Cable Modem: USB Quicker than Ethernet?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by The Animal, May 29, 2004.

  1. The Animal

    The Animal Guest

    Hello,
    On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem since I didn't
    have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with an Ethernet card and decided
    to try both. When using the Ethernet connection I got scores in the 2900s
    at Speakeasy.net, while using the USB connection I got scores of 3070 or
    above. Not a huge difference, but I always thought Ethernet was supposed to
    be faster than USB. Any ideas?

    Thanks for any help.
    The Animal, May 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "The Animal" <> wrote in
    news:O%2uc.9175$IB.8170@attbi_s04:

    > Hello,
    > On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem since
    > I didn't have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with an Ethernet
    > card and decided to try both. When using the Ethernet connection
    > I got scores in the 2900s at Speakeasy.net, while using the USB
    > connection I got scores of 3070 or above. Not a huge difference,
    > but I always thought Ethernet was supposed to be faster than USB.
    > Any ideas?



    If it sounds like, looks like, smells like, tastes like, etc.,
    bullshit - it prolly *is*!


    > Thanks for any help.



    If someone has that going on, what "help" could there be?

    Make 'em *prove* it before you give up any personal or financial
    information... always a good rule of thumb.
    Bucky Breeder, May 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Animal

    John Guest

    In article <Xns94F8869CAF324ZoneGraphics@216.196.105.138>, Bucky
    Breeder <> wrote:

    > I always thought Ethernet was supposed to be faster than USB.
    > > Any ideas?

    >
    >
    > If it sounds like, looks like, smells like, tastes like, etc.,
    > bullshit - it prolly *is*!


    What part are you suggesting is bull?
    Why do you suggest it is so obviously bull (sounds, looks, smells, etc.)

    > > Thanks for any help.

    >
    >
    > If someone has that going on, what "help" could there be?
    >
    > Make 'em *prove* it before you give up any personal or financial
    > information... always a good rule of thumb.


    Make who prove what?
    The OP is thanking people in advance for help they offer.
    There was no suggestion of giving any information to any other parties,
    let alone of personal or financial info.
    It was a 'thank you!'
    John, May 30, 2004
    #3
  4. The Animal

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "The Animal" <> wrote in message
    news:O%2uc.9175$IB.8170@attbi_s04...
    > Hello,
    > On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem since I didn't
    > have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with an Ethernet card and decided
    > to try both. When using the Ethernet connection I got scores in the 2900s
    > at Speakeasy.net, while using the USB connection I got scores of 3070 or
    > above. Not a huge difference, but I always thought Ethernet was supposed

    to
    > be faster than USB. Any ideas?
    >
    > Thanks for any help.


    the main difference is, USB emulates Ethernet.
    speed tests via websites are not reliable. net traffic is always changing
    and there can be a bottleneck anywhere betw your pc and the website.
    reliability is another issue, USB is still new and doesn't have the
    reliability as Ethernet.
    distance on USB cable length is much more limited than Ethernet. (5 meters
    USB, 100 meters Ethernet)

    then again, there are differences btw competing brands of ethernet cards.

    -a|ex
    127.0.0.1, May 30, 2004
    #4
  5. START: Snipped by "John"; Re-integrated by "Bucky Breeder" :

    >> "The Animal" <> wrote in
    >> news:O%2uc.9175$IB.8170@attbi_s04:
    >>
    >>> Hello,
    >>> On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem
    >>> since I didn't have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with
    >>> an Ethernet card and decided to try both. When using the
    >>> Ethernet connection I got scores in the 2900s at
    >>> Speakeasy.net,
    >>> while using the USB connection I got scores of 3070 or above.
    >>> Not a huge difference, but I always thought Ethernet was
    >>> supposed to be faster than USB.
    >>> Any ideas?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for any help.


    END: Re-integration of OP article


    > In article <Xns94F8869CAF324ZoneGraphics@216.196.105.138>,
    > Bucky Breeder <> wrote:
    >>
    >> If it sounds like, looks like, smells like, tastes like, etc.,
    >> bullshit - it prolly *is*!
    >>
    >> If someone has that going on, what "help" could there be?
    >>
    >> Make 'em *prove* it before you give up any personal or financial
    >> information... always a good rule of thumb.



    John <> wrote in
    news:290520041615457468%:
    >
    > What part are you suggesting is bull?
    > Why do you suggest it is so obviously bull (sounds,
    > looks, smells, etc.)
    >
    > Make who prove what?
    > The OP is thanking people in advance for help they offer.
    > There was no suggestion of giving any information
    > to any other parties, let alone of personal or financial
    > info.
    > It was a 'thank you!'



    Proves that *you* *are* an *idiot*, I guess.

    Hmmm. Pehaps you may routinely do that for yourself by just normally
    running-off at your mouth before you know WTF you're talking about.


    From the OP, [which *you* *conveniently* *snipped*]:

    "scores in the 2900s at Speakeasy.net"

    that equals: http://www.speakeasy.net/

    [*NOT* RECOMMENDING ANYONE VISIT THAT LINK]

    So, give them some information about you, especially YOUR IP ADDRESS
    when you HIT THAT LINK

    <huge do'h> DO'H </huge do'h>

    or fill out *their form*; buy *their* service; take *their* speed
    tests; and they'll *show* you something you *never* thought was
    possible, ehh?


    Here ya go:

    Dial up:

    >>------------------------------------------------>


    Broadband:

    >>----->


    Which PROVES you're wasting your money on broadband.


    *Anyone* who thinks, or attempts to say that a USB connection to a
    broadband modem could ever be faster or more efficient than an ethernet
    connection [given the same basic circumstances] is either so lost, or
    trolling for hits on a web site - or trolling for responses from people
    like you who don't have brains to put into gear before they initialize
    their anal-language-center responses. It's all about the same, ehh? Oh,
    or perhaps you simply thought you had a clear cheap shot? Do'h.

    The OP did *not* ask a legitimate question; and the "thanks" was
    disingenuous at best. This was either veiled SPAM, or such a devious
    way of asking a question, that I eliminate the latter (asking) because
    the article stated certain unrealistic circumstances as facts.

    You're the type of little botard that starts screaming "troll" and
    "plonk" in the middle of threads, before you know WTF you're talking
    about, ehh?

    BTW: this "snip and flame" style of trolling the newsgroups that you
    exude so succiently in your above response has tactical and stategic
    weaknesses. You need to read the entire discussion, and assimilate or
    comprehend what's going on before you come to any conclusions, much
    less publish them in an article directed to another response.

    In the future, if you have something to contribute, tell it to the OP.
    You want a fight with me, I got a can-of-troll-whoop-ass for ya. It's
    not my job to teach botards how to think, but I can damn sure train
    animals how to behave, and I am well able to see that your run-of-the-
    mill newsgroup troll-critter does *not* have a pleasent interaction
    with me!

    But, my guess is that you'll either change your nym, or you are the OP
    who is trying to generate some activity on your little website bait
    post, this is simply your little attack/snide/troll nym anyway, or all
    of the above.

    Thank you very much for any help.

    Whatever.

    And now the little troll-tard-clan can all advertise their "plonk"
    sentiments - because *that* *really* *bothers* *me* too much (not).
    Bucky Breeder, May 30, 2004
    #5
  6. The Animal

    The Animal Guest


    > From the OP, [which *you* *conveniently* *snipped*]:
    >
    > "scores in the 2900s at Speakeasy.net"
    >
    > that equals: http://www.speakeasy.net/
    >
    > [*NOT* RECOMMENDING ANYONE VISIT THAT LINK]
    >
    > So, give them some information about you, especially YOUR IP ADDRESS
    > when you HIT THAT LINK
    >
    > <huge do'h> DO'H </huge do'h>
    >
    > or fill out *their form*; buy *their* service; take *their* speed
    > tests; and they'll *show* you something you *never* thought was
    > possible, ehh?
    >
    >
    > Here ya go:
    >
    > Dial up:
    >
    > >>------------------------------------------------>

    >
    > Broadband:
    >
    > >>----->

    >
    > Which PROVES you're wasting your money on broadband.
    >
    >
    > *Anyone* who thinks, or attempts to say that a USB connection to a
    > broadband modem could ever be faster or more efficient than an ethernet
    > connection [given the same basic circumstances] is either so lost, or
    > trolling for hits on a web site - or trolling for responses from people
    > like you who don't have brains to put into gear before they initialize
    > their anal-language-center responses. It's all about the same, ehh? Oh,
    > or perhaps you simply thought you had a clear cheap shot? Do'h.
    >
    > The OP did *not* ask a legitimate question; and the "thanks" was
    > disingenuous at best. This was either veiled SPAM, or such a devious
    > way of asking a question, that I eliminate the latter (asking) because
    > the article stated certain unrealistic circumstances as facts.
    >
    > You're the type of little botard that starts screaming "troll" and
    > "plonk" in the middle of threads, before you know WTF you're talking
    > about, ehh?
    >
    > BTW: this "snip and flame" style of trolling the newsgroups that you
    > exude so succiently in your above response has tactical and stategic
    > weaknesses. You need to read the entire discussion, and assimilate or
    > comprehend what's going on before you come to any conclusions, much
    > less publish them in an article directed to another response.
    >
    > In the future, if you have something to contribute, tell it to the OP.
    > You want a fight with me, I got a can-of-troll-whoop-ass for ya. It's
    > not my job to teach botards how to think, but I can damn sure train
    > animals how to behave, and I am well able to see that your run-of-the-
    > mill newsgroup troll-critter does *not* have a pleasent interaction
    > with me!
    >
    > But, my guess is that you'll either change your nym, or you are the OP
    > who is trying to generate some activity on your little website bait
    > post, this is simply your little attack/snide/troll nym anyway, or all
    > of the above.
    >
    > Thank you very much for any help.
    >
    > Whatever.
    >
    > And now the little troll-tard-clan can all advertise their "plonk"
    > sentiments - because *that* *really* *bothers* *me* too much (not).


    Wow, never expected this. Not sure what I did that was wrong. I consider
    myself pretty knowledgeable about computers, but when an IT guy at work was
    mystified I was using a USB connection to my cable modem instead of Ethernet
    to my cable modem I decided to check it out (since I acknowledge I'm not too
    educated on the subject). Just posted what I thought was an innocent
    question. The thanks in advance was genuine, and thanks again to those who
    responded and gave information. Maybe I shouldn't have referenced the page
    I tested speeds on? I don't know where dial-up fits into this since I was
    not using dial-up at all. Sorry for any breach in netiquette, although truth
    be told I can't figure out what it was...
    The Animal, May 31, 2004
    #6
  7. Once upon a time, OK, it really happened on Mon, 31 May 2004 22:23:20
    GMT, "The Animal" <> claimed the following
    truncated trash was the absolute, fucking truth:

    >
    >> From the OP, [which *you* *conveniently* *snipped*]:
    >>
    >> "scores in the 2900s at Speakeasy.net"
    >>
    >> that equals: http://www.speakeasy.net/
    >>
    >> [*NOT* RECOMMENDING ANYONE VISIT THAT LINK]
    >>
    >> So, give them some information about you, especially YOUR IP ADDRESS
    >> when you HIT THAT LINK
    >>
    >> <huge do'h> DO'H </huge do'h>
    >>
    >> or fill out *their form*; buy *their* service; take *their* speed
    >> tests; and they'll *show* you something you *never* thought was
    >> possible, ehh?
    >>
    >>
    >> Here ya go:
    >>
    >> Dial up:
    >>
    >> >>------------------------------------------------>

    >>
    >> Broadband:
    >>
    >> >>----->

    >>
    >> Which PROVES you're wasting your money on broadband.
    >>
    >>
    >> *Anyone* who thinks, or attempts to say that a USB connection to a
    >> broadband modem could ever be faster or more efficient than an ethernet
    >> connection [given the same basic circumstances] is either so lost, or
    >> trolling for hits on a web site - or trolling for responses from people
    >> like you who don't have brains to put into gear before they initialize
    >> their anal-language-center responses. It's all about the same, ehh? Oh,
    >> or perhaps you simply thought you had a clear cheap shot? Do'h.
    >>
    >> The OP did *not* ask a legitimate question; and the "thanks" was
    >> disingenuous at best. This was either veiled SPAM, or such a devious
    >> way of asking a question, that I eliminate the latter (asking) because
    >> the article stated certain unrealistic circumstances as facts.
    >>
    >> You're the type of little botard that starts screaming "troll" and
    >> "plonk" in the middle of threads, before you know WTF you're talking
    >> about, ehh?
    >>
    >> BTW: this "snip and flame" style of trolling the newsgroups that you
    >> exude so succiently in your above response has tactical and stategic
    >> weaknesses. You need to read the entire discussion, and assimilate or
    >> comprehend what's going on before you come to any conclusions, much
    >> less publish them in an article directed to another response.
    >>
    >> In the future, if you have something to contribute, tell it to the OP.
    >> You want a fight with me, I got a can-of-troll-whoop-ass for ya. It's
    >> not my job to teach botards how to think, but I can damn sure train
    >> animals how to behave, and I am well able to see that your run-of-the-
    >> mill newsgroup troll-critter does *not* have a pleasent interaction
    >> with me!
    >>
    >> But, my guess is that you'll either change your nym, or you are the OP
    >> who is trying to generate some activity on your little website bait
    >> post, this is simply your little attack/snide/troll nym anyway, or all
    >> of the above.
    >>
    >> Thank you very much for any help.
    >>
    >> Whatever.
    >>
    >> And now the little troll-tard-clan can all advertise their "plonk"
    >> sentiments - because *that* *really* *bothers* *me* too much (not).

    >
    >Wow, never expected this. Not sure what I did that was wrong. I consider
    >myself pretty knowledgeable about computers, but when an IT guy at work was
    >mystified I was using a USB connection to my cable modem instead of Ethernet
    >to my cable modem I decided to check it out (since I acknowledge I'm not too
    >educated on the subject). Just posted what I thought was an innocent
    >question. The thanks in advance was genuine, and thanks again to those who
    >responded and gave information. Maybe I shouldn't have referenced the page
    >I tested speeds on? I don't know where dial-up fits into this since I was
    >not using dial-up at all. Sorry for any breach in netiquette, although truth
    >be told I can't figure out what it was...


    Since you snipped out who replied to this, all I can say is maybe his
    panties are in a knot up his ass. As for myself, I doubt that
    connecting up to a cable or DSL modem with ethernet or USB 2.0 would
    matter that much. The simple fact is that most broadband connections
    (at least in my section of the USA) don't go above 4 megs bits per
    second and ethernet (100 MBps) or USB 2.0 (400+ MBps) should have
    approximately the same through put. I would recommend that you use
    ethernet if your machine only uses USB 1.0 or you have a SOHO running
    as USB would be a bottleneck.

    Dr Harvie Wahl-Banghor


    ---




    Zittmutter offers McDougal some oral carnal knowledge in Message-ID: <>
    Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor, May 31, 2004
    #7
  8. The Animal

    John Guest

    In article <Xns94F97E83FD3DDZoneGraphics@216.196.105.138>, Bucky
    Breeder <> wrote:

    > *Anyone* who thinks, or attempts to say that a USB connection to a
    > broadband modem could ever be faster or more efficient than an ethernet
    > connection [given the same basic circumstances] is either so lost, or

    You find it hard to believe people could be confused about such
    technical issues? In a newcomer's group?
    I don't see the problem -- you could certainly have assumed that the
    question was exactly as asked -- which port to use for a broadband
    network adapter.
    You have no reason to attack people who answer that question just
    because you don't believe it's what he asked.

    > or perhaps you simply thought you had a clear cheap shot? Do'h.

    No, I was responding politely and correctly to a question asked in a
    help group. You have no reason to suspect attacks, cheap shots, or any
    other silly verbal game. Just answer it - politely if possible.

    > The OP did *not* ask a legitimate question; and the "thanks" was
    > disingenuous at best. This was either veiled SPAM, or such a devious
    > way of asking a question, that I eliminate the latter (asking) because
    > the article stated certain unrealistic circumstances as facts.

    Based on what? Why couldn't this have been a simple question?
    It's not like most ISPs are clear about their instructions, and
    newcomers rarely know the differences between some ports.

    > You're the type of little botard that starts screaming "troll" and
    > "plonk" in the middle of threads, before you know WTF you're talking

    No, I have never written any such reply. But then, you just did. You
    have attacked both the OP and my reply for no reason.

    > BTW: this "snip and flame" style of trolling the newsgroups that you
    > exude so succiently in your above response has tactical and stategic
    > weaknesses.

    Tactics and strategy? I guess you don't understand.
    The snipping of quoted text is for CLARITY and no other reason. So that
    people can show their reply to the passage to which it responds.

    > You need to read the entire discussion, and assimilate or
    > comprehend what's going on before you come to any conclusions, much
    > less publish them in an article directed to another response.

    I believe I understood the OP well. I simply chose to believe it was a
    prima facie question, rather than a tactic of sarcastic idiocy.

    > In the future, if you have something to contribute, tell it to the OP.

    My reply was to your message. I replied to your message. You read my
    message as a reply to your message. Where is the problem?
    Did you believe your message should be untouched, not part of the
    discussion?

    > You want a fight with me, I got a can-of-troll-whoop-ass for ya. It's
    > not my job to teach botards how to think, but I can damn sure train
    > animals how to behave, and I am well able to see that your run-of-the-
    > mill newsgroup troll-critter does *not* have a pleasent interaction
    > with me!

    You have established that beyond doubt. No need for schoolyard threats,
    silly language and idiotic metaphors. The only angry person, the only
    mean post, the only attacks, have come from YOU. Don't call me a troll.

    > But, my guess is that you'll either change your nym, or you are the OP
    > who is trying to generate some activity on your little website bait
    > post, this is simply your little attack/snide/troll nym anyway, or all
    > of the above.

    So much suspicion. It's silly and beneath someone who can use words of
    three syllables and choose a metaphor. I have done neither, you have no
    reason to suspect me, and I have never done ANYTHING of the kind.
    So now you have attacked someone who posted a correct message in order
    to help someone else -- is this really what you were trying to do?
    John, Jun 1, 2004
    #8
  9. The Animal

    John Guest

    In article <Xns94F97E83FD3DDZoneGraphics@216.196.105.138>, Bucky
    Breeder <> wrote:

    I didn't reply to this part because I didn't know what it referred to
    -- but I don't see any other thread or post for it, so I will:

    > > What part are you suggesting is bull?
    > > Why do you suggest it is so obviously bull (sounds,
    > > looks, smells, etc.)
    > >
    > > Make who prove what?
    > > The OP is thanking people in advance for help they offer.
    > > There was no suggestion of giving any information
    > > to any other parties, let alone of personal or financial
    > > info.
    > > It was a 'thank you!'

    >
    > Proves that *you* *are* an *idiot*, I guess.

    Because I believed the OP wasn't asking for financial information?
    Because I thought the message didn't have to be complete bull?

    > Hmmm. Pehaps you may routinely do that for yourself by just normally
    > running-off at your mouth before you know WTF you're talking about.

    Huh? wasn't the question about USB v. Ethernet connected to a broadband
    network adapter? Was any of my reply wrong?

    > From the OP, [which *you* *conveniently* *snipped*]:
    >
    > "scores in the 2900s at Speakeasy.net"
    >
    > that equals: http://www.speakeasy.net/
    >
    > [*NOT* RECOMMENDING ANYONE VISIT THAT LINK]


    This must be the part of the Original message that made you so very
    angry -- you suspect this person is trying to generate hits on this
    site, don't you?
    Isn't it possible that other people will not assume that, and reply as
    though it was a genuine inquiry? That is what I assumed.
    I also wasn't foolish enough to visit the site -- and the OP suggested
    here that you do NOT -- but apparently you WERE?

    > So, give them some information about you, especially YOUR IP ADDRESS
    > when you HIT THAT LINK
    >
    > <huge do'h> DO'H </huge do'h>

    I think most of the group knows that. Of course, most of us know that
    the IP address changes, and doesn't address any personal or constant
    information about the user, but that's another issue.


    > Here ya go:
    >
    > Dial up:
    >
    > >>------------------------------------------------>

    >
    > Broadband:
    >
    > >>----->

    >
    > Which PROVES you're wasting your money on broadband.
    >

    Perhaps -- if you had labeled these vague lines to mean anything.
    Or maybe you are referring to some graph on the site named.
    Again, since the site named is not part of the question, and it was
    even suggested NOT to visit, you probably needn't have gone --
    especially if you are a suspicious and angry type.

    Boy, I hope some of this clears up my reply for you.
    I think what you are trying to suggest really isn't about not knowing
    "WTF" I am talking about, but of being _naive_ about the intent of the
    original post. I wish you had stated that instead of getting angry and
    calling me names and threatening me.
    I was not being naive -- I simply chose which interpretation of that
    post I was going to use. No harm in that, and no reason to get angry.
    John, Jun 1, 2004
    #9
  10. John <> wrote in
    news:010620040044290420%:

    >[whining and drivel snipped]


    I said you don't know WTF you're talking about, and now you can prove
    it all you want.
    Bucky Breeder, Jun 1, 2004
    #10
  11. John <> wrote in
    news:010620040029296418%:


    >[whining and drivel snipped]


    I said you don't know WTF you're talking about, and now you can prove
    it all you want.
    Bucky Breeder, Jun 1, 2004
    #11
  12. John <> wrote in
    news:010620040044290420%:

    > I wish you had stated that instead of
    > getting angry and calling me names and threatening me.
    > I was not being naive -- I simply chose which interpretation of
    > that post I was going to use. No harm in that, and no reason to
    > get angry.



    I do *not* make "threats" you little faggot tard. Now this 3 days
    after you stuck your shitwit 2¢ worth into something before you knew
    WTF you were talking about. And you're still stalking me.

    I told you if you got something to say, you say it to the OP, not at
    me. I don't give a shit about you or what you think. And don't
    fucking tell me what's a reason to get angry or not.

    Now you need to **** off or you're gonna be upset for long time.
    Bucky Breeder, Jun 1, 2004
    #12
  13. The Animal

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Bucky Breeder mused:
    |
    | From the OP, [which *you* *conveniently* *snipped*]:
    |
    | "scores in the 2900s at Speakeasy.net"
    |
    | that equals: http://www.speakeasy.net/
    |
    | [*NOT* RECOMMENDING ANYONE VISIT THAT LINK]

    Speakeasy.net does sell internet access. Their speed tests are for
    Speakeasy users to test, and confirm their broadband speed. However, those
    test sites (located regionally through the US) can be used by anyone to test
    their throughput as well. There is no registration required, unless you
    want to check for Speakeasy.net service in your area.

    I use their test sites all the time from other ISPs, and it generally
    gives me a good indication of throughput relative to network/internet
    traffic. Honestly, I don't know what you are on about.
    mhicaoidh, Jun 2, 2004
    #13
  14. The Animal

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, The Animal mused:
    |
    | On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem since I didn't
    | have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with an Ethernet card and decided
    | to try both. When using the Ethernet connection I got scores in the 2900s
    | at Speakeasy.net, while using the USB connection I got scores of 3070 or
    | above. Not a huge difference, but I always thought Ethernet was supposed
    | to be faster than USB. Any ideas?

    Could be just luck of the draw in that particular test. You might try
    running a series of ten tests and generating an average. Likely the number
    will end up being the same. Granted, as you point out, a 170 Kbps
    difference is not grossly significant.

    However, the knock on USB connections I have always heard is that the
    USB bus' throughput is predicated on available system resources, and that if
    your system is taxes doing other things, the USB bus performance will drop
    much quicker than the PCI bus will (since it has higher system priority).
    So, a good test might be to tax your system on some RAM/CPU (but not
    network) intensive task while running the speed tests. I would wager you
    will see the USB connect rates drop off while the ethernet holds relatively
    stable.
    mhicaoidh, Jun 2, 2004
    #14
  15. The Animal

    The Animal Guest

    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    news:siqvc.36986$js4.34756@attbi_s51...
    > Taking a moment's reflection, The Animal mused:
    > |
    > | On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem since I

    didn't
    > | have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with an Ethernet card and

    decided
    > | to try both. When using the Ethernet connection I got scores in the

    2900s
    > | at Speakeasy.net, while using the USB connection I got scores of 3070 or
    > | above. Not a huge difference, but I always thought Ethernet was

    supposed
    > | to be faster than USB. Any ideas?
    >
    > Could be just luck of the draw in that particular test. You might try
    > running a series of ten tests and generating an average. Likely the

    number
    > will end up being the same. Granted, as you point out, a 170 Kbps
    > difference is not grossly significant.
    >
    > However, the knock on USB connections I have always heard is that the
    > USB bus' throughput is predicated on available system resources, and that

    if
    > your system is taxes doing other things, the USB bus performance will drop
    > much quicker than the PCI bus will (since it has higher system priority).
    > So, a good test might be to tax your system on some RAM/CPU (but not
    > network) intensive task while running the speed tests. I would wager you
    > will see the USB connect rates drop off while the ethernet holds

    relatively
    > stable.
    >
    >


    Great. Thanks!
    The Animal, Jun 4, 2004
    #15
  16. The Animal

    Mellowed Guest

    >>>>the USB bus performance will drop much quicker than the PCI bus will
    (since it has higher system priority).<<<<
    Ahhh, that is why my USB mouse is sometimes mushy. Is there anyway to
    increase the priority??


    "The Animal" <> wrote in message
    news:TuOvc.4299$%F2.3421@attbi_s04...
    :
    : "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    : news:siqvc.36986$js4.34756@attbi_s51...
    : > Taking a moment's reflection, The Animal mused:
    : > |
    : > | On my old system I used a USB connection for my cable modem since
    I
    : didn't
    : > | have an Ethernet card. Got a new system with an Ethernet card and
    : decided
    : > | to try both. When using the Ethernet connection I got scores in
    the
    : 2900s
    : > | at Speakeasy.net, while using the USB connection I got scores of
    3070 or
    : > | above. Not a huge difference, but I always thought Ethernet was
    : supposed
    : > | to be faster than USB. Any ideas?
    : >
    : > Could be just luck of the draw in that particular test. You
    might try
    : > running a series of ten tests and generating an average. Likely the
    : number
    : > will end up being the same. Granted, as you point out, a 170 Kbps
    : > difference is not grossly significant.
    : >
    : > However, the knock on USB connections I have always heard is
    that the
    : > USB bus' throughput is predicated on available system resources, and
    that
    : if
    : > your system is taxes doing other things, the USB bus performance
    will drop
    : > much quicker than the PCI bus will (since it has higher system
    priority).
    : > So, a good test might be to tax your system on some RAM/CPU (but not
    : > network) intensive task while running the speed tests. I would
    wager you
    : > will see the USB connect rates drop off while the ethernet holds
    : relatively
    : > stable.
    : >
    : >
    :
    : Great. Thanks!
    :
    :
    Mellowed, Jun 4, 2004
    #16
  17. The Animal

    John Guest

    In article <Xns94FB2263AE202ZoneGraphics@216.196.105.138>, Bucky
    Breeder <> wrote:

    > > I wish you had stated that instead of
    > > getting angry and calling me names and threatening me.
    > > I was not being naive -- I simply chose which interpretation of
    > > that post I was going to use. No harm in that, and no reason to
    > > get angry.

    >
    >
    > I do *not* make "threats" you little faggot tard. Now this 3 days
    > after you stuck your shitwit 2¢ worth into something before you knew
    > WTF you were talking about. And you're still stalking me.


    You still haven't shown that I was wrong about any part of it.
    You are still behaving badly.
    I am not stalking you. I am replying in the thread. I have done nothing
    outside this thread.

    > I told you if you got something to say, you say it to the OP, not at
    > me. I don't give a shit about you or what you think. And don't
    > fucking tell me what's a reason to get angry or not.


    This is a discussion group. I promise if you don't write any response
    to my messages, I won't write any further response.

    > Now you need to **** off or you're gonna be upset for long time.


    Another threat? Please, stop.
    John, Jun 11, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,016
  2. Jaap Hubert
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,186
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,072
  4. Joel Rubin

    Cable modem - OK on USB, not on Ethernet

    Joel Rubin, Jun 12, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    720
    Evan Platt
    Jun 12, 2005
  5. adsl pci modem, and adsl ethernet modem

    , Jan 16, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    684
Loading...

Share This Page