ispgeek

You're almost eeevill! I love it!! :2funny:

You are not uncapped...no modem is "uncapped", You have just been given a better performance tier (or bin). Enjoy your new faster speeds nonetheless....

Actually there is no need to talk with a rep at all. There is a link on the main AOL page after signin. They opt into one of three programs, one being the free no support deal and thats it...their done. Also calling them over this issue is not a problem either....they are fully expecting your call and will not give you one bit of hassle over it....I just went through it for a gift account that I had given someone a year ago...took me a sum total of 4 minutes on the phone and no hassles. AOL subscribers also received an email from the president of AOL about 45 days ago that contains all the information and how to do the switch.

I have no problems with anything BUT the western digital hard drives. Go with the seagate equiv, pay a couple of extra bux and get that 5 year warranty. You will not regret the decision...trust me!

Here is a good explanation... The fundamental difference between reading and writing under RAID is this: when you write data in a redundant environment, you must access every place where that data is stored; when you read the data back, you only need to read the minimum amount of data necessary to retrieve the actual data--the redundant information does not need to be accessed on a read. OK, this isn't as complicated as I probably just made it sound. :^) Let's see how various storage techniques used in RAID differ in this regard: Mirroring: Read performance under mirroring is far superior to write performance. Let's suppose you are mirroring two drives under RAID 1. Every piece of data is duplicated, stored on both drives. This means that every byte of data stored must be written to both drives, making write performance under RAID 1 actually a bit slower than just using a single disk; even if it were as fast as a single disk, both drives are tied up during the write. But when you go to read back the data? There's absolutely no reason to access both drives; the controller, if intelligently programmed, will only ask one of the drives for the data--the other drive can be used to satisfy a different request. This makes RAID significantly faster than a single drive for reads, under most conditions. Striping Without Parity: A RAID 0 array has about equal read and write performance (or more accurately, roughly the same ratio of read to write performance that a single hard disk would have.) The reason is that the "chopping up" of the data without parity calculation means you must access the same number of drives for reads as you do for writes. Striping With Parity: As with mirroring, write performance when striping with parity (RAID levels 3 through 6) is worse than read performance, but unlike mirroring, the "hit" taken on a write when doing striping with parity is much more significant. Here's how the different accesses fare: For reads, striping with parity can actually be faster than striping without parity. The parity information is not needed on reads, and this makes the array behave during reads in a way similar to a RAID 0 array, except that the data is spread across one extra drive, slightly improving parallelism. For sequential writes, there is the dual overhead of parity calculations as well as having to write to an additional disk to store the parity information. This makes sequential writes slower than striping without parity. The biggest discrepancy under this technique is between random reads and random writes. Random reads that only require parts of a stripe from one or two disks can be processed in parallel with other random reads that only need parts of stripes on different disks. In theory, random writes would be the same, except for one problem: every time you change any block in a stripe, you have to recalculate the parity for that stripe, which requires two writes plus reading back all the other pieces of the stripe! Consider a RAID 5 array made from five disks, and a particular stripe across those disks that happens to have data on drives #3, #4, #5 and #1, and its parity block on drive #2. You want to do a small "random write" that changes just the block in this stripe on drive #3. Without the parity, the controller could just write to drive #3 and it would be done. With parity though, the change to drive #3 affects the parity information for the entire stripe. So this single write turns into a read of drives #4, #5 and #1, a parity calculation, and then a write to drive #3 (the data) and drive #2 (the newly-recalculated parity information). This is why striping with parity stinks for random write performance. (This is also why RAID 5 implementations in software are not recommended if you are interested in performance.) Another hit to write performance comes from the dedicated parity drive used in certain striping with parity implementations (in particular, RAID levels 3 and 4). Since only one drive contains parity information, every write must write to this drive, turning it into a performance bottleneck. Under implementations with distributed parity, like RAID 5, all drives contain data and parity information, so there is no single bottleneck drive; the overheads mentioned just above still apply though. As if the performance hit for writes under striping with parity weren't bad enough, there is even one more piece of overhead! The controller has to make sure that when it changes data and its associated parity, all the changes happen simultaneously; if the process were interrupted in the middle, say, after the data were changed and not the parity, the integrity of the array would be compromised. To prevent this, a special process must be used, sometimes called a two-phase commit. This is similar to the techniques used in database operations, for example, to make sure that when you transfer money from your checking account to your savings account, it doesn't get subtracted from one without being certain that it was added to the other (or vice-versa). More overhead, more performance slowdown. The bottom line that results from the difference between read and write performance is that many RAID levels, especially ones involving striping with parity, provide far better net performance improvement based on the ratio of reads to writes in the intended application. Some applications have a relatively low number of writes as a percentage of total accesses; for example, a web server. For these applications, the very popular RAID 5 solution may be an ideal choice. Other applications have a much higher percentage of writes; for example, an interactive database or development environment. These applications may be better off with a RAID 01 or 10 solution, even if it does cost a bit more to set up.

Yes there is a way....and you can get the router for $5.00!! https://shop.fon.com/FonShop/shop/US/ShopController?view=product&product=PRD-001 You can also flash certain routers with hotspot software that will allow you to do the same thing as the one above.

Swimmer I can't help but notice this is advertised as a gigabit router (which internally it very well be), but wan to lan its only 11.5mb grrrrr

Very simple rule to follow....if it ends in .zip, .rar, .mp? or any other compressed format there is little to no value in further compression.

I won't go that far...it seems to be working well so far...

Sorry man...couldn't resist the temptation....

I have no intention of upgrading from dual to quad core. Thats just crazy....I have way more processing power than I need now.....I almost feel guilty having what I have......especially when I know what I had 22 years ago.....

naw....just very lucky....or reading the wrong levels :2funny:

Glad to hear it!!

In your case it will be locked because your BIOS is a highly modified version of the generic. HP has a nasty habit of embedding things into their BIOS and other hardware so you need to be very careful. A few years back they embedded the modem and sound board together (well parts of each actually...in any case it was uuuugly). When people made changes to this equipment they found themselves with multiple functions no longer working and there was no way around it but to replace both with either the original product (which could no longer be obtained) or replace them both which still left the user with an annoying boot error that never went away.

While it may not fix your problem SP2 does resolve a ton of other problems not to mention keeping your current in the upgrade path which is critical.

Okay...in excess of 12 hrs and still going strong....this is a good thing.....

I cannot honestly answer that question without speaking to your tech guys and that probably won't happen. The levels you have posted above are not bad....so unless you are actually having problems I wouldn't worry about them. We hesitate to give levels out to people because the minute they change the phone calls start to flood in.....your levels will change from hour to hour and day to day, this is normal. So long as they stay within normal operatiing params and you have no problems I wouldn't worry about it.

So far so good....I also have a semi fresh copy of windows on here now which probably helped out a bit....

Yup....turned clear type off and now back to normal.....obviously they have that button reversed for some perverse reason....

Okay....it uses the same XP "fuzzy" display technology that drives me crazy....I like things crisp..clean and without smooth edges.....,guess I am doomed to wear my glasses to surf now....grrr

Heh....well I have a rep to uphold ya know...got to complain about somethin...so far thats the best I can do....

Okay...here is gripe #1.... I use biometrics for my password entry on certain sites....I am gonna have to go back and reprogram each one of them....grrr!

Okay.../.back on IE7 again.....lets see how the next two hours go...I should know really quick if the problems are gonna come back.

I don't get it....I've the asked the question twice and can't see to get an answer.....

Knock off the personal attacks. Your not getting any more warnings from me