
S0rtna
Members-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Speed Test
My Results
Everything posted by S0rtna
-
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
Any other suggestions for my problem I'm getting :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 4418 Kbps about 4.42 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 539 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1)Test Time:: 2006/06/10 - 5:03pm Bottom Line:: 77X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.9 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 5.547 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: 90% + Okay : running at 99.06 % of your hosts average (ptd.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-0W7R9MV8A Host Average:: host:ptd.net dl-avg:4460Kbps User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) [!] and my ip is advertising 7k I believe it's either 7 or 8 i'd have to check again -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
Firefox has a builtin accelerator I Think -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
Yup pretty much same either way -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
almost forgot to answer one of your questions there I am currently using Zonealarm pro trial version -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
I have used Cablenut and also tried the TCPoptimizer. also done most of the tweaks those that apply to my OS from the make it faster forum and such and yes those speeds seem to be pretty consistant. dunno what else to try -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
Yea just recycled it a few minutes ago -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
Nope no router -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
That would be a positive -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
I'm pretty serious with security on my system most of the programs mentioned I already have and have run, systems seems to be running pretty smooth and clean, I am using a Cable connection and I pay about $39.95 a month for it located in the US in the northeastern section of the state of Pennsylvania -
Closest back to back / Most consistent speed
S0rtna replied to i2d | ScruFFy |'s topic in Show off your speed
I am currently at ::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::: Download Connection is:: 3541 Kbps about 3.54 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 432 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1)Test Time:: 2006/06/07 - 5:01pm Bottom Line:: 62X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 2.37 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 6.922 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 79.23 % of your hosts average (ptd.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-6URM451IN Host Average:: host:ptd.net dl-avg:4469Kbps User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) For my download, and at ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 363 Kbps about 0.36 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 44 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1)Test Time:: 2006/06/07 - 5:04pm Bottom Line:: 6X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 23.27 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 13.05024 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 21 % faster than the average for host (ptd.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-5286OHP4R Host Average:: host:ptd.net ul-avg:300Kbps User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) For my upload scores. I do not know off hand what is advertised for my connection but i believe this to be fairly close at least on the dl part should I try to get this connection any better or would it be best to just go with it?... New bit of information for this just looked it up, I use service electric company and they advertise this 7 megabits downstream and 400 Kbps upstream -
yea it shows an ip from port 67 to submask on port 68 udp and also showing a tcp from port 80 to port 1147 but not too concerned with that one as it's not as repetitive
-
I feel the need to clarify this I don't mean thumbs down for all tech there just that particular one cause he seemed to be avoiding the issues I presented to him like he was trying to watch a football game or something...
-
Ok I went to tech support with this issue and they told me absolutely nothing is wrong the firewall is doing it's job but it has not done this since I got it has only started recently. So... I am getting blocked hits on a udp protocol at about a hit per second which is filling the log pretty fast you can imagine from the same destination on port 67 to port 68 destination is the sub mask 255.etc. all of it incoming any clues on what this is and if they are correct that it's nothing to be bother about? Thnks
-
thank you i'll give that a try
-
could anyone help me determine the best settings for my connection? just tell me what info you need to determine this thanks
-
or perhaps a stick of TNT
-
thinking I might just have them wipe this one and start over
-
No friends that are close to me have xp
-
i got nothing can't even seem to find the log file if in fact there is one created
-
I didn't see a report of that at all
-
tells me chkdsk cannot be run in dos mode heh
-
same results says something about correcting errors in volume bitmap when i run chkdsk by itself too then says windows found problems with your file system
-
it runs on reboot I even tried a full scan with /s and /f I believe it was and still it detects problems