netmasta

Welcome to the site, sannielsen Do you also subscribe to cable TV? If so then your speeds are 6Mb/384Kb

Your mirror: :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 4173 Kbps about 4.2 Mbps (tested with 7458 kB) Download Speed is:: 509 kB/s Tested From:: http://downloads4u.net Test Time:: Bottom Line:: 75X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.01 sec Diagnosis: 90% + Okay : running at 95.78 % of your hosts average (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-GF2WCTEZ7'>https://testmy.net/stats/id-GF2WCTEZ7 Testmy.net: :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 5852 Kbps about 5.9 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 714 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Thu Oct 06 2005 18:08:32 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Bottom Line:: 105X faster than 56K 1MB download in 1.43 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 34.31 % faster than the average for host (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-F2AZG5XT7

Try pinging it and see what happens.

[quote author=

Welcome to the site, GraffitiSkys Read the two topics in my sig and post the results.

He's probably using an accelerator.

[quote author=TheHalf

[quote author=TheHalf

Nope, a hub or router just routes the traffic on your lan. Think of it as a hose connected to a "splitter". You have the hose connected to a main water source at 3PSI for example. Then you have a connector with 2 hoses connected to it. You turn just one on and you get the full 3PSI. Turn the second one on at the same time and it drops to 1.5PSI. 3PSI / 2 = 1.5 each.

I think 911 works even if a phone isn't "activated". So if someone has an old phone lying around, they could leave it in their car for example, and as long as it's charged, you can still have a phone for real emergancies.

Your not just going to let the other 6GB go to waste?

Thanks guys for the sites. It was only a onetime problem, so I'm not too worried. I'll keep those in mind though. BTW they offer 25MB of space (meh..), but thay automatically resize pics larger than 250KB. Thay don't seem to do a bad job either. The transfer is 1,500Mb/mo.

Comast I see. What package are you on, 6Mb/768K, I'd guess. You could probably benifit from some tweaking. See the topics in my sig. Also, why don't you join the site, so you can keep track of you posts.

You could probably benifit from some tweaking. Read the topics in my sig. Also, post an upload test.

I've had Cingular for a while now, about 3 years or so. They seem very reliable. In side buildings the connection isn't as strong though. I guess it depends on where you are. I've had two Nokia's, currently the 3595 and I agree. They are very good phones.

Well, It's working today and seems normal, but the pings are horrible. [tt]Tracing route to photobucket.com [38.116.159.11] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 6 ms 7 ms 6 ms 10.219.40.1 3 7 ms 6 ms 6 ms 68.87.151.41 4 580 ms 151 ms 8 ms 10g-9-4-ar02.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net [68.87.144.29] 5 10 ms 9 ms 8 ms 12.125.47.49 6 33 ms 32 ms 33 ms tbr2-p012801.cb1ma.ip.att.net [12.123.40.222] 7 33 ms 32 ms 33 ms tbr2-cl5.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.106] 8 1099 ms 282 ms 30 ms ggr2-p390.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.37] 9 32 ms 30 ms 32 ms 154.54.11.205 10 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms 154.54.2.241 11 44 ms 43 ms 44 ms 66.28.4.33 12 54 ms 53 ms 53 ms 66.28.4.29 13 225 ms 190 ms 219 ms 66.28.4.254 14 55 ms 54 ms 55 ms 38.116.159.11 Trace complete.[/tt] Even testmy.net is bad. I'm getting good speeds though. Look at the first five or so hops, very unusual. It's 9:30AM/et btw. [tt]Tracing route to testmy.net [67.18.179.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 48 ms 55 ms 51 ms 10.219.40.1 3 112 ms 74 ms 118 ms 68.87.151.41 4 79 ms 1237 ms 301 ms 10g-9-4-ar02.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net [68.87.144.29] 5 108 ms 21 ms 42 ms 12.125.47.49 6 106 ms 116 ms 108 ms tbr2-p012801.cb1ma.ip.att.net [12.123.40.222] 7 998 ms 159 ms 84 ms tbr2-cl5.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.106 8 100 ms 116 ms 475 ms tbr2-cl7.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.10.46] 9 235 ms 124 ms 113 ms tbr1-cl2.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.9.141] 10 121 ms 113 ms 67 ms tbr2-cl6.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.10.90] 11 110 ms 113 ms 1314 ms gar1-p370.dlrtx.ip.att.net [12.123.196.97] 12 125 ms 69 ms 64 ms 12.119.136.14 13 53 ms 51 ms 51 ms vl32.dsr01.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.85.127.61] 14 107 ms 103 ms 55 ms dist-vlan-42.dsr2-2.dllstx4.theplanet.com [70.85.127.91 15 859 ms 54 ms 55 ms gig1-0-2.tp-car9-1.dllstx4.theplanet.com [67.18.116.85] 16 53 ms 57 ms 74 ms 85.67-18-179.reverse.theplanet.com [67.18.179.85] Trace complete. [/tt] :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 5987 Kbps about 6 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB) Download Speed is:: 731 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Thu Oct 06 2005 09:29:25 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Bottom Line:: 107X faster than 56K 1MB download in 1.4 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 37.44 % faster than the average for host (comcast.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-7LIEOST5A

Welcome to the site, PowerWCRulez

I'm on comcast. BTW, I'm not using the Comcast DNS servers. I'm using 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4 That could be it.

Hmm.. must be my route.

Also not the mirrors have large files. Ex, I don't get accurate results on MirrorBAF - because the largest file is 3.1MB. I'm on a 6Mb connection.

Is anyone else experiencing problems with Photobucket? I haven't been able to access it, or see sigs, etc. all day. [tt]C:Documents and SettingsPeter>ping photobucket.com Ping request could not find host photobucket.com. Please check the name and try again. C:Documents and SettingsPeter>tracert photobucket.com Unable to resolve target system name photobucket.com.[/tt]

Yea, I don't see it as a problem either. A metal detector on the other hand, I'm not sure. But if it's going though an x-ray, chances are you don't have to worry about it going through a metal detector.

That doesn't really work. I'll quote a post I wrote in another topic:

It sounds like your MBR (master boot record) could be corrupeted, that is if that drive does not work as a primary drive in the other computer too. EDIT: What is the OS on both computers?

Most Monitors Won't Play New HD Video Vista's content protection will block or blur high-def movies on today's displays. Scott Spanbauer From the November 2005 issue of PC World magazine Posted Tuesday, October 04, 2005 Illustration by Harry CampbellIf you dropped a bundle on a high-end computer display or HDTV, you could be in for an unpleasant surprise when you slip your new high-definition DVD of Star Wars: Episode III into your Windows Vista PC. Vista, the next version of Windows that's slated to appear in about a year, will feature a new systemwide content protection scheme called PVP-OPM (see box below). If your monitor doesn't work with PVP-OPM, all you'll likely see is either a fuzzy rendition of your high-def flick or Hollywood's version of the Blue Screen of Death--a message warning you that the display has been 'revoked'. ... Think you could avoid this expense by sticking with XP? No such luck. To see HD, you'll have to upgrade to Windows Vista as well; Windows XP's security and driver models lack the ability to support HDCP. Consumers intent on viewing HD discs via their PCs will have little choice but to spring for the new operating system in addition to an HDCP-compliant monitor. Complete story at PCWorld.com