While many network managers would like to blame user bandwidth for low-quality streaming video, the real problem lies with the core technologies inside the streaming applications. Two years ago, when streaming video products were first introduced, they didn't justify the exorbitant cost. They offered no security, their management interfaces were virtually non-existent, and the codecs that the vendors licensed were not intended for use over a TCP/IP network. But streaming applications have reaped the benefits of major technological improvements since then, bringing developers closer to their ultimate goal of achieving 30 frames per second (fps) of live streaming video.

To view the Report card.
Which streaming video product is right for you? This is a tricky question, perhaps with no single answer, because there is no standard set of protocols for streaming audio or video (for more information on the World Wide Web Consortium's standard protocols for streaming audio and video, see www.w3.org/AudioVideo). If you're using streaming technology for an intranet application, you can easily require all users to have the same client. However, if you're implementing streaming technology for an Internet application you can only recommend--and not require--the client.

This leaves Web administrators with the responsibility of choosing the "right" streaming application, and places them in a bit of a quandary: Do you use just one product, limiting the number of users with access, or do you use several products, a far more expensive alternative?

Top Three Contenders We tested three streaming video products--Microsoft Corp.'s Windows NT Server NetShow Services, a beta version of RealNetworks' RealSystem G2, and Xing Technology Corp.'s StreamWorks Server--in our Real-World Labs® at Syracuse University. The results show that today's streaming video products have improved security and provided a higher level of management functionality, and in some cases, vendors are using codecs specifically designed for a TCP/IP network.

But despite the increased functionality, we were disappointed by the lack of consistency between vendors' encoding and serving components. The interfaces between the two components are so different it seemed as if the encoder components and server components were designed in isolation. The three streaming video products we tested will work well within an intranet, where the bandwidth is greater. But the codecs the encoders use have quite a way to go before streaming video over the Internet becomes a mainstream application.

RealNetworks' RealSystem G2 (beta) earned our Editor's Choice award. Its new G2 codec (designed in a partnership with Intel Corp.) shows vast performance improvements over RealSystem 5.0 codecs. RealSystem G2's server component presented the highest level of functionality, with remote administration that makes it easy to manage streams from a distance and built-in security that was second to none. Although the new codecs worked very well over modem connections, we were disappointed by RealSystem G2's performance over a high-speed LAN (RealNetworks attributed the problems to a bug in the beta code).

If you want a product that's easy to set up, and videostream security is not a top priority, you'll appreciate Microsoft Windows NT Server NetShow Services. It did a great job of streaming quality video over a LAN--until it encountered network congestion, which brought it to a grinding halt. We chalked this result up to the bandwidth-throttling technology that NetShow employs.