bwt1953

The WD Caviars are a good dependable inexpensive IDE drive. That's what I buy for GP storage use. Check out Sams' Club or Costco for deals. Me personally, if I were taking a trip and wanted to haul all my media with me, I'd be burnin' DVDs and not luggin' a bunch of HDs with me.

Exactly... if you're building a gammer box, go with SATA. There is a place for SCSI in raid configuration. Raid offers much more than speed performance when used on corporate servers and graphic workstations.SCSI is old school. SATA is new and has proven its speed capability. Plus it is a hell of a lot less expensive.

That's correct. The worst part is that the TOS is also telling you that someone is looking at everything you send. Your conversations are open to monitoring and there is nothing you can do about it

Old school says yes. Theoretically using raid-0 with two drives should increase the performance. But what with the speed of the new drives, you can actually get as good and better performance from a single drive. I've seen tests made with the WD Raptor up against two WD Raptors in a raid-0 configuration. In one test the raid was only slightly faster, like 0.1 ms and in the other two, the speeds were the same. Since you're on a laptop, you'd be better served with a serial-ATA or even a fast (7800rpm) IDE in a firewire enclosure. Even an IDE in a USB 2.0 enclosure is faster than most all drives that come on laptops. I use a cheap ol WD..on sale at Sam's Club IDE in a cheap USB enclosure as an aux. drive for my laptop. Performance is greatly enhanced. Plus I have added 200GB of storage (for under $200.00) to my laptop. To add that much internal HD to a laptop is expensive.

I'm with indestructible, try to save the file then view. And I wouldn't worry too much about whether 'your' connection is causing the jitter. Most of those problems originate at the server, and are due to too many people trying to access the same files. I've had high speed broadband for three years now and have yet been able to watch a single video on line without it stalling to rebuffer. At the office, where we are sitting on top of a wad of fiber big enough to clog a storm drain, we still can't view streaming video without jitters and rebuffering. Tweak your system with Van's settings, they'll make a difference. But don't use streaming video from over the net as a benchmark for performance.

I use MSN, and even it tries to hog bandwidth to make its own connections to the servers. The thing about AIM is that the more active on line buddies you have on your buddy list, the more connections it tries to make. I think MSN does the same. I run McAfee software firewall on all my machines in addition to using the NAT as a hardware firewall. With McAfee, as with others, I suppose, I can restrict what applications are making outbound and inbound connections. I keep them all shut down. This forces MSN to use only the pipe it has open for the MSN browser I am using.

AOL owns ICQ as well as AIM... they're double dippin' your computer resources. Do a speed test with AIM running and one without. My daughter runs AIM on her computer. I have to disconnect her at the router if I ever want to upload a decent size file or stay connected to my Remote Terminal Server. I opened up a LAN monitor while she was connected and counted no less than 40 connections that AIM was making to AOL servers. It is worse than a virus.

Yeah, connection...that's the key. I was just about to get on board about a year ago. I had fiber in the house, then we moved out here and there was nothing. Got on with this wireless thing, and now that it is getting pretty stable, I guess I'll have to try. Also have Adelphia cable available, but I stay away from them. I am getting Verizon DSL in a few days. I'll put my wife and daughter on that. Verizon is in the process of laying fiber in the entire town to each and every home and business, got it in my back yard...just not hot yet. This SkyNet is a local company. It costs 3x the cost of DSL, but as long as they continue to up the service and stay stable, I continue to support them. I don't want to put myself in a position of depending on the whims of Verizon for broadband access. When I had fiber with them in the past, they oversold the network to the point where dial-up was attractive again.

That's what got me interested. I couldn't imagine me tellin the OL that I was goin out to a gamer party...she'd shoot me. But when I found out these guys were playin' each other online, I crapped. I got to get one.

BTW Speedy, I was goofin' with your sig today...what do you think?

My ISP is a LOS wireless provider SkyNetAccess. I've got a Telex antenna sitting about 2' off the ground next to my front porch. I signed up for 'up to 1500/512'. These guys have been working hard to get this service level up. There doesn't appear to be any real cap in place. I am on a shared bandwidth plan, so as other users get on, it shows. But lately it has been so strong that I don't see or feel any effect. I don't game (right now) so I'm just happy to be able to get mail in and out and tie into my servers at work. I do see an Xbox on the horizon tho. The younger guys, who I work with, are all Xbox freaks and have got me interested in trying it out. I might be sorry tho, still have a 16 year old at home, she'll probably take it over in no time at all.

me too! I can only justify the cost for my workstations because it is a tool. They save enormous amounts of time when rendering images. Comes in real nice when I have a deadline to meet. My SCSI equipped dual Xeon machine will render images in minutes as opposed to hours on my desktop machines.

Another thing. Just because you have a big HD, say you get a 200GB unit and fill it full of MP3s and movies, your not home free. Don't fill up your hard drive. If you are using only one drive, c: and have no other on your machine, you need to leave at least 20% of that drive empty. Other wise it will not have space to defrag itself, and in the course of just one day can get so fragmented that your computer will come to a screeching halt. You'll think that you are loaded with spyware. Keep in mind that the OS does a poor job of keeping the drives organized. It will throw down info on that platter anywhere it can and not even try to group it with info from the same file you are attempting to save. So with bits of info all over the physical drive, when you try to read a file/access that info, the HD has to work twice or more as hard to get all that stuff togethjer. Hence the reason to defrag. The defrag program gets all that like info from the same file and puts all together in one spot on your HD. So...the next time you go to access that file, the system can read it faster. Save a movie to a fragmented file, and your HD probably won't be able to read it fast enough to prevent jitter. Same is true for music files.

It doesn't matter. Make sure your drives are at least 7800 rpm with 8mb cache. These are cheap drives now. Want faster? get the newer Serial ATA drives, you really want to kick ass, and don't care what you spend get 15,000 rpm SCSI drives (they're sweet). You just can't control (read restrict) how Windows uses ram and virtual memory (page files) and come out ahead. Like I said in my post, you can max out the ram in your machine, but windows still has control. Work with it instead of against it. There are a hell of a lot of things going on inside that box that is tossing stuff back and forth onto to your ram and into page files. If you make it easier for the OS to do its job, by loading more and faster ram, faster HDs and large page files, then your machine will sing.... no problems. Start to restrict what it can do and it WILL complain Part of making it easier and more efficient is to keep the drive clean and uncluttered. defrag. If you cannot get a third party defrag, at least use the included windows app.

Hate to be the party pooper, but setting your page file to a small setting does you no good.You gain nothing. Either allow Windows to control the size, or set it to an initial size of 2046 MB and a max of 4092 MB. If you have multiple hard drives, it won't hurt to set up a page file on each drive. This max setting and multiple page files ensures that you do not have memory related errors when running programs that are memory intensive. Don't set page files on USB drives. I use these settings on all drives in all my machines, even the monster with fast SCSI drives and 4GB ram. Graphics programs like Photoshop and all its cousins, Illustrator, Page Maker, Premiere, etc all are memory hogs. Many of the games you guys play hog memory and don't let go. You need VM in the fom of a page file to handle all those saved bits. If you set your page file to a small size, you'll run out, causing lockups, and crashes. It doesn't really matter how much ram you install in your machine. Windows will only use a portion of it for applications and will reserve about half of it for itself. 3GB is the most you ever want to install in a desktop or workstation. It won't recognize anything over 3GB by default, 3.53GB with some tweaks. And even with 4 GB installed in a machine, if the page file is taken out of windows control by setting it to a low value, your applications will either crash or freeze as they try to access information previously put to memory, but subsequently overwritten by applications which are not well written (most commercial software) If you are attempting to keep your RAM clear, then eliminate all the start up garbage that's on your machine. Things that start when windows starts, like AIM, Messenger, Weatherbug, RealNetworks, and all the other junk you see piled up in the task bar at the lower right of you screen. If you see that your page files are getting large, or you have set them to the max, then you should also consider defragging your hard drives on a regular basis. Get a third party defragger, one that you can set to a schedule, and one that will defrag the page files. The windows defrag is slow and rally doesn't do a good job at all. I use Diskeeper. Have been using it for years. Have tried others, but this one has worked the best for me. Keep it clean, keep it happy Forgot to add; this all holds true for Win2K thru SP4 and WinXP SP1 thru SP2. Not just theory....been there done that!

this is the strongest connection I've had yet. either there is a power outage, something good on TV, or the kids have all gone to bed :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2982 Kbps about 3 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 364 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 20:40:57 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 53X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.81 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 76.14 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-BPW7LZX6N :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1109 Kbps about 1.1 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 135 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 20:40:10 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 20X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 7.59 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 256.59 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-KG0FVL5WX

This ISP is talking about offering what I think he hinted at to be 7000/3000 service. Cost a few more duckettes, but I didn't even want to enetrtain the idea unitl I was able to see some stability in service over this wireless net. This is all shared bandwidth. Goes up and down as others get online in the community. But these speeds here are during what is condsidered peak useage times. I just may try out some of his dedicated service packages.

packet loss was at 6%

:::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2822 Kbps about 2.8 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB) Download Speed is:: 344 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:17:50 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 50X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.98 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 72.49 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-9PTU08AW3 subsequent testing (restarting the browser each time) seems to 'clean out the pipe' or warm it up....LOL test scores increase! :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 359 Kbps about 0.4 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 44 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:18:30 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 6X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 23.27 sec Diagnosis: Looks Great : 17.7 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-IU8VXGC4T :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 565 Kbps about 0.6 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 69 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:18:55 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 10X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 14.84 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 84.04 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-MGR6V5LSX :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 637 Kbps about 0.6 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 78 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:19:30 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 11X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 13.13 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 106.15 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-LMNKC4UFT :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 706 Kbps about 0.7 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 86 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:21:31 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 13X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 11.91 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 129.97 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-ZH6TDKFEC and then the download has fallen: :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1701 Kbps about 1.7 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 208 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:24:05 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 30X faster than 56K 1MB download in 4.92 sec Diagnosis: Looks Great : 4.16 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-C6HJXTEFV and then back up again :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 3057 Kbps about 3.1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 373 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:25:07 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 55X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.75 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 86.06 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-5Y0IMQEA6

packet loss is still at 2%. My ISP has owned up to the packet loss issue and is addressing it. Things have gotten better over the past couple of months

that seems to pick it up a bit: :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2988 Kbps about 3 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 365 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:01:19 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 53X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.81 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 84.33 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-ST4XDAWBN :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 729 Kbps about 0.7 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 89 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 14:01:56 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 13X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 11.51 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 139.8 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-U2BSE84LC

C:Documents and SettingsAdministrator>ping -n 100 64.202.119.45 Pinging 64.202.119.45 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Request timed out. Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Request timed out. Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Reply from 64.202.119.45: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=253 Ping statistics for 64.202.119.45: Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 98, Lost = 2 (2% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 2ms

I've spent the last couple of hours playing with settings on this box. I have run thru several of the cablenut tweaks, even trieds some of the fiber full duplex and sat settings. All basically delivered acceptable performance. Though the sat settings ran the upload into the gutter. I am paying for 'up to' 1500/512. But my service provider has been working to up the speeds and I don't really know that there is any real cap imposed. I am guessing that they are preping for the competition that is about to be thrown upon them. Verizon is in the neighborhood with giant spools of fiber, going house to house. My main concern is keeping my upload as high as possible. I tie into our servers 20 miles away via Win2k3 RTS, move alot of large graphics files up and down the pipe, and dabble in video. I haven't been at this optimizing long enough to know what to look for. Any help is surely appreciated One other thing, I use this smaller machine to access the web, homemade AMD XP2400 w/512 on an ASUS board. My workstation, which is a dual P4 2.8HT XEON Supermicro is hidden within the network, doesn't get out to the net. Will the larger faster machine do better, or does it matter? Win2KPro SP4 Linksys WRT54G Telex LOS SkyNetAccess a LOS Wireless provider via TELEX equip. static IP 1500/512 with cablenut tweaks for ADSL fast 2k :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2821 Kbps about 2.8 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 344 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 10:42:05 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 50X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.98 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 90.74 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-FCY054S3U :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 620 Kbps about 0.6 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 76 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 10:43:33 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 11X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 13.47 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 110.17 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-2F0KCY5L4 Log created by Check.bat on Sun 03/13/2005 Pinging 67.19.36.6 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=55 Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=55 Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=55 Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 67.19.36.6: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 47ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 51ms Ping Complete. Tracing route to 6.67-19-36.reverse.theplanet.com [67.19.36.6] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.1.1 2 * 63 ms 15 ms 10.2.1.1 3 <10 ms 16 ms 16 ms fe3-5.b2.iad.scnet.net [64.202.119.45] 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms ae-0-50.j2.iad.sc.net [64.202.119.118] 5 594 ms 16 ms 15 ms unknown.iad.scnet.net [66.225.244.170] 6 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 0.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [209.123.11.41] 7 <10 ms 16 ms 15 ms ge-2-3-0.r02.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net [206.223.115.112] 8 <10 ms 32 ms <10 ms p16-1-0-0.r20.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.2.82] 9 47 ms 31 ms 62 ms p16-0-1-1.r21.dllstx09.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.5.34] 10 47 ms 47 ms 47 ms ge-1-0-0.a00.dllstx09.us.ra.verio.net [129.250.28.167] 11 31 ms 47 ms 47 ms ge-1-2.a00.dllstx04.us.ra.verio.net [129.250.28.186] 12 47 ms 47 ms 47 ms ge-9-3.a00.dllstx04.us.ce.verio.net [157.238.228.38] 13 109 ms 63 ms 47 ms dist-vlan31.dsr3-1.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.85.127.29] 14 47 ms 62 ms 63 ms dist-vlan41.dsr2-1.dllstx4.theplanet.com [70.85.127.83] 15 47 ms 63 ms 62 ms gig1-0-1.tp-car9-1.dllstx4.theplanet.com [67.18.116.69] 16 47 ms 63 ms 47 ms 6.67-19-36.reverse.theplanet.com [67.19.36.6] Trace complete. all tweaks removed :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2837 Kbps about 2.8 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 346 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 12:04:30 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 51X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.96 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 79.9 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-428I9U6PS :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 713 Kbps about 0.7 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 87 kB/s Tested From:: http://www.testmy.net/ Test Time:: Sun Mar 13 12:03:46 EST 2005 Bottom Line:: 13X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 11.77 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 141.69 % faster than the average for host (56.154) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-OXTL5B379 Log created by Check.bat on Sun 03/13/2005 Pinging 67.19.36.6 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=55 Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=55 Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=55 Reply from 67.19.36.6: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 67.19.36.6: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 47ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 51ms Ping Complete. Tracing route to 6.67-19-36.reverse.theplanet.com [67.19.36.6] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.1.1 2 <10 ms 16 ms 15 ms 10.2.1.1 3 16 ms 16 ms <10 ms fe3-5.b2.iad.scnet.net [64.202.119.45] 4 <10 ms 15 ms 16 ms ae-0-50.j2.iad.sc.net [64.202.119.118] 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms unknown.iad.scnet.net [66.225.244.170] 6 <10 ms 32 ms 15 ms 0.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [209.123.11.41] 7 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms ge-2-3-0.r02.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net [206.223.115.112] 8 * <10 ms 16 ms p16-1-0-0.r20.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.2.82] 9 47 ms 32 ms 46 ms p16-0-1-1.r21.dllstx09.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.5.34] 10 47 ms 47 ms 31 ms ge-1-0-0.a00.dllstx09.us.ra.verio.net [129.250.28.167] 11 46 ms 32 ms 47 ms ge-1-2.a00.dllstx04.us.ra.verio.net [129.250.28.186] 12 47 ms 46 ms 63 ms ge-9-3.a00.dllstx04.us.ce.verio.net [157.238.228.38] 13 157 ms 250 ms 203 ms dist-vlan31.dsr3-1.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.85.127.29] 14 62 ms 47 ms 63 ms dist-vlan41.dsr2-1.dllstx4.theplanet.com [70.85.127.83] 15 47 ms 47 ms 63 ms gig1-0-1.tp-car9-1.dllstx4.theplanet.com [67.18.116.69] 16 47 ms 62 ms 47 ms 6.67-19-36.reverse.theplanet.com [67.19.36.6] Trace complete.

51 ....not such a NewBie afterall!