woosh versus Jetstream

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peter, May 19, 2005.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    Hi

    I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and at home
    (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at home.. Why is this
    as both connections are meant to be broadband?


    Cheers Peter
     
    peter, May 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peter

    SNOman Guest

    peter wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and at home
    > (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at home.. Why is this
    > as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >
    >
    > Cheers Peter
    >
    >

    Wouldn't there be a bigger latency on the wireless connection?
     
    SNOman, May 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peter

    peter Guest

    I hate that word latency..

    "SNOman" <> wrote in message
    news:d6gt9j$8rg$...
    > peter wrote:
    >> Hi
    >>
    >> I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and at
    >> home (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at home.. Why
    >> is this as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >>
    >>
    >> Cheers Peter

    > Wouldn't there be a bigger latency on the wireless connection?
     
    peter, May 19, 2005
    #3
  4. peter

    Marek Guest

    Because woosh is terrible. It's barely a viable alternate to dial up.

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:xrSie.1118$...
    > Hi
    >
    > I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and at

    home
    > (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at home.. Why is

    this
    > as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >
    >
    > Cheers Peter
    >
    >
     
    Marek, May 19, 2005
    #4
  5. peter

    CSE Guest

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:22:45 +1200, SNOman <> wrote:

    >peter wrote:
    >> Hi
    >>
    >> I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and at home
    >> (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at home.. Why is this
    >> as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >>
    >>
    >> Cheers Peter
    >>
    >>

    >Wouldn't there be a bigger latency on the wireless connection?




    Woosh is a Bad name more like Sloosh..

    Its a bit of a bad joke..
     
    CSE, May 19, 2005
    #5
  6. peter

    Shane Guest

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:31:40 +1200, peter wrote:

    > I hate that word latency..
    >
    > "SNOman" <> wrote in message
    > news:d6gt9j$8rg$...
    >> peter wrote:
    >>> Hi
    >>>
    >>> I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and at
    >>> home (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at home.. Why
    >>> is this as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Cheers Peter

    >> Wouldn't there be a bigger latency on the wireless connection?


    Ive learnt a new word a little while back that might be apt for this issue
    Jitter :)
    ie. not a smooth transfer of data, instead coming at all manner of speeds

    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, May 19, 2005
    #6
  7. peter wrote:
    > I hate that word latency..


    would you prefer lag?
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, May 19, 2005
    #7
  8. peter

    Alan Guest

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:xrSie.1118$...
    >
    > Hi
    >
    > I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and
    > at home (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at
    > home.. Why is this as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >
    >
    > Cheers Peter
    >


    Hi Peter,

    I have the same - Woosh at home and Xtra at work.

    Transfer speeds on Woosh are good as far as I need - I get around 30
    kb/sec average transfer rate.

    However, the speed on woosh varies more than Xtra. If I am
    downloading a file, that is a non issue, same for browsing / email
    etc. However, if you are playing an online game or watching a
    streaming video, I would imagine you'd have a problem.

    FWIW I have, so far, been very pleased with Woosh. No capital
    outlay for the modem ($200 for Xtra when I looked),
    no re-wiring or filters required, $30 a month for the speed above,
    seems fine to me, and I can put my laptop anywhere I like in the
    house and it works (subject to having a power point close enough
    since my Dell's battery life is now very short!)

    HTH,

    Alan.
     
    Alan, May 19, 2005
    #8
  9. peter

    peter Guest

    Woosh is certainly useful.... And it does work for me to have it as I have a
    cell phone, woosh and no home phone line , so there is a saving..Im not
    really complaining..But what I really need is a fiber optic connection to
    the back bone ;)




    "Alan" <> wrote in message
    news:O9Wie.1221$...
    > "peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:xrSie.1118$...
    >>
    >> Hi
    >>
    >> I view macromedia presentations.(video).Both at work (jetstream) and
    >> at home (woosh). The presentations are great at work but shit at
    >> home.. Why is this as both connections are meant to be broadband?
    >>
    >>
    >> Cheers Peter
    >>

    >
    > Hi Peter,
    >
    > I have the same - Woosh at home and Xtra at work.
    >
    > Transfer speeds on Woosh are good as far as I need - I get around 30
    > kb/sec average transfer rate.
    >
    > However, the speed on woosh varies more than Xtra. If I am
    > downloading a file, that is a non issue, same for browsing / email
    > etc. However, if you are playing an online game or watching a
    > streaming video, I would imagine you'd have a problem.
    >
    > FWIW I have, so far, been very pleased with Woosh. No capital
    > outlay for the modem ($200 for Xtra when I looked),
    > no re-wiring or filters required, $30 a month for the speed above,
    > seems fine to me, and I can put my laptop anywhere I like in the
    > house and it works (subject to having a power point close enough
    > since my Dell's battery life is now very short!)
    >
    > HTH,
    >
    > Alan.
    >
    >
    >
     
    peter, May 19, 2005
    #9
  10. peter

    Richard Guest

    peter wrote:
    > Woosh is certainly useful.... And it does work for me to have it as I have a
    > cell phone, woosh and no home phone line , so there is a saving..Im not
    > really complaining..But what I really need is a fiber optic connection to
    > the back bone ;)



    Woosh have caps so low they are laughable, and pings so high they make GPRS look
    good.

    Roll on naked DSL, that will save $40 a month
     
    Richard, May 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Richard wrote:
    >> Woosh is certainly useful.... And it does work for me to have it as I
    >> have a cell phone, woosh and no home phone line , so there is a
    >> saving..Im not really complaining..But what I really need is a fiber
    >> optic connection to the back bone ;)


    > Woosh have caps so low they are laughable, and pings so high they make
    > GPRS look good.


    surely nothing is that bad that GPRS looks good?

    > Roll on naked DSL, that will save $40 a month


    I doubt it will happen, and if it does, it'll be too late to help.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, May 19, 2005
    #11
  12. peter

    JohnO Guest

    Gotta agree with Woger here.

    I'm using woosh while inbetween house move/renovation and it sucks
    soooo bad. Brownouts, disconnects, outages etc are daily occurrences.
     
    JohnO, May 20, 2005
    #12
  13. peter

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:29:53 +1200, Richard wrote:

    > Woosh have caps so low they are laughable,


    Same caps as Telcom.
     
    Gordon, May 20, 2005
    #13
  14. peter

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:22:37 -0700, JohnO wrote:

    > Gotta agree with Woger here.
    >
    > I'm using woosh while inbetween house move/renovation and it sucks
    > soooo bad. Brownouts, disconnects, outages etc are daily occurrences.


    Where is "here" ?
     
    Gordon, May 20, 2005
    #14
  15. peter

    Richard Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:29:53 +1200, Richard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Woosh have caps so low they are laughable,

    >
    >
    > Same caps as Telcom.


    Yes, same as telecom.

    Orcon and ihug however, at least offer slow but unlimited dsl
     
    Richard, May 20, 2005
    #15
  16. peter

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >> On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:29:53 +1200, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Woosh have caps so low they are laughable,

    >>
    >>
    >> Same caps as Telcom.

    >
    > Yes, same as telecom.
    >
    > Orcon and ihug however, at least offer slow but unlimited dsl


    And in Orcon's case, that's slow (as in latency, as in games unplayable)
    even if you only average 2GB/month over the last few months.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, May 20, 2005
    #16
  17. In <> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Richard wrote:


    >> Roll on naked DSL, that will save $40 a month


    > I doubt it will happen, and if it does, it'll be too late to help.


    It makes the whole unbundled DSL thing look like a bit of a joke,
    doesn't it?

    Like Peter, I also have a wireless phone and no need for a landline. I'm
    not sure what Telecom charges for a landline but, from memory, I'm
    pretty sure it's around $30 and I understand that the going rate for
    unbundled DSL is about $40.

    That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while Woosh
    would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical issues
    that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to be much
    better value for my needs.

    --
    Regards, Alastair.
    Wellington, New Zealand
    www.alastair.geek.nz

    My supplied email address is fake. Any views expressed in this posting
    are personal and its content remains the property of Alastair. Alastair
    accepts no responsibility for any misinformation resulting from this
    posting.
     
    Alastair McAllister, May 21, 2005
    #17
  18. In <> Alastair McAllister
    wrote:
    >
    > Like Peter, I also have a wireless phone and no need for a landline.
    > I'm not sure what Telecom charges for a landline but, from memory,
    > I'm pretty sure it's around $30 and I understand that the going rate
    > for unbundled DSL is about $40.
    >
    > That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while
    > Woosh would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical
    > issues that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to
    > be much better value for my needs.


    Telecom charges $40 for a residential phone line.

    That's exactly the reason I've been using Woosh for the last 16 months.
    I live by myself and spend the day at work where I can use the phone
    there. The only reason I still had a phone line at home was for dial-up
    Internet access.

    The only major problem I have with Woosh is their atrocious lag problem.
    I don't play games online, but it makes Skype unusable.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 21, 2005
    #18
  19. peter

    PAM. Guest

    "Alastair McAllister" <> wrote in message

    > That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while Woosh
    > would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical issues
    > that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to be much
    > better value for my needs.


    And I guess, if you were flatting, woosh would be a good deal because you
    could up and move with your connection.

    PAM.
     
    PAM., May 22, 2005
    #19
  20. In <ar6ke.2102$> PAM. wrote:

    > "Alastair McAllister" <> wrote in message


    >> That means that DSL would effectively cost me $70 per month, while
    >> Woosh would only cost $40. On that basis, despite all the technical
    >> issues that Woosh appears to suffer, I would still consider Woosh to
    >> be much better value for my needs.


    > And I guess, if you were flatting, woosh would be a good deal because
    > you could up and move with your connection.


    It depends. If more than one person in the flat is using the Internet,
    then a more expensive fixed solution becomes more justifiable because
    the costs can be shared. However, if I were the only person in the flat
    using the connection, then Woosh would definitely start to look
    advantageous.

    --
    Regards, Alastair.
    Wellington, New Zealand
    www.alastair.geek.nz

    My supplied email address is fake. Any views expressed in this posting
    are personal and its content remains the property of Alastair. Alastair
    accepts no responsibility for any misinformation resulting from this
    posting.
     
    Alastair McAllister, May 23, 2005
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=

    Certification - MCP versus MCSA versus MCSE

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=, Aug 24, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    775
    =?Utf-8?B?TW9udHJlYWwgTUNTQQ==?=
    Aug 24, 2006
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    655
  3. Little Green Eyed Dragon

    TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma.

    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Mar 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
    Little Green Eyed Dragon
    Mar 2, 2007
  4. Toxickiwi

    Woosh to Woosh

    Toxickiwi, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    429
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    813
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page