bryanlautt

Never ran into a problem with HP, been using HP for years.

Not too bad considering its from my wireless laptop.

Heres what I get C:UsersBWL>ping google.com Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=241 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=241 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=241 Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=241 Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 38ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 38ms C:UsersBWL>tracert google.com Tracing route to google.com [64.233.167.99] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 8 ms 9 ms 7 ms 10.20.0.1 3 9 ms 9 ms 33 ms 24.220.3.97 4 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms gig-bb-midconet.midco.net [24.220.1.1] 5 14 ms 14 ms 16 ms gsr.east.ifg2-2.midco.net [24.220.1.89] 6 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms sl-gw10-che-7-0.sprintlink.net [144.224.13.37] 7 28 ms 26 ms 27 ms sl-bb20-che-3-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.15.145] 8 44 ms 68 ms 43 ms sl-bb24-chi-3-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.160] 9 45 ms 44 ms 44 ms sl-bb22-chi-9-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.26.110] 10 46 ms 53 ms 47 ms sl-st21-chi-11-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.21] 11 35 ms 33 ms 35 ms sl-googl1-1-0.sprintlink.net [144.223.241.90] 12 36 ms 37 ms 36 ms 216.239.46.1 13 55 ms 38 ms 47 ms 72.14.232.53 14 37 ms 56 ms 35 ms 64.233.175.26 15 38 ms 39 ms 39 ms py-in-f99.google.com [64.233.167.99] Trace complete. C:UsersBWL>

Its funny nobody takes into account that the whole internet is actually shared bandwidth, you might have a dedicated connection but once you hit the major backbones then thats all over. and that has alot to do with accurate results the best result is to test from a server thats closets to you. Every node you travel though you lose some speed. so if you put the math into prespective and also its not always your ISP's fault sometimes it can be and other times its the server your visting and other times its the traffic on the backbone and even laggy routers along the way. I just thought i would try to clear somethings up with people on here.

to a point, it all depends on how far your from the server and what kind of a route that your taking to get there and how many people are testing from the site at the same time as you are. sometimes you might run faster then other times and sometimes you might run slow and then come to find out theres a node thats laging. but for the most part for having pretty much a centralized server its does a good job.

What brand of printer is it?? Have you tried reinstalling the dirvers for the printer or even checking to see if your model has updated drivers for the printer/??

Yeah i will have to aggree with you, I have had customers fry there boards because they were trying to build there system and thought they knew what there were doing and fried the board. for a temp solution get the adaptor there really cheap and then i wouldnt use that for the long term solution just long enough to get they correct PSU with the 24 pin, most of the PSUs now days you can use it for either a 20 pin or a 24 pin but apparently your doesnt. Its a common mistake that people make quite often.

wow thats got to suck, what kind of a router do you have and also how many computers do you have hooked up to your network or if you have more then one wireless laptop that will slow you down some, do you have a b card or a g card??

Will it work with vista??

Do you have some kind of program that you have setup to keep track of that.

yeah but back in the day when a person had only 128kps or even 256 kps would be kinda hard to achieve that 10 gig lol

Download a 100 or a 500mb file and then let me know what kind of bandwidth that you getting, take snapshots at the beginning, the middle and towards then end.

Not good at all :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 5842 Kbps about 5.8 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB) Download Speed is:: 713 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/03/27 - 6:12am Bottom Line:: 102X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.44 sec Tested from a 5983 kB file and took 8.39 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 20.3 % faster than the average for host (midco.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-HOK3E7YI4 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; InfoPath.2) [!]

I pay 49.95 for mine comes with uncapped download/512 upload my download speeds have cut down over half usually most of the time i would get better then 15mb but there having some major issues in the town so they credited me a month of service since i complained to them about it going on for a week now.

I also noticed that verizon will be putting fiber up in North Dakota, they need to come here to get more compitition. lol

Wow I would just love to have anyone one of those packages just for the upload I did call them and they said they will be offering everybody the 1mb upload in the near future. i think it will be like 5 bucks more because they said they are paying more then we are for the upload speed but i was like well i wouldnt mine paying more either just to get a 1mb upload.

I guess it makes a difference in if you live in a big city you a have alot more providers to choose from and better deals

Only 512, but i read where they bought out some towns where Mediacom used to have and there keeping them at the 1MB upload http://www.midcocomm.com/LatestNews/VermillionYanktonAcquisition/HowwillthisTransitionAffectYou/Index.cfm Read it for yourself and you will see why i am kinda ticked about it thats why i am going to call them in an half an hour.

Unless you have unlimited usage like i do. they tell us download as much as you want they dont control how much we can download in a month. Not to mention all the other people downloading movies and music constantly

wow i wish i could get your speeds for only that much especially your upload wow, that would for the users downloading off of my ftp server

It was fairly simple to setup. i decided not to use IIS 5.1 that comes with XP Pro, I just decided to use a software server, it has alot of features and the cool thing about it is that i will still run while the systems is logged off and if i do have a problem i can connect to the server and make system changes.

Thats cool oh and one thing since were on the topic of security, how secure is it to connect to your server using remote desktop and login in to do system changes from your wireless laptop in a another location or even on another ISP network

I have never used 2000 server or 2003 server, if i do decide to make the switch then to 2003 server I am sure its going to be a new world for me lol

Do you think a person should wait for longhorn??? since all my other platforms have vista on it

Thanks for your advise I am use XP Pro for my platform and running server software on top of that. which i beefed up the security on it, going to enable the SSL