Internet Speed - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Internet Speed - Ubuntu ; On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:02:16 +0000 Trevor Best wrote: > Vista (Laptop, faster machine than my desktop jalopy) > Download 5041, 3417, 5347 > Upload 377, 374, 375 Gutsy LiveCD on same machine for comparison so as not to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 538

Thread: Internet Speed

  1. Re: Internet Speed

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:02:16 +0000
    Trevor Best wrote:

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


    Gutsy LiveCD on same machine for comparison so as not to blame hardware
    or wireless vs wired, etc.

    Download 6062, 6543, 6161
    Upload 372, 371, 372

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

  2. Re: Internet Speed

    Trevor Best writes:

    > 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.


    It seems from some people that its depends on their ISP and the SW they
    installed. The ISP provided SW throttles the windows tasks dealing with
    the net. Terrible state of affairs.

    --
    Non capisco tutta questa eccitazione per il multitasking: io sono anni
    che leggo in bagno.
    -- Carlo Landini

  3. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2

    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.
    >
    >> 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.


    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

    >
    >> 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.


    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...
    >
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >


  4. Re: Internet Speed

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:27:33 +0100
    Hadron wrote:

    > It seems from some people that its depends on their ISP and the SW they
    > installed. The ISP provided SW throttles the windows tasks dealing with
    > the net. Terrible state of affairs.


    I could beleive that if the ISP[1] is AOL. I don't know of any
    others that provide such software now that it's pretty much built in
    to any OS.

    [1] I wouldn't call AOL an ISP, CSP would be more descriptive. The C in
    CSP stands for content but you might want to exercise your
    imagination :-)

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

  5. Re: Internet Speed

    Night0wl wrote:

    > Comcast and Time-Warner/Roadrunner both use throttling software that
    > the average user installs without knowing or thinking about it.


    Do you have a cite for that? What is it called? (Hopefully, not that
    awful "Medic" program for Windows...)

    I've been using RoadRunner since 1998, and there is no RR software on
    any of my computers.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

  6. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2

    Hadron wrote:
    > 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.

    >

    Or simply use a port-hopping application...

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

    Yeah, you do understand, and you're becoming annoying.

    >>>> 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.


    If you don't know or recall what a startup disk is, I strongly recommend
    you re-crate all your computers, return them to their respective
    manufacturers or retail outlets, and spend your time watching TV.
    >
    >>>> 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.


    Any time someone can hook into your stack, M$, ISP or even hacker,
    without your permission and blessing, then you've got a bad stack.

    ....snip...

  7. Re: Internet Speed

    Trevor Best wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:27:33 +0100
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> It seems from some people that its depends on their ISP and the SW they
    >> installed. The ISP provided SW throttles the windows tasks dealing with
    >> the net. Terrible state of affairs.

    >
    > I could beleive that if the ISP[1] is AOL. I don't know of any
    > others that provide such software now that it's pretty much built in
    > to any OS.


    Comcast and Time-Warner/Roadrunner both use throttling software that the
    average user installs without knowing or thinking about it.
    >
    > [1] I wouldn't call AOL an ISP, CSP would be more descriptive. The C in
    > CSP stands for content but you might want to exercise your
    > imagination :-)
    >


  8. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2

    In <473f5af0$0$8625$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> Night0wl:

    [Snip...]

    > Any time someone can hook into your stack, M$, ISP or even hacker,
    > without your permission and blessing, then you've got a bad stack.


    The windtards are as usual ignoring the fact that I can examine FOSS stacks
    and modify/customize/recreate them for myself. OTOH there's no telling what
    backdoors and bugware remains in that shoddy halfbaked Doze stack, and I'll
    find out only over Monkey Boy's dead body. Why wait on liars and thieves to
    protect *MY* property and security?

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  9. Re: Internet Speed

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Night0wl wrote:
    >
    >> Comcast and Time-Warner/Roadrunner both use throttling software that
    >> the average user installs without knowing or thinking about it.

    >
    > Do you have a cite for that? What is it called? (Hopefully, not that
    > awful "Medic" program for Windows...)
    >
    > I've been using RoadRunner since 1998, and there is no RR software on
    > any of my computers.
    >

    If you used their startup disk, CFC.exe and CFD.exe will be present
    somewhere. See the thread, Internet Speed: Take 2 for link references.

    Cheers;

    Ed

  10. Re: Internet Speed: Take 2: Analysis

    Harold Stevens wrote:
    > In <473f5af0$0$8625$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> Night0wl:
    >
    > [Snip...]
    >
    >> Any time someone can hook into your stack, M$, ISP or even hacker,
    >> without your permission and blessing, then you've got a bad stack.

    >
    > The windtards are as usual ignoring the fact that I can examine FOSS stacks
    > and modify/customize/recreate them for myself. OTOH there's no telling what
    > backdoors and bugware remains in that shoddy half-baked Doze stack, and I'll
    > find out only over Monkey Boy's dead body. Why wait on liars and thieves to
    > protect *MY* property and security?
    >

    Agreed, in spades. However, I think a lot of the problem with vocally
    resistive wintards in here is just fear of the unknown. Deep down, even
    they know Windoze is flawed, and won't really improve, but its all
    they've ever known, and they either can't or won't cut the umbilical.

    Ever see a cradle religionist when his/her faith collapses? They know it
    doesn't work for them any more, but don't know any viable alternatives,
    so they become all the more zealous -- the "misery loves company" crowd.
    Its gotta be much the same with wintards. (Maybe they just need to be
    "deprogrammed?")

    I was much the same, talking a big talk for over 2 years before finally
    getting pissed enough to take the plunge. Now, I'm kicking myself for
    not having done so way earlier than I did.

    Cheers;

    Ed

  11. Re: Internet Speed

    Night0wl wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Night0wl wrote:
    >>> Comcast and Time-Warner/Roadrunner both use throttling software that
    >>> the average user installs without knowing or thinking about it.

    >>
    >> Do you have a cite for that? What is it called? (Hopefully, not
    >> that awful "Medic" program for Windows...)
    >>
    >> I've been using RoadRunner since 1998, and there is no RR software
    >> on any of my computers.
    >>

    > If you used their startup disk,


    Never. There is no need to do that.

    > CFC.exe and CFD.exe will be present somewhere. See the thread,
    > Internet Speed: Take 2 for link references.


    Saw that just now. Those are probably the Comcast version of the RR
    Medic program. Gives outside access for troubleshooting. And no, they
    aren't on my Windows box, and certainly not on my Ubuntu box.

    Those links didn't say anything about *throttling* your broadband
    connection, though. Not that I noticed.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

  12. Re: Internet Speed



    "Alias" wrote in message news:fhknpd$8s4$1@aioe.org...
    > 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?


    Because the test you are using is cr@p.
    You can easily saturate a 10M broadband link with XP, linux or vista even on
    a low end PC.

    Either that or you are fabricating the results like you fabricate stuff in
    other news groups.


  13. Re: Internet Speed



    "Alias" wrote in message news:fhlcd4$h54$1@aioe.org...


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


    There you are, the test is cr@p.
    I can only get 3M5 from it while other speed tests give me 12M- 15M.
    When you find a test method that works try again.



  14. Re: Internet Speed



    "Moog" wrote in message
    news:5q7jl7FudchjU11@mid.individual.net...
    > 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.


    All that the above offers is some evidence that the results are being
    tampered with by the server to slow down windows.
    Its a very poor test anyway from that server as it can't reach anywhere near
    a reasonable speed in the first place.
    tray another from www.speedtest.net and see.


  15. Re: Internet Speed

    On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:05:07 -0000
    "dennis@home" wrote:

    > All that the above offers is some evidence that the results are being
    > tampered with by the server to slow down windows.


    bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's pathetic, I wouldn't even expect
    Hadron to come up with something like that.

    Oooooh, all the Unix based servers are ganging up on Windows users,
    pul-eeze.

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

  16. Re: Internet Speed

    dennis@home wrote:

    > "Alias" wrote in message
    > news:fhknpd$8s4$1@aioe.org...
    >> 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?

    >
    > Because the test you are using is cr@p.


    No, because Winblow$ is crap. It's dog ass slow doing IP networking and
    always has been.

    > You can easily saturate a 10M
    > broadband link with XP, linux or vista even on a low end PC.


    You're clueless.

    >
    > Either that or you are fabricating the results like you fabricate stuff
    > in other news groups.



  17. Re: Internet Speed

    On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:05:07 +0000, dennis@home whinged via:

    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606


    *plonk*

  18. Re: Internet Speed



    Joe wrote:

    > Eeyore wrote:
    > > Mr Nice 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?
    > >> >
    > >> > 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?


    I don't. XP gives me exactly the throughput I'd expect. I get up to 99% of the
    theoretical maximum a BT MaxDSL connection can provide ( 7150 kbps).

    If you install Zone Alarm, you have a live traffic monitor. I see no 'phoning
    home' activity. Plus you can configure the firewall to block anything happening
    you don't approve of just in case.

    Graham


  19. Re: Internet Speed



    "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.


    I get up to 99% of what my connection is theoretically capable of when using XP.

    http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/res...5207&v=2808912

    7024 kbps today at 14:09 on a connection whose profile is set at 7150 kbps.
    That's 98.2% of the theoretical maximum.

    Looks bloody good to me.

    Graham


  20. Re: Internet Speed



    "Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" wrote:

    > 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.


    So how does my connection deliver 98-99% of the theoretical maximum ?

    Graham



+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast