I wanted to know your opinion on this: (The condition below is based on a 10mbps server)
Technically speaking with a 350K Video file you can serve 29 users at the same time using the normal HTTP Streaming method. I know with a real windows media server it actually only sends out the only how much the user can handle thus saving bandwith. What I wanted to know is how efficient is the Windows Media Server? How many more users can it withold? I read the comparison on Microsoft.com already.
These are the current obvious advantages of having the real Windows Media server
1. Faster Startup- Videos play almost instantly.
2. User doesn't have to download the whole video before they can fast forward to a different part.
3. More connections on the same speed network than normal webservers.
Anybody have any experience in this that would like to chime in?
Thanks in Advance.

Sorry I can't answer your question directly but I'm not a fan of streaming servers. Here's why: They work by adjusting the speed of download based on feedback from the client. A great idea but in practice, if the client is behind a firewall that does NAT (Network Address Translation) like most home routers do these days, then the feedback info gets lost and the stream slows to a crawl. The customer experience can be terrible.

Oh I see. Never thought of that. It just seems that if you don't go to the real streaming servers you will never handle large audiences. For example Yahoo Music..etc.