Check your internet speed

Download Speed: 6202 kbps (775.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 355 kbps (44.4 KB/sec transfer rate)

Comcast @ Home, Detroit Area :D
 
Well...

I'm runnin a 3.4Ghz4 w/ HT tech, 1 GIG of ram (DDR)with 145GB of hard disk space.

I think i'd be kinda hard for the internet to out-run me...:D
 
Download Speed: 7398 kbps (924.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 354 kbps (44.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Chicago Comcast :eek:
 
Download speed: 2253 kbps ( 281.6 kb/sec transfer rate )

Upload speed: 170 kbps ( 21.3 kb/sec transfer rate )

SBC Yahoo DSL
 
7777 download, 251 upload. I have a local company called Susquehanna Communications - soon to be bought out by Comcast.
 
Hi Guys

Looks like I am the Tortoise in this race :(

Download Speed: 940 kbps (117.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 228 kbps (28.5 KB/sec transfer rate)

Mytelephone line provider says my line isn't capable of going faster than 1mb, good ol' backward U.K

Regards

Dereck
 
Download Speed: 648 kbps (81 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 231 kbps (28.9 KB/sec transfer rate)

SBC Yahoo DSL
 
:D


Cass Communications

test.JPG
 
Frogman said:
Nah... That's just the truth. He may have a reasonably decent machine (not blazing fast, by any means), but his machine will never be able to handle that much data coming and going.
Click to expand...

my computer guy , was telling be how he just put toghter a cpu for a guy that said he wants it unreasonably fast . less then 7 mins to install window XP.
 
Last Result:
Download Speed: 654 kbps (81.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 118 kbps (14.8 KB/sec transfer rate)

Verizon Online DSL - the 14.95 per month version. I think its up to 768kbps
 
Last Result:
Download Speed: 7057 kbps (882.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 927 kbps (115.9 KB/sec transfer rate)

Running Cablevision's Optimum online NYC
 
buddylee said:
my computer guy , was telling be how he just put toghter a cpu for a guy that said he wants it unreasonably fast . less then 7 mins to install window XP.
Click to expand...


Why anyone would want WindBlows in the first place, is beyond me. Just because the hardware is uber fast, his internet/network connection is only as good as his net card... most of which are in the 10/100Mb/s range.
 
I would have to see that machine...........

buddylee said:
my computer guy , was telling be how he just put toghter a cpu for a guy that said he wants it unreasonably fast . less then 7 mins to install window XP.
Click to expand...

I have some fast machines that I built myself, athlon 64's. 2GB ram, over a terabyte of total storage, dual layer DVD burners with Light Scribe. My machines are fast, but 7 minutes for an install, not unless he is using a disk duplicator and a premade image. Hell, I have access to an 8 disk duplicator, and I can load 8 machines at once in 15 minutes. Does that count as less than 2 minutes to do an install. And just installing the OS is nothing to brag about, it is how you set it up. And to do that correctly, it takes much longer than 7 minutes. And yes, I do this stuff for a living. Like frogman said, it is the Network card speed and the bandwidth of your connection, not your processor speed or ram and hard drive sizes.
 
Why not........................

Frogman said:
Why anyone would want WindBlows in the first place, is beyond me. Just because the hardware is uber fast, his internet/network connection is only as good as his net card... most of which are in the 10/100Mb/s range.
Click to expand...


When setup properly it works very well. And have you ever sat down with a noob and tried to get them to download and install a package on an Linux machine. It's not pretty. And a poorly configured Linux box is a lot more dangerous than any Windows box. How can over 90% of all installed OS users be wrong and less than 10% of Linux OS users be right? Your statement just does not hold water. I use both OSE's, Windows if I want to be productive, and Linux for forensics and pen testing. Hell, even Appel users are switching over to XP. Say it ain't so.
 
I got these results with Verizon DSL, works for me...


Download Speed: 2827 kbps (353.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 705 kbps (88.1 KB/sec transfer rate)


Los Angeles, CA.
 
bufordtpisser said:
When setup properly it works very well. And have you ever sat down with a noob and tried to get them to download and install a package on an Linux machine. It's not pretty. And a poorly configured Linux box is a lot more dangerous than any Windows box. How can over 90% of all installed OS users be wrong and less than 10% of Linux OS users be right? Your statement just does not hold water. I use both OSE's, Windows if I want to be productive, and Linux for forensics and pen testing. Hell, even Appel users are switching over to XP. Say it ain't so.
Click to expand...

We can all throw percentrages all day long. All I know is that my two linux boxes have NEVER crashed in the almost year an a half of usage... Well, one did once, because I was screwing around with the file system when I first started playing with Linux.

I'd like to see where you got the 90%/10% stats from, I am really curious now. If only 10% on users are on linux, then why do most big hardware companies offer Linux Drivers? I mean, it's only 10%, right? And just in case your 'rithmetic is off, there are more than just Windows and Linux OS's out there. Try Solaris, OS X (which you did cover), Unix, Yelowtab, etc etc. If 90% are windows, and 10% Linux, then... who's buying the rest of the OS's out there?

Linux is based on UNIX, (as I'm sure you know), an OS that's getting to be what, 50 years old? I wonder why Fortune 500 Companies still use UNIX, since Windows is such a great OS. Couldn't be the cost savings, after all a good Unix Admin makes a hell of a lot more than a Common everyday MCSE.
Could it be that because UNIX is so deeply rooted in the company that the Multibillion dollar a year Fortune 500 company can't afford to get Windows OS for it's backside? Or is it because it is so stable, unlike Win OS?

And, no, it ain't so. I am typing this from a Loaded to the hilt 17" G4 with 2 Gigs/120Gig/Dual layer Superdrive, etc, etc. Once again, this machine and my old G4, have NEVER (read, not once) crashed. Can we say the same about a Windows loaded laptop? Can OS X Crash? Ofcourse. Hell, even the Space Shuttle can crash... But since I don't have one of them, I can only speak of MY experiences. I too know a couple of people switching from OS X to XP, simply because they have no choice... be it because for business, or work in general. But they are still holding on to their OS X boxes.

Sorry, but native 64bit will always outshine 15 year old 32 bit tech. Yes, MS has a 64 bit version of XP, but it was built on the old 32 bit OS... It's NOT 64 bit native.

Why is windows so popular? Well, gee... Maybe it's because most people grow up with MS windows? Most classrooms in the US use Windows OS. It's hard to get people to switch to another OS once they've grown up on it.


Regardless, I know for a fact that I am more than happy with my Linux and OS X machines. I keep a Windows Laptop around as a necesary evil to datalog my Mark VIII. All it has on it is Windows XP Pro and The SCT Software.

It's OK though. There is a reason why there are so many OS's out there. (more than 90% Windows - 10% Linux). It's because people are expanding their horizons, and are sick of Windows and MS's monopoly over the OS market. which is good, BTW. Shows people that MSFT is not the only OS company out there, and they have alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 203 (members: 0, guests: 203)
Back
Top