isn't that what forums like this and others are for? I know most users are
dumb as rocks and want others to do their work for them but If microsoft or
yahoo had any faith in the ease of use of their search platforms I don't see
how it would add anything cost. especially if the first support response was
an automated one that linked to a guide that explained how to properly
enable upnp an but also explained the default port numbers, the same info
that would be found in any article on port forwarding 101. I don't think
that a way to define a custom set of port is to complex if there is a reset
to default button in the settings.
as far as viop and vid conferencing go, the competitor, skype, works alright
with out properly forwarding a port for it.
but when you punch a hole in your nat routers firewall for it
it works better.
further more... with a fixed port assignment how are two people on the same
network going to voip or fileshare at the same time? even if upnp were to
dynamically forward ports as needed it cant forward the same port to two
places.
Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:15np81th6x8wm$.dlg@xxxxxx
Quote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:51:18 -0600, J_S wrote:
> Quote:
>> well for the technically inclined, why cant there be a little check box
>> for
>> upnp that is checked by default, and then a grey'd out advanced port
>> options
>> section for those whom upnp is not an option (ie. those it wont work for,
>> and those that don't want to use it. that couldn't be to difficult to
>> code
>> into the software, and would give them a feature that is missing in yahoo
>> messenger. (suffers from the same lack of port options.)
>
> Giving the user port options only leads to numerous service calls. MSFT
> and
> Yahoo! don't want to do anything which will trigger higher support costs.
> No
> user configurable ports is cheaper in the long run.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum