[WEB4LIB] Re: Shockwave, Instant Messenger, and Other Browser Add-Ons

[Dennis Moser]

In fact, part of the goal of Shockwave was to produce SMALLER files to
achieve the same effects while avoiding the bandwidth hogging...when done
properly, it succeeds unbelievably well.

Dennis
Dennis Moser, MILS, Web Librarian
John P. McGovern Historical Collections and Research Center
Houston Academy of Medicine-Texas Medical Center Library
1133 M. D. Anderson Blvd, Houston, TX 77030-2809
dennism at library.tmc.edu

"That so few now dare to be eccentric,
marks the chief danger of the time."
~~~ John Stuart Mill


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Poterala <potsie at bart.si.umich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at webjunction.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 1:58 PM
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Shockwave, Instant Messenger, and Other Browser
Add-Ons


>On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Donna Schumann wrote:
>>
>> I need a reality check. I know that many libraries do install the latest
>> plug-ins for IE or Netscape. Are our concerns about plug-ins using more
>> bandwidth unfounded? I'm pretty confident that Real Audio and Real Video
>> would eat up bandwidth, but I'm not at all sure about Shockwave.
>>
>> I'd appreciate any wisdom on this. Thanks!
>
>Real Audio and Video are definitely bandwidth hogs; Shockwave is a
>slightly different animal.
>
>The Real protocols stream content to the client browser "all the
>time", whenever someone's viewing audio or video, whereas Shockwave
>content is normaly downloaded to the browser once during a session and
>that's it as far as bandwidth hits.  Shockwave isn't a streaming
>technology like, so while some Shockwave files (games for example) can be
>large downloads, I wouldn't expect them to use up nearly as much bandwidth
>as browsers running the Real clients.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>Chris Poterala, web developer/project manager
>cpoteral at ford.com          -  Ford Motor Company
>potsie at alumni.si.umich.edu -  Public Affairs New Media
>Voice: (313) 594-0850
>
>