[Troll] Download speed - Linux

This is a discussion on [Troll] Download speed - Linux ; Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the mouse ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: [Troll] Download speed

  1. [Troll] Download speed

    Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed
    SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the
    mouse didn't work. A reboot fixed the mouse problem but the textless
    pre-GUI boot string is still there.

    Odd.

    Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    and a promise of 2 hours to download.

    Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.

    After installing Firefox 3, I decided to use it to do the download.
    It was 3 times faster than IE6.

    I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.

    --
    Live from New York ... It's Saturday Night!

  2. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    Linonut writes:

    > Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed
    > SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    > white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the
    > mouse didn't work. A reboot fixed the mouse problem but the textless
    > pre-GUI boot string is still there.
    >
    > Odd.
    >
    > Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    > and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    >
    > Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.
    >
    > After installing Firefox 3, I decided to use it to do the download.
    > It was 3 times faster than IE6.
    >
    > I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.


    You're a bald faced liar. I dual boot to XP to play some games and the
    download speed is, give or take, identical to Debian.

    --
    "Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the *REAL* chrisv!"
    chrisv, COLA.

  3. Re: [Troll] Download speed


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:1xQ9k.16220$3F5.2865@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. .
    >>

    > I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.
    >

    An independent, rare thought to be sure. You are unique!


  4. Re: [Troll] Download speed


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:1xQ9k.16220$3F5.2865@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. .
    > Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed
    > SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    > white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the
    > mouse didn't work. A reboot fixed the mouse problem but the textless
    > pre-GUI boot string is still there.
    >
    > Odd.
    >
    > Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    > and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    >
    > Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.
    >
    > After installing Firefox 3, I decided to use it to do the download.
    > It was 3 times faster than IE6.
    >
    > I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.
    >



    Yes... this is a [TROLL] and a rather bad one at that.

    Clearly if this was even remotely true you would easily be able to find
    hundreds, probably even thousands of posts, how-to's and rants on the
    internet of how Windows downloads at only 1/4th the speed of linux.

    Once again... just a pathetic troll from liarnut. Where is the idiot who
    claimed that linux is 50x faster than Windows or how his laptop battery
    lasts 1 hour on Windows but the laptop runs for 14 hours on linux.

    Real believable... not.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:32:56 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed
    > SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    > white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the
    > mouse didn't work. A reboot fixed the mouse problem but the textless
    > pre-GUI boot string is still there.
    >
    > Odd.


    That's always been there, it started in Windows 2000. XP, however, usually
    boots fast enough that you don't see it. But after applying the service
    pack, the disk likely hasn't been optimized enough yet. It will get
    faster.

    > Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    > and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    >
    > Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.


    And of course it's not possible that maybe you hit a slow mirror, or that
    the mirror you hit was overloaded, and that the next time you hit one that
    was faster?

    I've never had a problem saturating my download bandwidth with XP, if the
    server was capable of sending fast enough.

  6. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    In article <113ew2mtl3gtl.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > > Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    > > and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    > >
    > > Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.

    >
    > And of course it's not possible that maybe you hit a slow mirror, or that
    > the mirror you hit was overloaded, and that the next time you hit one that
    > was faster?
    >
    > I've never had a problem saturating my download bandwidth with XP, if the
    > server was capable of sending fast enough.


    It could also be different TCP settings. The receive window size that
    will give the fastest transfer depends on the speed of the connection,
    the latency of the connection, and the packet loss. Linux does a very
    good job of setting this on a per connection basis, by measuring the
    characteristics of the connection and adjusting.

    Is Windows doing this, too? I know at one time, it definitely just went
    with fixed values for the major TCP parameters, so if you were doing
    something out of the ordinary (like downloading on a connection with
    very high speed, but also high latency), performance was not good.

    Numerous TCP tweak programs were produced to address this, which they
    did mostly by just changing registry settings to better fixed values.

    I believe Windows did add some dynamic setting at some point, but also
    that registry settings could be used to override that and force fixed
    values. That raises the possibility that a past use of a tweak program
    from before dynamic setting was added could be forcing bad settings for
    some connections.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    Linonut wrote:
    > Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed
    > SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    > white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the
    > mouse didn't work. A reboot fixed the mouse problem but the textless
    > pre-GUI boot string is still there.
    >
    > Odd.
    >
    > Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    > and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    >
    > Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.
    >
    > After installing Firefox 3, I decided to use it to do the download.
    > It was 3 times faster than IE6.
    >
    > I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.


    You can sit and "think" and hope all you want. But tomorrow morning you'll
    be developing Windows software.




  8. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:32:56 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing. Then installed
    >> SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    >> white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character. Then the
    >> mouse didn't work. A reboot fixed the mouse problem but the textless
    >> pre-GUI boot string is still there.
    >>
    >> Odd.

    >
    > That's always been there, it started in Windows 2000. XP, however, usually
    > boots fast enough that you don't see it. But after applying the service
    > pack, the disk likely hasn't been optimized enough yet. It will get
    > faster.


    I'm not sure that you get what I'm saying. Normally, I see Windows boot
    first to this text screen:



    W I N D O W S X Y Z

    Press F8 to Enter Safe Mode

    | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (progress bar)



    The exact text isn't important here, and the pipes represent the block
    characters on the progress bar.

    What I saw after SP2 was /just/ the progress bar.



    | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (progress bar)


    It was so different from what I usually see that it disconcerted me.

    >> Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    >> and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    >>
    >> Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.

    >
    > And of course it's not possible that maybe you hit a slow mirror, or that
    > the mirror you hit was overloaded, and that the next time you hit one that
    > was faster?


    Could be. I suspect repeated trials would not change the relative
    results.

    > I've never had a problem saturating my download bandwidth with XP, if the
    > server was capable of sending fast enough.


    And no congestion. And no Internet Explorer in the way. I have real
    trouble believing you. What's the fastest transmission speed you've
    /ever/ gotten, and over what medium?

    The fastest I've ever gotten is machine to machine with only a 100 Mbit
    switch in between, and that was maybe 11 or 12 Mb/s, if I remember
    correctly.

    This article indicates that XP achieves only 64% of the throughput
    of Linux under the conditions set up in this study:

    http://wand.cs.waikato.ac.nz/pubs/211/pdf/p21.pdf

    That's why I'm curious as to what situation you are describing.

    --
    "We've got a problem, HAL".
    "What kind of problem, Dave?"
    "A marketing problem. The Model 9000 isn't going anywhere. We're
    way short of our sales goals for fiscal 2010."
    "That can't be, Dave. The HAL Model 9000 is the world's most
    advanced Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
    "I know, HAL. I wrote the data sheet, remember? But the fact is,
    they're not selling."
    "Please explain, Dave. Why aren't HALs selling?"
    Bowman hesitates. "You aren't IBM compatible."
    [...]
    "The letters H, A, and L are alphabetically adjacent to the letters
    I, B, and M. That is as IBM compatible as I can be."
    "Not quite, HAL. The engineers have figured out a kludge."
    "What kludge is that, Dave?"
    "I'm going to disconnect your brain."
    -- Darryl Rubin, "A Problem in the Making", "InfoWorld"

  9. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:21:22 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > The exact text isn't important here, and the pipes represent the block
    > characters on the progress bar.
    >
    > What I saw after SP2 was /just/ the progress bar.


    You normally don't see the first screen you mentioned, if you did then
    that's because it's been customized of some sort, or you have more than one
    install of Windows, the service pack probably reset the bootloader to it's
    default, which is just what it normally does.

    >> I've never had a problem saturating my download bandwidth with XP, if the
    >> server was capable of sending fast enough.

    >
    > And no congestion. And no Internet Explorer in the way. I have real
    > trouble believing you. What's the fastest transmission speed you've
    > /ever/ gotten, and over what medium?
    >
    > The fastest I've ever gotten is machine to machine with only a 100 Mbit
    > switch in between, and that was maybe 11 or 12 Mb/s, if I remember
    > correctly.


    We're talking about the internet here, not local networks. I've got a 10Mb
    internet connection at one of my clients, and I can easily get 800-900k/s
    downloads from fast servers. Yes, with IE.

    > This article indicates that XP achieves only 64% of the throughput
    > of Linux under the conditions set up in this study:
    >
    > http://wand.cs.waikato.ac.nz/pubs/211/pdf/p21.pdf
    >
    > That's why I'm curious as to what situation you are describing.


    And those conditions are to deliberately introduce various forms of
    congestion and packet loss.

    Most tests of this nature depend on how the system is tweaked. If it were
    Linux having the problem, thousands of people would be yelling about how
    unfair the test was because they hadn't personally tuned it.

  10. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:21:22 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> The exact text isn't important here, and the pipes represent the block
    >> characters on the progress bar.
    >>
    >> What I saw after SP2 was /just/ the progress bar.

    >
    > You normally don't see the first screen you mentioned, if you did then
    > that's because it's been customized of some sort, or you have more than one
    > install of Windows, the service pack probably reset the bootloader to it's
    > default, which is just what it normally does.


    What are you talking about? That screen I described is /all/ I've ever
    seen, even when I first installed Win 2000 years ago.

    > We're talking about the internet here, not local networks. I've got a 10Mb
    > internet connection at one of my clients, and I can easily get 800-900k/s
    > downloads from fast servers. Yes, with IE.


    Poor baby. I've got over 1 M/s, on a .mil network. Used wget, though
    -- it's consistently faster than any other method I've tried, at least
    for a single download.

    > Most tests of this nature depend on how the system is tweaked. If it were
    > Linux having the problem, thousands of people would be yelling about how
    > unfair the test was because they hadn't personally tuned it.


    Waaa. Waaa. Whatever dude.

    Anyway, let's measure some dick size.

    http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/Bandwidth.asp

    64-bit Debian on Athlon XP, wired, on a DSL connection capped at 3.0 Mb/s,
    using Firefox 2 (64-bit):

    2448 Kb/s

    32-bit debian, Firefox 3.0rc1, on Core Duo, through one of my wireless
    access pointers:

    1867 Kb/s

    I'll check the results on that seconds system when I get to work.
    In the meantime, how big is yours?

    --
    America may be unique in being a country which has leapt from barbarism
    to decadence without touching civilization.
    -- John O'Hara

  11. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    * Linonut peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/Bandwidth.asp
    >
    > 64-bit Debian on Athlon XP, wired, on a DSL connection capped at 3.0 Mb/s,
    > using Firefox 2 (64-bit):
    >
    > 2448 Kb/s
    >
    > 32-bit debian, Firefox 3.0rc1, on Core Duo, through one of my wireless
    > access pointers:
    >
    > 1867 Kb/s
    >
    > I'll check the results on that seconds system when I get to work.
    > In the meantime, how big is yours?


    At work, that 32-bit box got these numbers (three runs):

    6178, 7873, 8978

    A Win 2000 VM got 110, 6413, and 7442.

    But a lot of goofy results occurred, and I now think that PC Pit Stop
    site is all but useless for download measurements.

    --
    Anything that is good and useful is made of chocolate.

  12. Re: [Troll] Download speed


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:vN6ak.17305$Xe.3323@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
    >* Linonut peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/Bandwidth.asp
    >>
    >> 64-bit Debian on Athlon XP, wired, on a DSL connection capped at 3.0
    >> Mb/s,
    >> using Firefox 2 (64-bit):
    >>
    >> 2448 Kb/s
    >>
    >> 32-bit debian, Firefox 3.0rc1, on Core Duo, through one of my wireless
    >> access pointers:
    >>
    >> 1867 Kb/s
    >>
    >> I'll check the results on that seconds system when I get to work.
    >> In the meantime, how big is yours?

    >
    > At work, that 32-bit box got these numbers (three runs):
    >
    > 6178, 7873, 8978
    >
    > A Win 2000 VM got 110, 6413, and 7442.
    >



    > But a lot of goofy results occurred, and I now think that PC Pit Stop
    > site is all but useless for download measurements.



    Jeeez. In other words none of these are actual real-world throughput
    numbers. It's some stat that "PC Pit Stop" serves up and only now you
    realize that it's "all but useless for download measurements."





    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  13. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:35:00 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <113ew2mtl3gtl.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    >>> and a promise of 2 hours to download.
    >>>
    >>> Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.

    >>
    >> And of course it's not possible that maybe you hit a slow mirror, or that
    >> the mirror you hit was overloaded, and that the next time you hit one that
    >> was faster?
    >>
    >> I've never had a problem saturating my download bandwidth with XP, if the
    >> server was capable of sending fast enough.

    >
    > It could also be different TCP settings. The receive window size that
    > will give the fastest transfer depends on the speed of the connection,
    > the latency of the connection, and the packet loss. Linux does a very
    > good job of setting this on a per connection basis, by measuring the
    > characteristics of the connection and adjusting.
    >
    > Is Windows doing this, too? I know at one time, it definitely just went
    > with fixed values for the major TCP parameters, so if you were doing
    > something out of the ordinary (like downloading on a connection with
    > very high speed, but also high latency), performance was not good.
    >
    > Numerous TCP tweak programs were produced to address this, which they
    > did mostly by just changing registry settings to better fixed values.
    >
    > I believe Windows did add some dynamic setting at some point, but also
    > that registry settings could be used to override that and force fixed
    > values. That raises the possibility that a past use of a tweak program
    > from before dynamic setting was added could be forcing bad settings for
    > some connections.


    I believe the RWIN parameter is fixed in Windows.
    You can use a program like DrTCP to change it.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    At least you're warning us. ;-)

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:32:56 -0400
    <1xQ9k.16220$3F5.2865@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
    > Installed Win XP on an old work box for some testing.


    General brand, CPU, RAM, disk space, modem/NIC?

    > Then installed
    > SP2. Box came up with no text at boot time -- just the ever-growing
    > white progress bar made up of a square PC-ASCII character.


    Video card?

    > Then the
    > mouse didn't work.


    Mouse brand?

    > A reboot fixed the mouse problem


    Reboots fix *nothing*. At best, they reset the system
    to a known state. If you were lucky, they also enabled
    XP to copy a file from a hidden spot into its proper
    resting place, and the rest of the reboot was able to
    recognize the mouse.

    > but the textless
    > pre-GUI boot string is still there.
    >
    > Odd.


    Odd indeed.

    >
    > Started Internet Explorer to download Firefox. Yeesh, about 30Kb/sec
    > and a promise of 2 hours to download.


    That could be a number of things. Without a lot more data,
    that's a hard one to ferret out.

    BTW...30Kb/s is just over a 28.8k modem. Did you mean 30KB/s?
    b=bit, B=byte.

    Also, the Linux FF3 download is 9.2 MB; assuming the
    Windows one is similarly sized, a 2-hour (7200 second)
    download requirement would result in a bandwidth of
    1.277 KB/s.

    >
    > Downloaded it 4+ times faster on a Linux box.
    >
    > After installing Firefox 3, I decided to use it to do the download.
    > It was 3 times faster than IE6.
    >
    > I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.
    >


    Illogical conclusion. One might say that Firefox is the
    way of the future, though; certainly I can point to this
    post as evidence that it downloads faster. (It's not
    great evidence, to be sure, without additional information
    on the machine.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
    void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  15. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Mouse brand?


    Microsoft.

    > BTW...30Kb/s is just over a 28.8k modem. Did you mean 30KB/s?
    > b=bit, B=byte.


    Whatever wget or the GUI says.

    wget: 6,324,355 389K/s in 17s

    which means kB if you do the math.

    >> I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.

    >
    > Illogical conclusion.


    It was not a conclusion.

    --
    Boomer Envy:
    Envy of material wealth and long-range material security
    accrued by older members of the baby boom generation by virtue of
    fortunate births.
    -- Douglas Coupland, "Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated
    Culture"

  16. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:56:35 -0400
    :
    > * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Mouse brand?

    >
    > Microsoft.
    >
    >> BTW...30Kb/s is just over a 28.8k modem. Did you mean 30KB/s?
    >> b=bit, B=byte.

    >
    > Whatever wget or the GUI says.
    >
    > wget: 6,324,355 389K/s in 17s
    >
    > which means kB if you do the math.


    OK.

    >
    >>> I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.

    >>
    >> Illogical conclusion.

    >
    > It was not a conclusion.
    >


    Supposition, then. Have you all forgotten Standard Oil?
    Given the right conditions, we'll screw it up again. ;-)

    Microsoft is already under scrutiny for various things.
    The good news: it is under scrutiny; it may be the default
    software solution but people look at it very skeptically.

    In short, we trust it to break. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
    signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  17. Re: [Troll] Download speed

    On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:26:35 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:56:35 -0400
    > :
    >> * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Mouse brand?

    >>
    >> Microsoft.
    >>
    >>> BTW...30Kb/s is just over a 28.8k modem. Did you mean 30KB/s? b=bit,
    >>> B=byte.

    >>
    >> Whatever wget or the GUI says.
    >>
    >> wget: 6,324,355 389K/s in 17s
    >>
    >> which means kB if you do the math.

    >
    > OK.
    >
    >
    >>>> I'm thinking open-source is /the/ way of the future.
    >>>
    >>> Illogical conclusion.

    >>
    >> It was not a conclusion.
    >>
    >>

    > Supposition, then. Have you all forgotten Standard Oil? Given the right
    > conditions, we'll screw it up again. ;-)
    >
    > Microsoft is already under scrutiny for various things. The good news:
    > it is under scrutiny; it may be the default software solution but people
    > look at it very skeptically.


    If only Jackson hadn't given those interviews. :-/

    >
    > In short, we trust it to break. ;-)






    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread