Just thought I'd share my thoughts on this. Having taken some advice
from group readers I decided on a Linksys WVC54g.

It comes with a "desktop" type stand and the camera itself also tilts up
and down and can be turned left/right and has a manual focusing ring.
Performance is quite excellent in daytime and streaming the image across
the internet was no problem either, although I do have a 448k upload
speed on my broadband line, maybe it might not work so well on a 256k
upload. I set mine to max quality and 640x480 which is the cameras max
resolution.

In low light it fares less well obviously, but I will be using a very
low-power night light in the babys room and an old laptop in the living
room.

The motion detection built in to the camera seems to work OK, although
it takes a good deal of experimenting with the settings to make sure you
don't end up with 177 video clips in your email inbox as I did once!

Anyone else thinking of going for it, I'd be pleased to answer any
questions.
--
Regards
Jon

In low light it fares less well obviously, but I will be using a very
low-power night light in the babys room and an old laptop in the living
room.

No need to use a night light which may disturb the baby, use some infra-red
LEDs these will light the scene up a treat for the camera without disturbing
the sleeping one

Hellraiser................

Jon wrote:
Just thought I'd share my thoughts on this. Having taken some advice
from group readers I decided on a Linksys WVC54g.

It comes with a "desktop" type stand and the camera itself also tilts up
and down and can be turned left/right and has a manual focusing ring.
Performance is quite excellent in daytime and streaming the image across
the internet was no problem either, although I do have a 448k upload
speed on my broadband line, maybe it might not work so well on a 256k
upload. I set mine to max quality and 640x480 which is the cameras max
resolution.

In low light it fares less well obviously, but I will be using a very
low-power night light in the babys room and an old laptop in the living
room.

The motion detection built in to the camera seems to work OK, although
it takes a good deal of experimenting with the settings to make sure you
don't end up with 177 video clips in your email inbox as I did once!

Anyone else thinking of going for it, I'd be pleased to answer any
questions.
--
Regards
Jon


where did you buy it ?

The motion detection built in to the camera seems to work OK, although
it takes a good deal of experimenting with the settings to make sure you
don't end up with 177 video clips in your email inbox as I did once!

Um, I do hope you aren't actually monitoring your baby over the Internet at
the other side of town!

Christian.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:07:50 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote:

The motion detection built in to the camera seems to work OK, although
it takes a good deal of experimenting with the settings to make sure you
don't end up with 177 video clips in your email inbox as I did once!

Um, I do hope you aren't actually monitoring your baby over the Internet at
the other side of town!


monitoring your baby over the internet with a webcam?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...ught+cheat+web

Jon wrote:
Just thought I'd share my thoughts on this. Having taken some advice
from group readers I decided on a Linksys WVC54g.

It comes with a "desktop" type stand and the camera itself also tilts
up and down and can be turned left/right and has a manual focusing
ring. Performance is quite excellent in daytime and streaming the
image across the internet was no problem either, although I do have a
448k upload speed on my broadband line, maybe it might not work so
well on a 256k upload. I set mine to max quality and 640x480 which is
the cameras max resolution.

In low light it fares less well obviously, but I will be using a very
low-power night light in the babys room and an old laptop in the
living room.

The motion detection built in to the camera seems to work OK, although
it takes a good deal of experimenting with the settings to make sure
you don't end up with 177 video clips in your email inbox as I did
once!

Anyone else thinking of going for it, I'd be pleased to answer any
questions.

What is used to display the internet video? I've come across one of those
IP cameras whereby it won't display a video in Mozilla/Firefox due to the
software was only written for IE.
Alas the name escapes me.

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

declared for all the world to hear...
where did you buy it ?

dabs.com Ordered at 7.30pm on Tuesday and it turned up at my work at 9am
on Wednesday. Most impressive service.
--
Regards
Jon

declared for all the world to hear...
The motion detection built in to the camera seems to work OK, although
it takes a good deal of experimenting with the settings to make sure you
don't end up with 177 video clips in your email inbox as I did once!

Um, I do hope you aren't actually monitoring your baby over the Internet at
the other side of town!

Christian.

Well, we don't have a baby yet, but I will be most definitely monitoring
it over the internet!

The wife will be at home aswell though!
--
Regards
Jon

declared for all the world to hear...
What is used to display the internet video? I've come across one of those
IP cameras whereby it won't display a video in Mozilla/Firefox due to the
software was only written for IE.
Alas the name escapes me.

You can view it using IE, I don't have any need to try other browsers.
It uses activeX or Java I think. There's a viewer utility included on
the CD that it comes with, so if you don't have IE you can use this
viewer utility.

I'll open it up to the internet for a while if you like. It's pointing
out my front window at the moment. I'll disable this in a few hours
time. It's pretty dark so the pictures not good but you can see if it
works or not.

http://jonparker.plus.com:16384

username: guest
password: guest
--
Regards
Jon

declared for all the world to
hear...
In low light it fares less well obviously, but I will be using a very
low-power night light in the babys room and an old laptop in the living
room.

No need to use a night light which may disturb the baby, use some infra-red
LEDs these will light the scene up a treat for the camera without disturbing
the sleeping one

Tell me more...
--
Regards
Jon

Jon wrote:
declared for all the world to hear...
What is used to display the internet video? I've come across one of
those IP cameras whereby it won't display a video in Mozilla/Firefox
due to the software was only written for IE.
Alas the name escapes me.

You can view it using IE, I don't have any need to try other browsers.
It uses activeX or Java I think. There's a viewer utility included on
the CD that it comes with, so if you don't have IE you can use this
viewer utility.

I'll open it up to the internet for a while if you like. It's pointing
out my front window at the moment. I'll disable this in a few hours
time. It's pretty dark so the pictures not good but you can see if it
works or not.

http://jonparker.plus.com:16384

username: guest
password: guest

Yep,I was right won't work in firefox,only IE must have a lot of frustrated
people who have bought that cam.

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

The message
from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

Yep,I was right won't work in firefox,only IE must have a lot of frustrated
people who have bought that cam.

It does point you at another bit of software instead - perhaps that works.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

declared for all the world to hear...
Yep,I was right won't work in firefox,only IE must have a lot of frustrated
people who have bought that cam.

You can use the viewer utility that comes with it in that event. It's a
very small application.
--
Regards
Jon

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 06:20:52 UTC, Jon wrote:

declared for all the world to hear...
Yep,I was right won't work in firefox,only IE must have a lot of frustrated
people who have bought that cam.

You can use the viewer utility that comes with it in that event. It's a
very small application.

They are making the usual unfortunate assumption that everyone uses
Windows. There are several alternatives...
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 06:20:52 UTC, Jon wrote:

declared for all the world to hear...
Yep,I was right won't work in firefox,only IE must have a lot of
frustrated
people who have bought that cam.

You can use the viewer utility that comes with it in that event. It's a
very small application.

They are making the usual unfortunate assumption that everyone uses
Windows. There are several alternatives...

If someone using one of the alternatives wants to they can use the FTP
function to upload pics to a web server and view that.

Why is it that these minority users always think manufacturers should waste
money on doing specials for them?
You choose to use the minority products so you really should work out how to
get around the problems you create rather than expecting everyone to do what
suits you.
Its not as though you would pay for any software they did for Linux, etc. is
it?
It isn't going to significantly increase their sales either is it?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:27:59 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

You can use the viewer utility that comes with it in that event. It's a
very small application.

They are making the usual unfortunate assumption that everyone uses
Windows. There are several alternatives...

If someone using one of the alternatives wants to they can use the FTP
function to upload pics to a web server and view that.

Hardly the same.

Why is it that these minority users always think manufacturers should waste
money on doing specials for them?

They don't have to waste money - just do the job properly.

You choose to use the minority products so you really should work out how to
get around the problems you create rather than expecting everyone to do what
suits you.

A very blinkered viewpoint. But then...

Its not as though you would pay for any software they did for Linux, etc. is
it?

I never said I use Linux (and I don't - it's just a jumped up wannabe
UNIX, and I've had 30 years of that). I'm happy to pay for software and
products, but not if they're badly written and nonstandard.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:27:59 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

You can use the viewer utility that comes with it in that event. It's
a
very small application.

They are making the usual unfortunate assumption that everyone uses
Windows. There are several alternatives...

If someone using one of the alternatives wants to they can use the FTP
function to upload pics to a web server and view that.

Hardly the same.

Why is it that these minority users always think manufacturers should
waste
money on doing specials for them?

They don't have to waste money - just do the job properly.

It is a waste if it doesn't increase their sales and profits.


You choose to use the minority products so you really should work out how
to
get around the problems you create rather than expecting everyone to do
what
suits you.

A very blinkered viewpoint. But then...

Its not as though you would pay for any software they did for Linux, etc.
is
it?

I never said I use Linux (and I don't - it's just a jumped up wannabe
UNIX, and I've had 30 years of that). I'm happy to pay for software and
products, but not if they're badly written and nonstandard.

So using activeX which covers 90+% is doing it wrong.
What would you suggest they used to do it correctly?

So using activeX which covers 90+% is doing it wrong.
What would you suggest they used to do it correctly?

You mean apart from the big security black hole that is Active X?

Dave

"gort" wrote in message
news

So using activeX which covers 90+% is doing it wrong.
What would you suggest they used to do it correctly?

You mean apart from the big security black hole that is Active X?


Its only a problem if you load activeX programs from untrustworthy places..
this is the same as loading any other program on any OS
That is why root kits get loaded on Linux or Macs the user is by far the
weakest link in the security chain.. always has been and always will be.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:37:13 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"gort" wrote in message
news

So using activeX which covers 90+% is doing it wrong.
What would you suggest they used to do it correctly?

You mean apart from the big security black hole that is Active X?


Its only a problem if you load activeX programs from untrustworthy places..

A naive view. Even Microsoft ActiveX controls have had security issues
before now.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:37:13 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"gort" wrote in message
news

So using activeX which covers 90+% is doing it wrong.
What would you suggest they used to do it correctly?

You mean apart from the big security black hole that is Active X?


Its only a problem if you load activeX programs from untrustworthy
places..

A naive view. Even Microsoft ActiveX controls have had security issues
before now.

Lots of things have security issues..
Apache, sendmail, Mac OSX to name a few.
Its still the user that causes the problems in virtually all cases.

You do know that IE won't even run an activeX control unless you tell it to?
(Back to that user problem again!)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:55:13 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

You mean apart from the big security black hole that is Active X?


Its only a problem if you load activeX programs from untrustworthy
places..

A naive view. Even Microsoft ActiveX controls have had security issues
before now.

Lots of things have security issues..

Of course. But it wasn't me who claimed that only ActiveX controls from
untrustworthy places were a problem. I was simply pointing out that your
statement was very naive (and wrong).

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:55:13 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

You mean apart from the big security black hole that is Active X?


Its only a problem if you load activeX programs from untrustworthy
places..

A naive view. Even Microsoft ActiveX controls have had security issues
before now.

Lots of things have security issues..

Of course. But it wasn't me who claimed that only ActiveX controls from
untrustworthy places were a problem. I was simply pointing out that your
statement was very naive (and wrong).

If you don't want to run programs why have a computer?
Why do you trust the ones you use now?

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:22:56 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If you don't want to run programs why have a computer?
Why do you trust the ones you use now?

Because I wrote most of them myself.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:22:56 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If you don't want to run programs why have a computer?
Why do you trust the ones you use now?

Because I wrote most of them myself.

So you have tested them and all the runtime libraries and know they are all
safe?