Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > new telecom plans

Reply
Thread Tools

new telecom plans

 
 
wogers nemesis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
On 28 Feb 2006 15:08:37 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:

> Craig Whitmore wrote:
>>> telecom are increasing my current plan to 3.5mbps download , and leaving
>>> upload at 128kbps.
>>>
>>> But, won't the upload speed inhibit the download speed. Because even
>>> downloading files required 2 way traffic right?
>>>
>>> I was looking at a speed test page, and it seems the tcp/ip overhead is
>>> about 10% of bandwidth.

>>
>> It is possible to get 3.5M, but maybe not in tcp downloads with Microsoft
>> Windows (with default networking settings). Stuff like UDP (video's etc)
>> will work fine (as UDP doesn't ACK)
>>
>> Windows by default has pretty bad net windowing settings and from the same
>> high speed connection I have tried win2003/XP/Mac/Linux and winxp always
>> get the slowest downloads by default (same connection, same file) (But this
>> can be
>> fixed by changnig some registery settings). (win98 is even worse)

>
> This is changing in Windows Vista and "Longhorn" Server
>
> Windows Server "Longhorn" and Windows Vista include a new
> implementation of the TCP/IP protocol stack known as the Next
> Generation TCP/IP stack. The Next Generation TCP/IP stack is a complete
> redesign of TCP/IP functionality for both Internet Protocol version 4
> (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) that meets the
> connectivity and performance needs of today's varied networking
> environments and technologies.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/its...w_network.mspx
>
> Receive Window Auto-Tuning
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...uy/cg1105.mspx
>
> And a video interview with the team behind the next gen stack
> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116349
>
> Cheers
> Nathan


Will it be open source?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Allistar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
news.xtra.co.nz wrote:

> telecom are increasing my current plan to 3.5mbps download , and leaving
> upload at 128kbps.
>
> But, won't the upload speed inhibit the download speed. Because even
> downloading files required 2 way traffic right?
>
> I was looking at a speed test page, and it seems the tcp/ip overhead is
> about 10% of bandwidth.


Are they calling it "broadband"? If so then that's a serious case of false
advertising. 128kb/s is NOT broadband.

Allistar.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:10:07 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:

> Windows by default has pretty bad net windowing settings and from the
> same high speed connection I have tried win2003/XP/Mac/Linux and winxp
> always get the slowest downloads by default (same connection, same file)
> (But this can be fixed by changnig some registery settings). (win98 is
> even worse)


Do you think that this was done deliberately by M$ in order to make its
"server" version appear to be better?

Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:08:50 +1300, someone purporting to be Have A Nice
Cup of Tea didst scrawl:

> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:10:07 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>
>> Windows by default has pretty bad net windowing settings and from the
>> same high speed connection I have tried win2003/XP/Mac/Linux and winxp

*SNIP*
> Do you think that this was done deliberately by M$ in order to make its
> "server" version appear to be better?
>

2K3 is one of MS's (note the use of an S, not a $) "server" products.
There was never a consumer release of Windows 2003.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:38:09 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:

> There was never a consumer release of Windows 2003.


It's all cut from the same development tree. By definition people who
purchase Window$ 2003 are "consumers". Micro$oft is the provider, and
its... customers - all those who purchase its bugware - are the
"consumers".


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:20:27 +1300, someone purporting to be Have A Nice
Cup of Tea didst scrawl:

> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:38:09 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>> There was never a consumer release of Windows 2003.

>
> It's all cut from the same development tree. By definition people who
> purchase Window$ 2003 are "consumers". Micro$oft is the provider, and
> its... customers - all those who purchase its bugware - are the
> "consumers".
>

You suggested that MS put a crap IP stack into the consumer versions of
its products to make the server versions look better. I'm pointing out
that the same issues existed in the most recent release of the server
software.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:37:19 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:

> You suggested that MS put a crap IP stack into the consumer versions of
> its products to make the server versions look better. I'm pointing out
> that the same issues existed in the most recent release of the server
> software.


I'm suggesting that all the various iterations and "editions" of Micro$oft
Windows are built from the same code tree. I'm suggesting that all
differences between all those "editions" are deliberately put there only
for marketing purposes.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:37:19 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
> > You suggested that MS put a crap IP stack into the consumer versions of
> > its products to make the server versions look better. I'm pointing out
> > that the same issues existed in the most recent release of the server
> > software.

>
> I'm suggesting that all the various iterations and "editions" of Micro$oft
> Windows are built from the same code tree. I'm suggesting that all
> differences between all those "editions" are deliberately put there only
> for marketing purposes.


Well duh, of course they share some core parts and functionality, just
like all Linux distros share things like the kernels and core libraries
produced by a few key distros.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:28:18 +1300, Rob J wrote:

>> I'm suggesting that all the various iterations and "editions" of
>> Micro$oft Windows are built from the same code tree. I'm suggesting that
>> all differences between all those "editions" are deliberately put there
>> only for marketing purposes.

>
> Well duh, of course they share some core parts and functionality, just
> like all Linux distros share things like the kernels and core libraries
> produced by a few key distros.


Micro$oft Windows - all "editions" of them, are built from the one code
tree, and all differences between them are deliberately put there by
Micro$oft for marketing purposes. They share more than "some core parts
and functionality" - they are substantially the same.

Remember, that NT 4, and NT4.1 (2000) and NT5 (XP) are built from the same
tree. "Server 2003" is merely another branch cut from further up the
development tree. "Vi$ta" is the same.

BTW, what is the real name of Windows Vista? You know, the one that M$
Windows identifies itself as being?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Murray Symon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2006
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 10:21:45 +1300, Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> BTW, what is the real name of Windows Vista? You know, the one that M$
> Windows identifies itself as being?



I think Microsoft have announced that it will be "Windows Vista".

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Test plans and "refined test plans" DZantow Python 0 12-20-2011 06:24 PM
New Telecom plans, are they really faster by TCP? hamstar NZ Computing 3 03-20-2006 09:38 AM
New Telecom plans a rip off Rob J NZ Computing 20 02-15-2006 07:17 PM
UBS & new Telecom plans Paul NZ Computing 14 10-29-2004 11:26 PM
New Telecom plans Ferg NZ Computing 34 10-15-2004 04:50 AM



Advertisments