Internet Speed - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Internet Speed - Ubuntu ; NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing: > > Moog, > > Your test certainly does confirm similar results to my test of a couple > years ago. My test was maybe a little more "scientific" in that it came > from ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 538

Thread: Internet Speed

  1. Re: Internet Speed

    NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    > <...>
    > Moog,
    >
    > Your test certainly does confirm similar results to my test of a couple
    > years ago. My test was maybe a little more "scientific" in that it came
    > from the same wired box as opposed to wireless which can introduce some
    > additional disparities in the comparison process.


    I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
    stronger wireless connection to the router.

    Figures are
    Vista 90% signal strength
    Gutsy 35% signal strength

    > The fact of the matter is
    > that somehow Linux has figured out how to deliver faster Internet than
    > Windoze can do, by a rather significant amount and continues to do so up to
    > today. :-)


    I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the results I've got. If anything,
    the environment of my LAN gives Vista a huge advantage.

    Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
    scientific examination.

    I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
    with vanilla installs on the same box though.

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  2. Re: Internet Speed

    Moog illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Alias illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >> <...>
    >>> Woooah....
    >>>
    >>> I've just done the test on a Vista Box
    >>> It returned
    >>>
    >>> Download 199kbps
    >>> Upload 357kbps
    >>>
    >>> And with Gutsy on the same wireless network with a slightly weaker
    >>> signal....
    >>>
    >>> Download 353kbps
    >>> Upload 356kbps
    >>>
    >>> Interesting? Well yes...
    >>>
    >>> BTW. I think The reason for the slow download is that the test server
    >>> I used is in California and I'm in the UK.
    >>>
    >>> But...hell. It's a significant difference, isn't it?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Try this test from a Spanish server:
    >>
    >> http://www.internautas.org/testvelocidad/

    >
    > OK....
    >
    > Windows Vista...
    > Download 2208kbps
    > Upload 360kbps
    >
    > Gutsy....
    > Download 4384kbps
    > Upload 360kbps
    >
    > Crikey.


    I Just did the same thing on a Virtualisation of Feisty on my Vista Box.

    Results....

    Vista
    Download 2879kbps
    Upload 323kbps

    Feity VM running as host to above Vista Guest
    Download 3759kbps
    Upload 361kbps

    Unbelievable.

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  3. Re: Internet Speed

    Moog illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    >
    > I Just did the same thing on a Virtualisation of Feisty on my Vista Box.
    >
    > Results....
    >
    > Vista
    > Download 2879kbps
    > Upload 323kbps
    >
    > Feity VM running as host to above Vista Guest


    Du'h..........
    Feisty VM running as guest to above Vista Host (What a clot)

    > Download 3759kbps
    > Upload 361kbps
    >
    > Unbelievable.
    >



    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  4. Re: Internet Speed

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:05:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:

    > Eeyore wrote:
    >
    >> Mr Nice wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    >>> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    >>> > test. I wonder why that is?
    >>> >
    >>> > Alias
    >>>
    >>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap

    >>
    >> Pure nonsense.

    >
    > You have a better explanation why Windows throughput is 25% to 45% lower
    > than Linux?
    >
    > If it's not doing something else with the bandwidth then it flat out
    > broken.


    winblows reserves bandwidth for sevices. Its not just quicker.
    You can stop it doing it by removing the QoS feature.

  5. Re: Internet Speed

    brummie wrote:

    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:05:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Eeyore wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mr Nice wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10
    >>>> > with Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on
    >>>> > line test. I wonder why that is?
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Alias
    >>>>
    >>>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap
    >>>
    >>> Pure nonsense.

    >>
    >> You have a better explanation why Windows throughput is 25% to 45%
    >> lower than Linux?
    >>
    >> If it's not doing something else with the bandwidth then it flat out
    >> broken.

    >
    > winblows reserves bandwidth for sevices. Its not just quicker. You can
    > stop it doing it by removing the QoS feature.


    Even if that were true, and it isn't because Windows is still slower, it
    would mean Windows QoS implementation is horribly broken. QoS prioritizes
    existing traffic, it's not suppose to reserve unused bandwidth for
    traffic taht doesn't exist.

    Actually, Windows is simply a piss poor multitasker and cludges had to be
    applied to keep the interface from sputtering when transferring data at
    high speeds across TCP/IP networks. It's either slower Internet, or
    notable degradation of overall system performance.

    I guess Micro$oft thought their users were so stupid they wouldn't notice
    Windows was robbing them of a portion of the broadband Internet they were
    paying a premium for.












  6. Re: Internet Speed

    Alias writes:

    > Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
    >> Alias wrote:
    >>> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10
    >>> with Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on
    >>> line test. I wonder why that is?
    >>>

    >> I am tempted to say the Linux way of setting up a network connection
    >> is superior.
    >> But I can't imagine such a large discrepancy.
    >> Could it be one of the two uses a 'digital' counter and the other a
    >> decimal' one?
    >> I mean as in 1MB is not equivalent to 1000KB but 1024KB.
    >>
    >>> Alias

    >
    > Same computer. Same NIC. Same cable connection. I did the test about
    > 50 times on XP and Ubuntu. Ubuntu was/is *consistently* 2 megs faster
    > for download. For upload, XP and Ubuntu tested the same speed.
    >
    > Alias


    It was exactly the opposite for me. XP was almost twice as fast until I
    disabled ip6 on Ubuntu.

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202838

    MOIWYW

    --
    El hombre no vive, como las bestias salvajes, en un mundo de cosas
    meramente fĂ*sicas, sino en un mundo de signos y sĂ*mbolos.
    -- John Dewey. (1859-1952).

  7. Re: Internet Speed

    Mr Nice writes:

    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >
    >> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    >> Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    >> test. I wonder why that is?
    >>
    >> Alias

    >
    > Because XP uses your connection to send crap


    Nonsense. It's because something is configured wrong.

    --
    El hombre no vive, como las bestias salvajes, en un mundo de cosas
    meramente fĂ*sicas, sino en un mundo de signos y sĂ*mbolos.
    -- John Dewey. (1859-1952).

  8. Re: Internet Speed

    Joe writes:

    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:00:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
    >
    >> Mr Nice wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    >>> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    >>> > test. I wonder why that is?
    >>> >
    >>> > Alias
    >>>
    >>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap

    >>
    >> Pure nonsense.

    >
    > So, please explain to us why the M$ OS frequently gets about 20% lower
    > throughput?


    It's interesting. See other post for how my Linux was noticeably slower
    than XP. Do post if you find the reasons.

    --
    El hombre no vive, como las bestias salvajes, en un mundo de cosas
    meramente fĂ*sicas, sino en un mundo de signos y sĂ*mbolos.
    -- John Dewey. (1859-1952).

  9. Re: Internet Speed

    Moog writes:

    > NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >> <...>
    >> Moog,
    >>
    >> Your test certainly does confirm similar results to my test of a couple
    >> years ago. My test was maybe a little more "scientific" in that it came
    >> from the same wired box as opposed to wireless which can introduce some
    >> additional disparities in the comparison process.

    >
    > I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
    > stronger wireless connection to the router.
    >
    > Figures are
    > Vista 90% signal strength
    > Gutsy 35% signal strength
    >
    >> The fact of the matter is
    >> that somehow Linux has figured out how to deliver faster Internet than
    >> Windoze can do, by a rather significant amount and continues to do so up to
    >> today. :-)

    >
    > I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the results I've got. If anything,
    > the environment of my LAN gives Vista a huge advantage.
    >
    > Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
    > scientific examination.
    >
    > I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
    > with vanilla installs on the same box though.


    It's looking like a wireless issue. Have you tried with cable to router?

    --
    Yes, it is written. Good shall always destroy evil.
    -- Sirah the Yang, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown

  10. Re: Internet Speed

    Hadron wrote:

    > It was exactly the opposite for me.


    It /would/ be for you!

    C.


  11. Re: Internet Speed

    Hadron wrote:

    > Joe writes:
    >
    >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:00:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mr Nice wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    >>>> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    >>>> > test. I wonder why that is?
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Alias
    >>>>
    >>>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap
    >>>
    >>> Pure nonsense.

    >>
    >> So, please explain to us why the M$ OS frequently gets about 20% lower
    >> throughput?

    >
    > It's interesting. See other post for how my Linux was noticeably slower
    > than XP. Do post if you find the reasons.
    >

    The reason is simple. It's because you're a Windoze apologist. For everyone
    else, the results they get are exactly opposite of what you get.

    Cheers.

    --
    Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
    Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
    -- My Wife


  12. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2

    Night0wl writes:

    > Moog wrote:
    >>>> snip<<<.

    >>
    >> I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
    >> stronger wireless connection to the router.

    >
    > Only because threy're programmed to, both at the route and within
    > Windoze. Ubu's definitely coming on tho...
    >>
    >> Figures are
    >> Vista 90% signal strength
    >> Gutsy 35% signal strength

    >
    > Mine are much closer:
    > XP 90% signal strength
    > Ubu 85% signal strength


    Signal strength should not have any impact on the transfer rate UNLESS
    the signal strength is so low that it causes packet errors.

    In addition, consider the fact that possibly the status programs might
    just use different algorithms for how they display the signal strength.
    The HW and geography normally dictates the strength - not the SW.

    >>
    >>> The fact of the matter is
    >>> that somehow Linux has figured out how to deliver faster Internet than
    >>> Windoze can do, by a rather significant amount and continues to do so up to
    >>> today. :-)

    >
    > 1. Linux isn't parting out bandwidth to chatter behind the scenes
    > with, and report home to M$.
    >
    > 2. Linux isn't bothered by a ton of throttling and governing software
    > apps ISPs intentionally throw at Windoze. For the moment, they can
    > only port block a Linux DL. Change the port and you're fine. For


    What do you mean port block a LInux DL?

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows and Linux if I understand
    what you mean. You can reconfigure using port mapping at the router for
    both systems.

    > Windoze, however, there are neat, nifty little programs attached to
    > most broadband startup disks that effectively enable them to shut you


    Whats a broadband startup disk?

    > down or throttle your access. If you're interested, look into CFC and
    > CFD some time (Google). I think you'll be pleasantly amused. If you


    Do you have some links you recommend. A casual google didn't bring up
    much.

    > absolutely must use Windoze for some ungodly online reason, consider
    > letting Windoze find your cable modem/terminal adapter, rather that
    > using the ISP proprietary load disk, and watch your results improve
    > quite a bit... (Note: CFC and CFD won't show up in the control panel,
    > but any good software firewall will find them and show them to you. I
    > found them via ZoneAlarm back in 2000. That's a while ago, but they're
    > still out there.)
    >>
    >> I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the results I've got. If anything,
    >> the environment of my LAN gives Vista a huge advantage.

    >
    > See 2 above. You can have all the signal strength in the world, but,
    > if you're being throttled, then most of your signal is just so much
    > noise.


    Who is doing this throttling? If its the ISP then surely they would just
    do it at the router to your home? It would be system independent.

    >
    >> Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
    >> scientific examination.
    >>
    >> I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
    >> with vanilla installs on the same box though.
    >>


    --
    Los sobres y sellos que no se pegan cuando se lamen, se quedarán
    adheridos a otras cosas cuando menos lo desea.
    -- Ley de Murphy oficinesca.

  13. Re: Internet Speed

    NoStop writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Joe writes:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:00:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Mr Nice wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    >>>>> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    >>>>> > test. I wonder why that is?
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> > Alias
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap
    >>>>
    >>>> Pure nonsense.
    >>>
    >>> So, please explain to us why the M$ OS frequently gets about 20% lower
    >>> throughput?

    >>
    >> It's interesting. See other post for how my Linux was noticeably slower
    >> than XP. Do post if you find the reasons.
    >>

    > The reason is simple. It's because you're a Windoze apologist. For everyone
    > else, the results they get are exactly opposite of what you get.
    >
    > Cheers.


    After much careful consideration I have decided that you really are a
    ****ing idiot. I even posted a link to documented evidence of Ubuntu
    tcp/ip systems being slow and how to speed them up.

    The fact that you are a one eyed fan boy who sleeps in Penguin pyjamas
    doesn't mean the rest of can't take a more balanced and factual view of
    things in order to improve our systems.

    I asked the guy for from information. I was not apologising for
    anything.

    --
    Todo se hace mas fácil con la práctica. ¡¡¡Menos madrugar !!!
    -- D.C.

  14. Re: Internet Speed

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100
    Alias wrote:

    > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    > test. I wonder why that is?
    >
    > Alias


    Same sites?

    --
    If you can do ballet then you can do anything
    except reach high things because you're dinky.
    Kiera Best - Aged 6.

  15. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2

    Moog wrote:
    >>>snip<<<.

    >
    > I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
    > stronger wireless connection to the router.


    Only because threy're programmed to, both at the route and within
    Windoze. Ubu's definitely coming on tho...
    >
    > Figures are
    > Vista 90% signal strength
    > Gutsy 35% signal strength


    Mine are much closer:
    XP 90% signal strength
    Ubu 85% signal strength
    >
    >> The fact of the matter is
    >> that somehow Linux has figured out how to deliver faster Internet than
    >> Windoze can do, by a rather significant amount and continues to do so up to
    >> today. :-)


    1. Linux isn't parting out bandwidth to chatter behind the scenes with,
    and report home to M$.

    2. Linux isn't bothered by a ton of throttling and governing software
    apps ISPs intentionally throw at Windoze. For the moment, they can only
    port block a Linux DL. Change the port and you're fine. For Windoze,
    however, there are neat, nifty little programs attached to most
    broadband startup disks that effectively enable them to shut you down or
    throttle your access. If you're interested, look into CFC and CFD some
    time (Google). I think you'll be pleasantly amused. If you absolutely
    must use Windoze for some ungodly online reason, consider letting
    Windoze find your cable modem/terminal adapter, rather that using the
    ISP proprietary load disk, and watch your results improve quite a bit...
    (Note: CFC and CFD won't show up in the control panel, but any good
    software firewall will find them and show them to you. I found them via
    ZoneAlarm back in 2000. That's a while ago, but they're still out there.)
    >
    > I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the results I've got. If anything,
    > the environment of my LAN gives Vista a huge advantage.


    See 2 above. You can have all the signal strength in the world, but, if
    you're being throttled, then most of your signal is just so much noise.

    > Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
    > scientific examination.
    >
    > I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
    > with vanilla installs on the same box though.
    >


  16. Re: Internet Speed

    Hadron wrote:

    > NoStop writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Joe writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:00:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Mr Nice wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10
    >>>>>> > with Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on
    >>>>>> > line test. I wonder why that is?
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > Alias
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Pure nonsense.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, please explain to us why the M$ OS frequently gets about 20% lower
    >>>> throughput?
    >>>
    >>> It's interesting. See other post for how my Linux was noticeably slower
    >>> than XP. Do post if you find the reasons.
    >>>

    >> The reason is simple. It's because you're a Windoze apologist. For
    >> everyone else, the results they get are exactly opposite of what you get.
    >>
    >> Cheers.

    >
    > After much careful consideration I have decided that you really are a
    > ****ing idiot.


    What took you so long? I knew that you were slow, but come on, this is
    getting a bit weird. Everyone who challenges your bull**** is a ****ing
    idiot in your eyes and I've been challenging your bull**** for sometime
    now. :-)

    Cheers.


    --
    Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
    Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
    -- My Wife


  17. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2

    Night0wl writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Night0wl writes:
    >>
    >>> Moog wrote:
    >>>>>> snip<<<.
    >>>> I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
    >>>> stronger wireless connection to the router.
    >>> Only because threy're programmed to, both at the route and within
    >>> Windoze. Ubu's definitely coming on tho...
    >>>> Figures are
    >>>> Vista 90% signal strength
    >>>> Gutsy 35% signal strength
    >>> Mine are much closer:
    >>> XP 90% signal strength
    >>> Ubu 85% signal strength

    >>
    >> Signal strength should not have any impact on the transfer rate UNLESS
    >> the signal strength is so low that it causes packet errors.
    >>
    >> In addition, consider the fact that possibly the status programs might
    >> just use different algorithms for how they display the signal strength.
    >> The HW and geography normally dictates the strength - not the SW.
    >>
    >>>>> The fact of the matter is
    >>>>> that somehow Linux has figured out how to deliver faster Internet than
    >>>>> Windoze can do, by a rather significant amount and continues to do so up to
    >>>>> today. :-)
    >>> 1. Linux isn't parting out bandwidth to chatter behind the scenes
    >>> with, and report home to M$.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Linux isn't bothered by a ton of throttling and governing software
    >>> apps ISPs intentionally throw at Windoze. For the moment, they can
    >>> only port block a Linux DL. Change the port and you're fine. For

    >>
    >> What do you mean port block a LInux DL?
    >>
    >> This has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows and Linux if I understand
    >> what you mean. You can reconfigure using port mapping at the router for
    >> both systems.


    You didn't address these points. I am not sure I understand what you
    were saying.

    >>
    >>> Windoze, however, there are neat, nifty little programs attached to
    >>> most broadband startup disks that effectively enable them to shut you

    >>
    >> Whats a broadband startup disk?
    >>


    Ditto.

    >>> down or throttle your access. If you're interested, look into CFC and
    >>> CFD some time (Google). I think you'll be pleasantly amused. If you

    >>
    >> Do you have some links you recommend. A casual google didn't bring up
    >> much.

    >
    > BroadJump CFC.exe or CyDoor CFC.exe
    >
    > http://www.incodesolutions.com/threa...1028cfcexe.php
    >
    > http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic19919.html (in the threads)
    >
    > BroadJump CFD.exe
    >
    > http://www.auditmypc.com/process/cfd.asp
    >
    > http://mailbag.ask-leo.com/_whats_cfdexe_009358.html
    >
    > http://www.liutilities.com/products/...sslibrary/cfd/
    >
    > http://www.what-is-exe.com/filenames/cfd-exe.html
    >
    >
    > Your ISP is definitely linked into your Windoze config. Try calling
    > Comcast or Roadrunner and asking about the programs above, and see the
    > run-around you'll get... They also have dedicated lines setup to
    > "help" you with your Linux installation, if you're fool enough to call
    > them...


    So you are saying that these unscrupulous ISPs are the problem? I really
    fail to see how this is Windows fault. It is their SW doing this. Don't
    install their SW or use a different ISP. It has absolutely nothing to do
    with a "****ty windoze stack" as some are claiming. This is not being a
    windows apologist - far from it - but lets get the facts straight here.

    >>
    >>>> Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
    >>>> scientific examination.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
    >>>> with vanilla installs on the same box though.
    >>>>

    >>


    --
    semper en excretus

  18. Re: Internet Speed

    On 16 Nov 2007 21:13:51 GMT
    Moog wrote:

    > BTW. I think The reason for the slow download is that the test server
    > I used is in California and I'm in the UK.


    http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/

    Ran each 3 times to avoid flukes (machine1, machine2 then machine3),
    all measurements are in kbps

    Feisty (desktop)
    Download 6222, 6557, 6716
    Upload 370, 371, 371

    Vista (Laptop, faster machine than my desktop jalopy)
    Download 5041, 3417, 5347
    Upload 377, 374, 375

    Gutsy (another desktop, slightly faster)
    Download 5779, 6539, 6464
    Upload 373, 368, 371

    pretty consistent apart from Vista's middle result, wonder what it was
    doing at the time? It had already downloaded and installed an update
    today when automatic updates are turned off.

    As a matter of interest I booted XP in a VMWare session

    XP
    Down 6207, 6913, 6805
    Up 372, 373, 372

    So, XP on a VM wins that test.

    --
    If you can do ballet then you can do anything
    except reach high things because you're dinky.
    Kiera Best - Aged 6.

  19. Re: Internet Speed

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:17:46 +0100
    Hadron wrote:

    > It was exactly the opposite for me. XP was almost twice as fast until I
    > disabled ip6 on Ubuntu.


    XP would appear faster than Vista for me.

    --
    If you can do ballet then you can do anything
    except reach high things because you're dinky.
    Kiera Best - Aged 6.

  20. Re: Internet Speed

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:43:20 -0600
    Joe wrote:

    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
    >
    > > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
    > > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
    > > test. I wonder why that is?
    > >
    > > Alias

    >
    > Windows sucks?


    I would say it's a Vista issue rather than Windows in general. XP
    performs miles better.

    --
    If you can do ballet then you can do anything
    except reach high things because you're dinky.
    Kiera Best - Aged 6.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast