5 ms·
If the host has at least tried the conference solution before the meeting it is usually ok for us, but that quickly become a specialized task that only one pers
by emj 7y ago
If the host has at least tried the conference solution before the meeting it is usually ok for us, but that quickly become a specialized task that only one person care about, when s/he is away there is a high chance of wasted time.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI think the rule is that the other conferencing system always works better than the current system until you buy it. Then they all seem to fail :) Right now we are using MS Teams which so far has been reliable. I am just waiting for the day when it becomes flaky too.
- jschwartzi 7y agoTeams actually works well for us too. My only complaint is about startup time and the consistent 2 or 3 second hangs that happen when I'm typing things sometimes.
- pasta-driven 7y agoSo for the n+1: For us there are lots of problems. Bluetooth headsets seem to make it nondeterministic if and how sound works. Sharing and videoconf have sometimes extreme bandwidth problems. People aren’t getting into the conference sometimes.
- bjelkeman-again 7y agoThe Teams UI on a Mac seems like a horrible abomination. Using it as a guest I have 45 sec startup time with a blank screen, no UI pieces visible other than a logo. I have lost the chat function and it is nowhere to be seen. The workspace is confusing. I could go on. I hope it is better on Windows, as on the Mac it is terrible.
- IggleSniggle 7y agoTeams is just using Skype for teleconferencing under the hood I believe. Unfortunately it has been terrible quality for my distributed team in comparison to other options. Results definitely vary!