All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows and network speed
ShawnD1:
quote:Originally posted by PseudoRandom Dragon:
There are utilites like Tune UP Utilites 2003 that can do it for you.
--- End quote ---
Seriously, get that program. it does a great job of cleaning the registry.
PseudoRandomDragon:
Yeah, spend $40 on a program that keeps Windows from fucking itself for a few more months.
Kasracer:
quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
The tests results in Linux were consistently three to eight times faster than those obtained from the same websites using Win98.
--- End quote ---
The reason for this is most likely because you have a lot of spy ware installed onto your system resulting in heavy network traffic. That or you ran the tests at different times so the network saturation was increased or decreased which would result in different speeds.
No one should even be using Windows 98 anymore though.
quote:Originally posted by WMD:
Not surprising. Windows has always had poor TCP/IP performance. To this day, it still does. Try repeating the same test with Win2k/XP. It'll still be slow.
--- End quote ---
This is not true. Windows based its TCP/IP implementation off of BSD’s implementation and the performances of the implementations are pretty much equal.
quote:Originally posted by PseudoRandom Dragon:
It actually can be resolved with a registry change. By default, limits are placed so the max comes to about 200kb/s (bytes), a simple reg change fixes that.
I wonder why they put that limit...maybe to make Longhorn seem "faster"?
--- End quote ---
First off, Longhorn's TCP/IP implementation has been re-written and offers a 30% increase in performance on TCP packets and 10% increased performance on UDP packets.
Secondly, there is no such "limit" built into the registry. There never has been and you probably just installed a bunch of bullshit spy ware. Back when I used Windows 98, I had a 10mbit/5mbit connection and I would max it out constantly. A 200KB/s limit would have never allowed me to do that.
mobrien_12:
quote:Kazracer wrote
The reason for this is most likely because you have a lot of spy ware installed onto your system resulting in heavy network traffic. That or you ran the tests at different times so the network saturation was increased or decreased which would result in different speeds.
--- End quote ---
(CHOKES DOWN LAUGHTER). No dude, I'm no stupid windoid. My system is clean: no spyware no virii.
I ran the tests several times booting one OS right after the other.
And why not use W98? My computer runs linux 95% of the time and W98 works ok for the last 5%.
Kasracer:
quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
(CHOKES DOWN LAUGHTER). No dude, I'm no stupid windoid. My system is clean: no spyware no virii.
I ran the tests several times booting one OS right after the other.
--- End quote ---
Broadband and Narrowband speeds are very slow. If the TCP/IP implementation was so much better (it isn't, they're about the same and with Longhorn, WIndows might even have a better implementation) with Linux and that bad with Windows, you'd still not notice it as much as you said you did.
Either you used a java client to do the speed tests (i'll save my java rantings for another time), your ISP does local caching, or you're just bullshitting to try and put Microsoft down.
Also, what distro are you running and what kernel versions? If you're comparing a new-ish linux distribution with a new (or new-ish) kernel to Windows 98, that's just retarded especially since the TCP/IP implementation did improve (slightly) with NT.
Also, virus is singular, NOT virii. Virii isn't even a word.
quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
And why not use W98? My computer runs linux 95% of the time and W98 works ok for the last 5%.
--- End quote ---
Windows 98 is horrible and old. If you use Linux, there is no reason to even have Windows 98 on that system. WineX would do just as good, and maybe even better job at running Windows applications than Windows98.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version