as well as the software, while the Polycoms can be centrally managed via TFTP/FTP/HTTP/HTTPS, etc. You mean: getting close to almost barely good enough to be as managable as a local software? No, I mean, if I have 50 extensions, I can create one config file, arrange it however I need on the server, and manage the 50 phones from my desk via ssh, etc. With softphones, I will have to get up and walk to each desk to change settings if I need to. This is software. Use manageble software. If software means separate setup on each desktop, then don't use it. If you spend that much time on setting up phones, imagine how long it takes you to update other software packages. This is, then, a symptom of a general problem. Sorry, I wasn't aware of a softphone that was easily managed centrally, without resorting to thin clients, and all of their associated expense (can't use linux clients). Which ones are? Tom ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
This is software. Use manageble software. If software means separate setup on each desktop, then don't use it. If you spend that much time on setting up phones, imagine how long it takes you to update other software packages. This is, then, a symptom of a general problem. I would like to implement central management in my softphone. What would be the best way to accomplish this ? Currently, all the settings are stored in the registry under HKEY_CURRENT_USER. So, if you use a roaming profile, the settings follow you. I would appreciate people's input on what would be desirable, and I'll try to implement it so it would be more easy to manage. Thanks ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
[snip] as well as the software, while the Polycoms can be centrally managed via TFTP/FTP/HTTP/HTTPS, etc. You mean: getting close to almost barely good enough to be as managable as a local software? No, I mean, if I have 50 extensions, I can create one config file, arrange it however I need on the server, and manage the 50 phones from my desk via ssh, etc. With softphones, I will have to get up and walk to each desk to change settings if I need to. Unless your OS has a really really high TCO to manage, those hardware phones are much more of a pain at that point. Again, I think this is true if you have 1-5 phones, but if you have 50+, I think not! This isn't even considering that you might have phones in remote locations, such as one of our branch ofices that is 3+ hours away. Central phone config means that I can make a change at 8:00PM and all of my users will have received it when the offices open in the AM, but softphones means I would have to remind everyone to leave their PCs on so I could remotely change the software config via VNC, and I don't evenknow if I would have to worry about user profiles having different settings, which would introduce another level of complexity. Of course, I could then set up centrally managed PCs, a la LTSP, but that's more of an undertaking than most want! [snip] I agree, your boss will judge the system based on is experience with it. So don't skim on the quality if you want to keep him happy. This is why I think that it is worth the extra $50 or so for the cheaper hardphones. OTOH, there is the false logic that just because you didn't pay enough for it, means its quality is low. For instance, on typical mainframe installation, people spend much more on basically the same thing. This is because they've already payed the 1,000,000$ for the system, and are used to pay a bit more for accesories. Agreed, the you get what you pay for statement isn't always true, but I think it is, at least for most business situations, especially those with lower-tech workers (ie: not Power-users who will learn the special key shorcuts, etc.) [snip] Summary: I'm not sure soft phones are there yet, but I suspect they will be good enough for more and more people. I have to agree with you here, but I also think we'll have to agree to disagree on other points! Basically, it all depends on your situation, but for me, and I think that for most business users, small, medium, or large, the reasonable minor additional cost of a hardphone will be worth it. Tom ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 05:19:05AM -0400, Tom Rymes wrote: [snip] as well as the software, while the Polycoms can be centrally managed via TFTP/FTP/HTTP/HTTPS, etc. You mean: getting close to almost barely good enough to be as managable as a local software? No, I mean, if I have 50 extensions, I can create one config file, arrange it however I need on the server, and manage the 50 phones from my desk via ssh, etc. With softphones, I will have to get up and walk to each desk to change settings if I need to. This is software. Use manageble software. If software means separate setup on each desktop, then don't use it. If you spend that much time on setting up phones, imagine how long it takes you to update other software packages. This is, then, a symptom of a general problem. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
On Sunday 17 July 2005 05:19, Tom Rymes wrote: [snip] away. Central phone config means that I can make a change at 8:00PM and all of my users will have received it when the offices open in the AM, but softphones means I would have to remind everyone to leave their PCs on so I could remotely change the software config via VNC, and I don't You can (often) get around that by having each client automatically check for updates when the user logs in. I had a batch file for each user that looked for a file and then executed it if found. I got a lot of changes done this way. Of course your milage may vary, but it's amazing what you can do with a bit of ingenuity. -- List Manager Network Voice Comunications, Inc. netwvcom.com ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
On Jul 14, 2005, at 11:20 PM, Time Bandit wrote: Is the problem that the technology isn't mature, that the load on the computer is too high, or simply that it doesn't work well in a poorly designed network? YMMV. I like the portability of a softphone, but sound may jitter because of other apps running on the computer. Any idea if this applies to Mac OS X clients? We are a strictly Mac company, and OS X's Unix core allows for preemptive multitasking. If I am unhappy with the performance of the soft phones, I should be able to tweak the priority of the phone so that it gets more compute cycles. (Well, in any event, it sounds like I need to set up [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see for myself. But of course I won't be able to easily simulate 20 users on the phone at the same time, so real-world feedback is always appreciated.) I like not only the portability of the soft phone, but the potential hooks into other information systems. My eventual goal is to have incoming calls trigger a query on our main database on the Caller ID supplied phone number. That way a record for that person will open up on a user's computer the moment they receive a call (assuming the numbers match). I also like the integration of OS X's AddressBook with soft phones, so that people can dial right from their main contact list. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
Hi! Hi again, folks. I've been getting feedback from this list and elsewhere that softphones are generally not considered good enough for hardcore business use. Can someone point me to where I can find more detail on this debate? - you comp needs to have its speakers turned on in order to transmit the ringing sound; if instead folks use a headset (which they should) then the ringing will most likely be directed to the headphones, and if the user is not constantly wearing his/her headset the incoming call will go un-noticed -- headsets are only good for very frequent callers that wear their headset 8 hours/day. If that is so you want to purchase GOOD headsets, by the way. - you very much depend on the quality of the soundcard and the mic; misconfiguration of the soundcard mixer or a cheap soundcard with extra latency, static, noise from the IDE controller/HDD in the audio etc will make your users unhappy resulting in the statement voip has bad quality Is the problem that the technology isn't mature, that the load on the computer is too high, or simply that it doesn't work well in a poorly designed network? No, it's not that. However you need to manage the softphone configuration, install new releases bug fixes. Soundcards can sometimes introduce echo due to cheap hardware or a bad sound config. And, probably this is the most important point, everyone knows how to use a phone, at least the basic functionality, no need to teach train people on that. With a softphone, however, that is different. And, as others have pointed out, it only works when your comp is a) on, b) doesn't show a bluescreen, and c) is successfully connected to the network. Any time I mention VOIP and network, people tell me to make sure that I have QoS capabilities. If I do, and can tweak it appropriately, will that eliminate (or at least greatly minimize) problems with soft phones? Within your LAN you don't really need QoS if your maximum LAN usage is at around 50% of its capacity. On your Internet router QoS can be a good thing, though, to make sure that your outgoing VoIP traffic is given priority. I am really loathe to rewire my building, and I really have to move to gigabit for unrelated reasons, so I would like to be able to use the single gigabit port in every office to serve both the computer and the phone. That seems to mean either soft phones or putting a small gig hub in every office, no? Except for the recent announcement of 3com to incorporate a Gigabit switch into their IP phone you'd have to have a 100 Mbit/s switch in every office in order to connect the hardware phones. By the way it appears that the 100 Mbit/s switched that are integrated in the hardware phones aren't exactly high quality, so if you need a _fast_ link for your workstation that don't put it behind a hardware voip phone, even if that means more cables. Your other option is, of course, to keep your old PBX with its phones and instead put Asterisk between your PBX and the Internet Telco. That way you save the money for the hardware phones and you have no trouble to convince management to spend money on new phones - because you won't. Anyway, you should only walk that way if your current PBX can deal with digital lines, i.e. PRI (or BRI, which I understand is very uncommon in the US where you appear to be located) so that it can be hooked up to Asterisk. Cheers, Philipp ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
Any idea if this applies to Mac OS X clients? We are a strictly Mac company, and OS X's Unix core allows for preemptive multitasking. If I am unhappy with the performance of the soft phones, I should be able to tweak the priority of the phone so that it gets more compute cycles. I don't know about the Mac since I don't have one. Better test it and see for yourself. (Well, in any event, it sounds like I need to set up [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see for myself. But of course I won't be able to easily simulate 20 users on the phone at the same time, so real-world feedback is always appreciated.) It doesn't make a difference for the server if you are using soft or hard phones, so the 20 users on the phone will be the same with one or the other. The difference will be what codecs and/or protocols you are using. I like not only the portability of the soft phone, but the potential hooks into other information systems. My eventual goal is to have incoming calls trigger a query on our main database on the Caller ID supplied phone number. That way a record for that person will open up on a user's computer the moment they receive a call (assuming the numbers match). You don't need a softphone for this, you just need a computer beside the hardphone. Of course, you'll need a program on the computer that can receive the callerID and query the DB (ex.: YAC http://sunflowerhead.com/software/yac/) I also like the integration of OS X's AddressBook with soft phones, so that people can dial right from their main contact list. Some softphones support this, like X-lite, and my softphone (MediaX : http://www.marccharbonneau.com/asterisk/mediaxphone.php but not the current version, only the developpement version) But you can still do this with a hardphone using call files on asterisk and some programming. See http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Asterisk+auto-dial+out hth ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
Ed, There are two main drawbacks to the softphone, as I see it: 1.) User interface - The interface to the softphones is really less than ideal. This includes the problem mentioned earlier about not hearing ringing unless you have your headset on, dialing with the mouse, not having telephone service if your PC isn't on, etc. The traditional telephone interface of handset, dialpad, etc. is utterly pervasive and very simple and user-friendly. You lose that with a softphone. 2.) Quality/Cost - For good softphone quality, you HAVE to use a headset or external USB handset, etc. This is a pain, because users don't always want to use a headset, they want the choice. The other problem is that one of the main advantages of the softphone is that it is cheap, and paying for a good headset reduces that advantage (and you DON'T want to skimp on headsets). The other factor is that softphone quality depends on soundcard quality, etc. As a Mac shop, this ought to be a smaller problem. The other thing to keep in mind is that your users, especially your boss, are going to be judging the Asterisk system, and you performance, based mostly on their interaction with the system. If their main interface to the system is a Cisco 7940G or Polycom 501, they are likely to be impressed because the new system gives them such major benefits, but doesn't require them to use funny computer phones, start up their PC to receive or make a call, etc. If they have to use X-Lite, then their reaction is likely to be This system works well, but I hate that I have to have my PC on, I have to dial with the mouse or numeric keypad, If software update is installing an update voice quality goes to hell, etc. This is not to mention that if you need Gigabit for the file transfers, etc that your computers are doing, then voice quality is likely to go to hell whenever they initiate a major file transfer. To sum up, the common wisdom here seems to be that softphones are great in limited situations (traveling, maybe call centers), but that once you add a quality headset, they aren't much cheaper, and the quality and user experience really suffer. You would be much better off with a Polycom 301, which can be had for about $125, especially if you are buying 60 at once. Also, in you personal situation, I would seriously look to separate your voice LAN from your apparently heavily trafficked data LAN, because QOS and sound quality *could* become a problem on any network port that is handling a major data transfer. Not to mention that you could likely do this on the cheap using your existing cat-3 cables. 10-Mbit switched is more than enough for your VOIP, especially considering that you can send at the very least 24 calls over a 1-Mbit Data T1. Tom On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Ed Pastore wrote: Hi again, folks. I've been getting feedback from this list and elsewhere that softphones are generally not considered good enough for hardcore business use. Can someone point me to where I can find more detail on this debate? Is the problem that the technology isn't mature, that the load on the computer is too high, or simply that it doesn't work well in a poorly designed network? Any time I mention VOIP and network, people tell me to make sure that I have QoS capabilities. If I do, and can tweak it appropriately, will that eliminate (or at least greatly minimize) problems with soft phones? I am really loathe to rewire my building, and I really have to move to gigabit for unrelated reasons, so I would like to be able to use the single gigabit port in every office to serve both the computer and the phone. That seems to mean either soft phones or putting a small gig hub in every office, no? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:29:00PM -0400, Tom Rymes wrote: Ed, There are two main drawbacks to the softphone, as I see it: 1.) User interface - The interface to the softphones is really less than ideal. This includes the problem mentioned earlier about not hearing ringing unless you have your headset on, dialing with the mouse, dialing with the keypad, actually. Put in a number of shortcuts for common operations, a decent menu for the more complicated operations, etc. not having telephone service if your PC isn't on, etc. The traditional telephone interface of handset, dialpad, etc. is utterly pervasive and very simple and user-friendly. You lose that with a softphone. Actually, it is much easiler to play with the user interface of a soft phone than with the one of a hardware phone. e.g: any hardware gadget managed to imeplement themes? Decent support for history. Decent support for dial history. And the ability for the user to customize it. 2.) Quality/Cost - For good softphone quality, you HAVE to use a headset or external USB handset, etc. This is a pain, because users don't always want to use a headset, they want the choice. The other problem is that one of the main advantages of the softphone is that it is cheap, and paying for a good headset reduces that advantage (and you DON'T want to skimp on headsets). The other factor is that softphone quality depends on soundcard quality, etc. As a Mac shop, this ought to be a smaller problem. A simple headset costs 5$? A lousy (ergonomically-wise) hardware SIP phone costs soewhere between 50$ and 100$. Good phones cost much more. The other thing to keep in mind is that your users, especially your boss, are going to be judging the Asterisk system, and you performance, based mostly on their interaction with the system. If their main interface to the system is a Cisco 7940G or Polycom 501, they are likely to be impressed because the new system gives them such major benefits, but doesn't require them to use funny computer phones, start up their PC to receive or make a call, etc. My desktop computer runs 24h a day. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
1.) User interface - The interface to the softphones is really less than ideal. This includes the problem mentioned earlier about not hearing ringing unless you have your headset on, dialing with the mouse, not having telephone service if your PC isn't on, etc. The traditional telephone interface of handset, dialpad, etc. is utterly pervasive and very simple and user-friendly. You lose that with a softphone. Well, not with all softphones. I build mine trying to reproduce my Nortel phone model 9316. Also, I wanted to use the softphone without using the mouse, so I made it so that you can dial with the numeric pad (using / for #), you can pick up a line by pressing F1 for line 1, F2 for line 2, etc. Want to hangup, just press ESC I received a lot of positive comment about it, and most people like the fact that it looks like and behave like a normal phone. 2.) Quality/Cost - For good softphone quality, you HAVE to use a headset or external USB handset, etc. This is a pain, because users don't always want to use a headset, they want the choice. The other problem is that one of the main advantages of the softphone is that it is cheap, and paying for a good headset reduces that advantage (and you DON'T want to skimp on headsets). The other factor is that softphone quality depends on soundcard quality, etc. As a Mac shop, this ought to be a smaller problem. I agree on the point that the quality of the headset and the soundcard makes a huge difference on the quality of the call. But compare the price of a good soudcard/headset with the price of a Cisco phone and you will still have money left to go have a nice meal with your girlfriend. The other thing to keep in mind is that your users, especially your boss, are going to be judging the Asterisk system, and you performance, based mostly on their interaction with the system. If their main interface to the system is a Cisco 7940G or Polycom 501, they are likely to be impressed because the new system gives them such major benefits, but doesn't require them to use funny computer phones, start up their PC to receive or make a call, etc. If they have to use X-Lite, then their reaction is likely to be This system works well, but I hate that I have to have my PC on, I have to dial with the mouse or numeric keypad, If software update is installing an update voice quality goes to hell, etc. This is not to mention that if you need Gigabit for the file transfers, etc that your computers are doing, then voice quality is likely to go to hell whenever they initiate a major file transfer. I agree, your boss will judge the system based on is experience with it. So don't skim on the quality if you want to keep him happy. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Time Bandit wrote: 1.) User interface - The interface to the softphones is really less than ideal. This includes the problem mentioned earlier about not hearing ringing unless you have your headset on, dialing with the mouse, not having telephone service if your PC isn't on, etc. The traditional telephone interface of handset, dialpad, etc. is utterly pervasive and very simple and user-friendly. You lose that with a softphone. Well, not with all softphones. I build mine trying to reproduce my Nortel phone model 9316. Also, I wanted to use the softphone without using the mouse, so I made it so that you can dial with the numeric pad (using / for #), you can pick up a line by pressing F1 for line 1, F2 for line 2, etc. Want to hangup, just press ESC I received a lot of positive comment about it, and most people like the fact that it looks like and behave like a normal phone. I'm not trying to insult the interface that you folks put on your software, I was talking about the inherent differences between a physical phone and a virtual one. It is inherently better to pick up the hardphone handset and press the dialpad, rather than jiggle the mouse to wake up your computer/get rid of your screensaver/pull your monitor out of energy saver/ etc, find your headset, put it on, press alt-tab three times to bring the softphone app to the front, and then dial with the numeric keypad or mouse. Personally, omitting any sound quality issues, I think softphones would work well in a call center application, since the people aren't getting up from their desk, idle long enough for their monitor to shut off, or ever using a speakerphone (which you can't really do well with a softphone). However, if you ever get up and away from your desk, even if you fix the ringing sound only playing the headset problem, then you have to worry about rushing back to pick up your ringing phone and going through the whole scenario I was talking about earlier. Even in a call center, I still think that the cost of a Plantronics analog headset only phone and an ATA is a better investment than a softphone and a decent headset. (again, IMNSHO, a $5 headset just doesn't cut it for business use. Calling your girlfriend, maybe, but we want to project a quality, competent image to our customers, not It sounds like you are in a cave. Is there something wrong with your phones? You should really have that checked out! 2.) Quality/Cost - For good softphone quality, you HAVE to use a headset or external USB handset, etc. This is a pain, because users don't always want to use a headset, they want the choice. The other problem is that one of the main advantages of the softphone is that it is cheap, and paying for a good headset reduces that advantage (and you DON'T want to skimp on headsets). The other factor is that softphone quality depends on soundcard quality, etc. As a Mac shop, this ought to be a smaller problem. I agree on the point that the quality of the headset and the soundcard makes a huge difference on the quality of the call. But compare the price of a good soudcard/headset with the price of a Cisco phone and you will still have money left to go have a nice meal with your girlfriend. Agreed, but not if you compare the cost of the soundcard, phone, software install/maintenance, and headset with a $115 Polycom IP301. Don't forget that you have to install all of those soundcards, along with drivers, etc. as well as the software, while the Polycoms can be centrally managed via TFTP/FTP/HTTP/HTTPS, etc. The other thing to keep in mind is that your users, especially your boss, are going to be judging the Asterisk system, and you performance, based mostly on their interaction with the system. If their main interface to the system is a Cisco 7940G or Polycom 501, they are likely to be impressed because the new system gives them such major benefits, but doesn't require them to use funny computer phones, start up their PC to receive or make a call, etc. If they have to use X-Lite, then their reaction is likely to be This system works well, but I hate that I have to have my PC on, I have to dial with the mouse or numeric keypad, If software update is installing an update voice quality goes to hell, etc. This is not to mention that if you need Gigabit for the file transfers, etc that your computers are doing, then voice quality is likely to go to hell whenever they initiate a major file transfer. I agree, your boss will judge the system based on is experience with it. So don't skim on the quality if you want to keep him happy. This is why I think that it is worth the extra $50 or so for the cheaper hardphones. Even go for a budgettone or a Sipura SPA-841 if your budget is too tight for even the PolyCom 301. Install softphones in call centers, maybe, and definitely for occasional remote users and traveling laptops, etc. Do it right. Phones are
[Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
Hi again, folks. I've been getting feedback from this list and elsewhere that softphones are generally not considered good enough for hardcore business use. Can someone point me to where I can find more detail on this debate? Is the problem that the technology isn't mature, that the load on the computer is too high, or simply that it doesn't work well in a poorly designed network? Any time I mention VOIP and network, people tell me to make sure that I have QoS capabilities. If I do, and can tweak it appropriately, will that eliminate (or at least greatly minimize) problems with soft phones? I am really loathe to rewire my building, and I really have to move to gigabit for unrelated reasons, so I would like to be able to use the single gigabit port in every office to serve both the computer and the phone. That seems to mean either soft phones or putting a small gig hub in every office, no? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
Actually, most phones come with an ethernet port for the PC as well, so 1 in and 1 out, as to the Gigabit though, that may be a problem, as I'm not sure of any phones with a gig phy, maybe Cisco? Broadcom is making the chips, but I don't know if they are shipping in anything at this time... The main issue with the soft phone is that people expect their phone to work when their PC doesn't... Kinda hard to call tech support that way... Also, I think that unless you are an early adopter, it will probably seem like more of a pain. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Pastore Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:50 PM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS? Hi again, folks. I've been getting feedback from this list and elsewhere that softphones are generally not considered good enough for hardcore business use. Can someone point me to where I can find more detail on this debate? Is the problem that the technology isn't mature, that the load on the computer is too high, or simply that it doesn't work well in a poorly designed network? Any time I mention VOIP and network, people tell me to make sure that I have QoS capabilities. If I do, and can tweak it appropriately, will that eliminate (or at least greatly minimize) problems with soft phones? I am really loathe to rewire my building, and I really have to move to gigabit for unrelated reasons, so I would like to be able to use the single gigabit port in every office to serve both the computer and the phone. That seems to mean either soft phones or putting a small gig hub in every office, no? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?
Hi again, folks. I've been getting feedback from this list and elsewhere that softphones are generally not considered good enough for hardcore business use. Can someone point me to where I can find more detail on this debate? Search the list. there is been a lot of talk on this subject. Try google (with site:lists.digium.com) Is the problem that the technology isn't mature, that the load on the computer is too high, or simply that it doesn't work well in a poorly designed network? YMMV. I like the portability of a softphone, but sound may jitter because of other apps running on the computer. Any time I mention VOIP and network, people tell me to make sure that I have QoS capabilities. If I do, and can tweak it appropriately, will that eliminate (or at least greatly minimize) problems with soft phones? If you are on your LAN, it can help. But remember that when you get on the net, you don't control the equipment. I am really loathe to rewire my building, and I really have to move to gigabit for unrelated reasons, so I would like to be able to use the single gigabit port in every office to serve both the computer and the phone. That seems to mean either soft phones or putting a small gig hub in every office, no? Lots of VoIP phones come with 2 LAN ports : 1 for the LAN and the other to connect the computer. So no need to have a hub. And, avoid hubs, better use a switch. hth ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
