[muglo] Re: ISPs
- From: Larry Kryski <lskryski@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:44:04 -0400
Eric,
I have the feeling that these vast speed inferences are coming from the
confusion between KB/sec and Kb/sec.. Note that 1 KB of data equals 10 Kb o=
f
data in this scenario (overhead being taken into consideration). If you
apply these numbers to the numbers below, then all the figures fall within
your theoretical limits for cable and all is well.
The best speeds that I have seen on my system, using Rogers, was 3.2 Mb/sec
(3200 Kb/sec or 320 KB/sec.) This was downloading MP3s under Napster, from
T3 sources. MP3s were taking typically 10 to 11 sec. to download. Their
sizes were typically in the 3 to 3.5 MB size.
Downloading MP3s from three T3 sources simultaneously, it was physically
impossible for me to keep all three downloads operating simultaneously. In
other words, I couldn=B9t physically switch windows, find a song, select it
and start it downloading before before one of the three sources I had open
was finished downloading. Being able to download at that speed, is somewhat
elating. :-)
Larry
> From: "Eric D." <hideme666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:07:14 -0400
> To: <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [muglo] Re: ISPs
>=20
>=20
> on 25/8/02 16:10, Eurogarth at eurogarth@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>=20
>> Ditto, Eric, ditto!
>>=20
>> Even on it's slowest day (around 128KB/sec) my Rogers is faster than any
>> dial-up! On a normal day (500-1200KB/sec) no contest, and I don't want t=
o
>> even tell you about the good and REAL good days!
>>=20
>> Best way I've found to check connection speed is the following link
>>=20
>> http://www.borderlineups.com/paclive.htm
>>=20
>> ...it's a traffic camera at a border crossing way out in BC on an
>> independent network... click on the "live, normal size" and that's real-=
time
>> traffic you're seeing. The jerkier the traffic the slower your speed.
>>=20
>> Eurogarth.
>=20
> 1200 KBytes/sec???? Holy smokes you connection must be smoking (I don't
> think it's possible with cable ;).
>=20
> I can't even get 1200 k/sec out of my T3 connection :( (cry me a river
> Eric... I shouldn't complain ;) -- max theoretical throughput for everyth=
ing
> over a 10 BaseT connection at full blast (my hub is limiting factor) is 1=
280
> KByte/sec (10 megabit/sec for 10 BaseT). You have to factor in at least 1=
0%
> overhead for TCP/IP and ethernet packets and you're down to ~1000 KByte/s=
ec
> at the theoretical max. I can only get my software to report megabyte/sec
> range d/ls (>1024 KByte/sec) when transferring files from mcgill's ftp
> server (ironically U of Ts own servers tend to max out at 400-600 K/sec o=
n
> big file transfers... I think the aerial photo server I use isn't a very
> heavy duty web server :(
>=20
> Fastest I ever saw on Rogers was 250-300 K/sec (burst) & 200 K/sec
> (sustained) in London and 400 K/sec (burst) & 300 K/sec sustained (you ca=
n
> watch live video with that) in Scarborough.
>=20
> PS I don't know if this'll apply to you but on-line QuickTime streaming o=
f
> CBC Radio 2 is amazing! The quality of Radio 2 is as good (if not better)
> than receiving it over the air (especially if you're in a poor reception
> area). Radio 1 is passable for listening but by far not as crisp as Radio=
2
> on the web.
>=20
> Eric.
>=20
> I'll have to check out that web site. It's kind of cool... you can watch =
the
> cars move realtime (& IE unfortunately re-loads the whole page each time =
so
> it doesn't work... Chimera does it quite nicely... chimera.mozdev.org It'=
s a
> bare-bones browser based off the Mozilla display engine. It's fast, it's
> simple, quite stable and doesn't have all the *crap* that Netscrape has
> incorporated since version 4... & unfortunately for OS 9 users, it's OS
> X-only).
>=20
> With a bit of tweaking Chimera will produce a browser that can realistica=
lly
> usurp IE 5.1 for OS 9 as the best Mac browser (&, dare I say so, best
> browser on *any* platform) (the OS X version of IE 5.2 is a stability
> downgrade from OS X IE 5.1.5)... IE 5.1 for OS 9 is the best all-round
> browser for the Mac that ever was (sorry Netscape fans... I've compared t=
hem
> all and it's the all-round winner... it's SMALL, its RAM footprint is *ti=
ny*
> compared to *all* versions of Netscape/Mozilla (even with 576 MB of RAM
> Netscrape 4.7.9/6.2.3 have caused memory problems), it is *much* more sta=
ble
> than Netscape 6.2.3/Mozilla (& even more stable than 4.7.9) (though, for
> simple web browsing 4.7.9 holds up Ok), its interface is hands down more
> refined (command-click to move windows anyone, command-b to show/hide
> toolbars, command-~ to cycle through windows... I think that the Mozilla
> coders are avoiding command-click to move windows simply because it was a
> Micro$oft innovation and they don't want to admit that M$ did something
> amazingly right), it has a history that WORKS (in 10 years Netscape faile=
d
> to create a functioning history)). PS Opera does a good job of being a
> top-notch OS 9 browser too (their OS X version needs some work to bring i=
t
> out of beta status) -- small, fast, stable, run circles around
> Netscrape/Mozilla for RAM requirements, has all the good stuff of M$ IE,
> *and* has very easy turn-on/turn-off/show-loaded of images (especially
> useful if you're suffering with dial-up internet access).
>=20
> (though, IE 5.5 for Winblows is pretty damn good (perhaps the best browse=
r
> on any platform) too... on a PI/166 Win 95 it regularly (more often than
> not) out-performs *all* the browsers on my G3/450 (I like/demand INSTANT
> web-page display, none of this spinning beach ball/spinning cursor crap w=
e
> get with Mac OS), in both OS 9 and OS X (why would a slow Pentium running
> Win 95 and IE 5.5 perform better than a computer 4x as fast and with 14 x
> the amount of RAM (576 vs 40)).
>=20
> The *one* thing that Chimera needs is command-click to move the window
> around... if it gets that it'll become my default browser post-haste (& i=
t's
> only at v 0.40... when it gets command-click it'll be ready to be used as=
a
> real web browser).
>=20
> Eric.
>=20
> <oops... too much procrastinating and ranting me thinks>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Users can subscribe to the List by sending an email to
> <muglo-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'subscribe' in the Subject field
>=20
> Users can unsubscribe from the List by sending an email to
> <muglo-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>=20
> Users must send messages or replies to <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>=20
> All messages are archived so that you can view them at any time by
> going to <//www.freelists.org/archives/muglo>
>=20
> Problems concerning use of the FreeList should be sent to
> <paulthomas@xxxxxxx>
>=20
> Don't forget to periodically check our web site at:
>=20
> http://muglo.on.ca/
>=20
Users can subscribe to the List by sending an email to
<muglo-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'subscribe' in the Subject field
Users can unsubscribe from the List by sending an email to
<muglo-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
Users must send messages or replies to <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All messages are archived so that you can view them at any time by
going to <//www.freelists.org/archives/muglo>
Problems concerning use of the FreeList should be sent to
<paulthomas@xxxxxxx>
Don't forget to periodically check our web site at:
http://muglo.on.ca/
Other related posts:
