The last time I tried Skype's Internet telephony service two and a half years ago was a big disappointment: the software was easy to set up and use, but call quality was so poor it made the whole thing unusable.

At the time, I used a Yamamoto DeepRed USB VoIP phone connected to a desktop PC running Windows 2000 plugged into a 512Kbit/s DSL line.

With Skype to Skype calling I found it very difficult to hear what the person on the other end of the phone was saying and could not increase the volume no matter how hard I tried.

Making calls to UK landlines via the PSTN was even worse, with the volume problem exacerbated by a  terrible staccato crackling. And as for calls to mobiles, forget it - I would have heard less static using a 1930s wireless to call a long dead Antarctic explorer!

So it was with some trepidation that I decided to give the Skype service another go. But whether it has anything to do with the service's acquisition by Ebay or not, things have changed.

I used the same Yamamoto VoIP phone but this time plugged it into a similar spec notebook PC running Windows XP attached to an 8Mbit/s DSL line. The Skype software client is still very easy to install and use, but this time I could clearly hear what the person on the other end of the line was saying. Call quality to analogue numbers was also fine apart from a slight crackle, but there were no problems with volume.

My first guess is that the big improvement is probably down to the extra DSL bandwidth, but others tell me that VoIP call quality is not as reliant on data capacity as much as I might think. Better quality of service (QoS) parameters in Freedom2Surf's network may be a big factor, but Skype may also have upgraded its software codecs. I'd like to think that it has nothing to do with Windows XP, but I could be wrong there as well!

Admittedly, I'm not quite ready to drop my BT landline just yet - I'm tied into paying the line rental just to keep up the DSL anyway and how would I call an ambulance if I suddenly fell off a ladder(Skype does not support the dialling of emergency numbers)! But it is nice to know that after a previously bad experience, desktop IP telephony in the home is a workable communications solution after all.

Workable, but not necessarily cheaper because Skype does not appear to offer significantly better value when it comes to making individual calls. At the moment, Skype calls to UK landlines are charged at 1.4p per minute and UK mobiles 16p per minute. A full list of rates is available here http://www.skype.com/intl/en-gb/prices/callrates/.

The big bone of contention is that each call made attracts a further connection fee of 0.039 Euros or 3.9 cents, something that has incensed contributors to Skype's user forum and puts the service's comparative cost efficiency in doubt.

As for Skype video calling, I might give it a go in another two and a half years. But I worry that anybody seeing my face might instantly put the phone down ...

Posted by Martin Courtney on October 31, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

My partner – otherwise known as 'The Boss' – recently decided to invest in a laptop to help her work from home more frequently, and also to assist with a distance learning course she is currently studying for.

As the unpaid technical support, it became my job to help pick out a model that would meet both her needs and her budget. As always seems to be the case, this advice could be parodied as "buy the most powerful processor and the largest memory capacity you feel you can afford". Job done, I thought. Oh, but all the models she was interested in run something called Windows Vista – is that a problem? Not at all, I said.

How wrong can you get? The laptop takes an eternity to boot up, and seems to spend an inordinate amount of its time chugging away at the hard disk. Vista makes a brand new system with a 1.7GHz dual-core Athlon 64 processor and 1GB of memory feel like a Reliant Robin trying to climb a very steep hill.

The new user interface has also caused some difficulties. I'd grown accustomed to this after using the beta releases of Vista last year, but The Boss expressed her frustration at the disappearance of familiar landmarks as 'My Computer' and also her utter contempt for Vista's much-vaunted search facilities.

The lesson from all of this is just how easy it is for us techies to forget how daunting computers can be to those less familiar with it all. In this respect, I am coming to believe that Windows Vista is actually a retrograde step from earlier versions; the Windows 95 desktop was a huge advance over Windows 3.1 in making it as clear as possible to untrained users exactly what they had to do to find programs and other information.

By comparison, Vista's user interface seems to have been thrown together in a hurry by someone desperate to differentiate it from other operating systems and earlier versions of Windows.

Then there are the compatibility issues. The Boss has already run into problems with some applications she wants to use. But it's not as simple as Microsoft saying that a program will not work; instead, one particular application installs and runs fine, then in the middle of being used, throws up an odd bizarre error message that gives little clue about what might be causing the problem.

Small wonder, then, that businesses whose bottom line depends on their workers being able to actually get their job done have so far regarded Vista with a less than friendly eye. You might argue that all new versions of Windows have thrown up compatibility issues, but these were minor compared to the troubles Vista seems to have. I regularly use several handy little utilities that were designed for Windows 95 on my office system running Windows XP, for example, and they work just fine.

Based on this experience, My advice for businesses is; don't assume that your users will be able to operate Vista without some training, and don't even begin to consider migrating until every application you need to run has a Vista-compatible version available. Whatever some people might say, Vista is possibly the biggest ever change in the Windows platform, full stop.

Posted by Daniel Robinson on October 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (6)

Needing to build a test network in my garage and link it to another LAN in the house, I was recently faced with the problem of how to physically link the two locations.

I wanted to avoid drilling a hole in the wall to pass a Cat5 cable through if I could (the combined smell of mud, motor oil and fishing gear seeping into the house may have proved too much to bear), and a wireless bridge to the broadband router was tricky to configure.

Somebody suggested that the quickest and most convenient method might be a broadband over powerline solution that uses the domestic electrical wiring to transfer data. D-Link helpfully sent me its DP-301 Powerline HD Network Starter Kit (which costs around £90) and I set to work testing the thing to see if it could do the job.

The kit includes two Powerline adapters, each with an Ethernet port, that plug into standard electrical sockets. Configuration is a breeze; I attached one in the house to an Ethernet port on the broadband router that gives out LAN IP addresses via DHCP, and the garage adapter into an unmanaged gigabit Ethernet switch.

The LEDs on the adapter itself told me when I had an Ethernet signal and when the Powerline adapter had discovered its partner. A helpful, if basic, software utility helps confirm this.

Performance is hardly spectacular. D-Link quote 200Mbit/s, and I found throughput to resemble a 100Mbit/s Fast Ethernet connection, which is adequate for what I want. More importantly, I have not yet noticed any loss of connection due to fluctuations in the power supply or other electrical issues.

There is one fundamental problem that may deter anybody short of power sockets in either location though. The Powerline adapters worked perfectly when I plugged them directly into a wall socket - but not when I used a Belkin four socket Surgemaster power block, or any other electrical block or extension cord. Which is a bit limiting when you need to plug servers and storage devices in as well. 

D-Link does not mention this on its website support page, but it does stress that the two adapters must be connected to the same unbroken circuit. The company also points out that the 200Mbit/s maximum throughput is theoretical, and can be affected by 'power fluctuations, surges, EM interference or poor grounding'.

The other downside is my teenage son: having found out he can now plug the garage Playstation into the Internet, he's skipping college to play games online. So I often have to turf him out of the place before I can get on with anything at all ... then unplug the Playstation and the TV and plug the switch and server back in again.

Posted by Martin Courtney on October 17, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)