new telecom plans

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by news.xtra.co.nz, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. 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.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Feb 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. news.xtra.co.nz

    Andrew Guest

    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.
    >
    >


    If you can never actually get 3.5MB with a 128k upload... wouldnt that
    be "another" prime case for the commerce commission
     
    Andrew, Feb 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:zK3Nf.322$...
    > 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)

    Thanks
    Craig
     
    Craig Whitmore, Feb 28, 2006
    #3
  4. "Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in message
    news:4404ca20$...
    >
    > "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote in message
    > news:zK3Nf.322$...
    >> 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)
    >
    > Thanks
    > Craig
    >


    i'll have to look up some stuff on the net to improve speeds.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Feb 28, 2006
    #4
  5. 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/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx

    Receive Window Auto-Tuning
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1105.mspx

    And a video interview with the team behind the next gen stack
    http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116349

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Feb 28, 2006
    #5
  6. news.xtra.co.nz

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > 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)

    >
    > 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/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx
    >
    > Receive Window Auto-Tuning
    > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1105.mspx
    >
    > And a video interview with the team behind the next gen stack
    > http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116349


    I'm assuming that this will also be addressed for XP in an upcoming patch?
    It's obvious from the above that Microsoft realise that XP has sub-par
    TCP/IP handling and surely they'll fix it? After all, some of us have only
    just forked out hundreds of dollars for our copies of XP.

    Cheers,
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 28, 2006
    #6
  7. news.xtra.co.nz

    Nova Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >> 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)

    >> 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/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx
    >>
    >> Receive Window Auto-Tuning
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1105.mspx
    >>
    >> And a video interview with the team behind the next gen stack
    >> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116349

    >
    > I'm assuming that this will also be addressed for XP in an upcoming patch?
    > It's obvious from the above that Microsoft realise that XP has sub-par
    > TCP/IP handling and surely they'll fix it? After all, some of us have only
    > just forked out hundreds of dollars for our copies of XP.
    >
    > Cheers,


    Considering how old XP is and MS haven't done anything about it and
    unofficial patches/tweaks on the internet for this have been around for
    ages I doubt MS are interested in fixing XP. It will be added as a
    reason to upgrade to vista I guess..
     
    Nova, Mar 1, 2006
    #7
  8. "Nova" <> wrote in message news:...
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >>> 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)
    >>> 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/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx
    >>>
    >>> Receive Window Auto-Tuning
    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1105.mspx
    >>>
    >>> And a video interview with the team behind the next gen stack
    >>> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116349

    >>
    >> I'm assuming that this will also be addressed for XP in an upcoming
    >> patch? It's obvious from the above that Microsoft realise that XP has
    >> sub-par TCP/IP handling and surely they'll fix it? After all, some of us
    >> have only just forked out hundreds of dollars for our copies of XP.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > Considering how old XP is and MS haven't done anything about it and
    > unofficial patches/tweaks on the internet for this have been around for
    > ages I doubt MS are interested in fixing XP. It will be added as a reason
    > to upgrade to vista I guess..
    >
    >


    he he they are too busy fixing security holes.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Mar 1, 2006
    #8
  9. On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:08:37 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > 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.


    In otherwords, the TCP/IP stack in WinXP was a dodgy piece of shite, and
    the only way to sort it out - to get it working properly to speed - was to
    dump it altogether and start again.

    Here's hoping that it doesn't contain any "critical" bugs or security
    flaws through which more worms could find their way in.


    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."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 1, 2006
    #9
  10. news.xtra.co.nz

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Nova wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >>> 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)
    >>> 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/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx
    >>>
    >>> Receive Window Auto-Tuning
    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1105.mspx
    >>>
    >>> And a video interview with the team behind the next gen stack
    >>> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116349

    >>
    >> I'm assuming that this will also be addressed for XP in an upcoming
    >> patch? It's obvious from the above that Microsoft realise that XP
    >> has sub-par TCP/IP handling and surely they'll fix it? After all,
    >> some of us have only just forked out hundreds of dollars for our
    >> copies of XP. Cheers,

    >
    > Considering how old XP is and MS haven't done anything about it and
    > unofficial patches/tweaks on the internet for this have been around
    > for ages


    Really? I'm interested.

    > I doubt MS are interested in fixing XP. It will be added as a
    > reason to upgrade to vista I guess..


    You've seen the hardware requirements for Vista I take it? I'm thinking that
    XP is going to be with us for a while yet or outfits like Dell are going to
    lose their budget range completely. The base of the pyramid. My machine is
    at least 2 x as powerful as a current entry-level Dell and it doesn't come
    close to Vista's hardware requirements.

    I think XP and Vista are going to have to co-exist for a fair while. That's
    if Vista is released this decade.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 1, 2006
    #10
  11. 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/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx
    >
    > Receive Window Auto-Tuning
    > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/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?
     
    wogers nemesis, Mar 1, 2006
    #11
  12. news.xtra.co.nz

    Allistar Guest

    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.
     
    Allistar, Mar 1, 2006
    #12
  13. 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."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 3, 2006
    #13
  14. 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."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 3, 2006
    #14
  15. 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."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 3, 2006
    #15
  16. 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."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 3, 2006
    #16
  17. 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."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 3, 2006
    #17
  18. news.xtra.co.nz

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, 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.
     
    Rob J, Mar 3, 2006
    #18
  19. 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."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 3, 2006
    #19
  20. news.xtra.co.nz

    Murray Symon Guest

    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".
     
    Murray Symon, Mar 3, 2006
    #20
    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. Ferg

    New Telecom plans

    Ferg, Oct 11, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    931
    Damon Nomad
    Oct 15, 2004
  2. Paul

    UBS & new Telecom plans

    Paul, Oct 25, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    547
    Mutley
    Oct 30, 2004
  3. Rob J

    New Telecom plans a rip off

    Rob J, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    691
    MarkH
    Feb 15, 2006
  4. hamstar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    311
    J Brockley
    Mar 20, 2006
  5. whome

    New Telecom ADSL Plans

    whome, Sep 24, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    772
    MaHogany
    Oct 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page