iced98lx

redownload your image do a text mode install...

and post up the cpu-z screen shot of your 6 ghz processor too...

matter of fact, i'd love to see some 3dmark bench's on your system too!

Please do speed tests on both machines, (upstairs and down )  post them.

The wireless generally will be a bit slower, not always, but as a rule.

z'actly. If you're using N you shouldn't notice much difference, but there could be a bit. How much are we talking? Post up some test results!

If you're pulling 600kB/s, then you're outperforming your advertised 3mbps download speed (600kB/s =~5mpbs)

Why don't you test here at testmy.net, post the results with the links provided and then post the plan details you've signed up for... it'll be easier to help you then!

and btw, Welcome.

--Chris

actually, they are SATA hard drives on different channels.  i think they're ok, because dr. watson postmortem debugger showed up and my computer froze, and it's freezing periodically.  maybe it has AIDS, i hope its not a hard ware issue

You're fine, there's only one device on each channel of a SATA controller. No worries.

Well, I'm at least here.. I've got Midco Cable service, so, if anyone has issues etc we're here to help.

looks like soundcard drivers to me.

[quote author=☻ ◦

Important to be welcoming to new members, everyone needs to learn Just wish I had more time to spend around here, other forums are taking my time.    Our growing international community is especially important to us, Smart Bro has to have on eof the largest (or at least most active) client bases on here..

You'll also want to post what you're paying for.. ie if you're paying for 2048/256 you're slow but if you're paying for 2048/128 you're fast.. let us know what you're paying for and also your setup, what modem you're using, do you have a router, wired or wireless, etc.

Chris

You are correct, fiewalls, virus scanners and the like will all reduce your speed test if it's scanning the data as it enters.. most notorious are Avast and Zone Alarm.

Chris

seems to work okay..

:::.. Download Stats ..:::

Download Connection is:: 16799 Kbps about 16.8 Mbps (tested with 48638 kB)

Download Speed is:: 2051 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1)

Test Time:: 2007/05/28 - 6:43am

Bottom Line:: 293X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.5 sec

Tested from a 48638 kB file and took 23.718 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 220.1 % faster than the average for host (midco.net)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-YL017I3CM

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20061201 Firefox/2.0.0.3 (Ubuntu-feisty) [!]

mmmm okay

my daily:

Opteron dual core 2.2ghz

2gb ram

2x300 gb sata

radeon x1650pro 512mb

-+-+-+-+-+

The other two (linux and one for Justin)

Athlon XP 3200

2gb ram

ti4200/fx5700 ultra

2x300gb sata

+_+_+_+_+

Servers:

2x2.8ghz xeon

4gb ram

5x500 gb 15,000 rpm

intel graphics (LOL)

2xceleron 1ghz

1gb ram

2x40gb IDE

(firewall)

and i've run out of desire to keep typing....

several laptops now come with 40gb solid state hard drives...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_state_drive

I don't think it is necessarily a RAM hard drive is it? I was thinking it was a flash drive hard drive...

Ignore the naming conventions, the 'flash' or 'ram' hard drive is simple a solid state memory drive... 

You shouldn't notice any big speed increase of a live CD version of linux... 1/2 of the distro doesn't get loaded into RAM.  It should be much slower to open anything on a (typical)  live CD distro..

i have the total opposite results and my windows is faster

Would you post some results from each at roughly the same time (If you don't dual boot)...

As well as system specs from each and what distro/version of linux...

I suppose I should do the same:

Windows:

Opteron dual core 2.2ghz

2gb Ram

Intel gigabit

2xSamsung 300gb 16mb cache SATA II in Raid 0

Linux Box:

Athlon XP3200 2.4ghz

2gb DDR400

Integrated Realtek networking

2xSeagate 300gb SATA II drives in RAID 1

You're going to notice a staggering change just by putting in some more ram. Go with a lower voltage than what you have Proc if you can find one, I upgraded my poopy e-machines Xp2600 mobile to a 2800 mobile that was a lower voltage chip, saved some power, saved some heat, gained battery life... I also jumped from 512 to 2gb of ram, and it made the darn thing usable again!

Swimmer:

I was definately not shocked either... I've always known unix had a better networking stack, just didn't realize it'd manifest itself in a nearly 7Mbps throughput gap. The sad part is the windows box has an intel gigabit adapter into my network and the linux box has crappy built in realtek 10/100.... !

Here's a late night speed check on linux...

:::::::::::::::::.. testmy.net test results ..:::::::::::::::::

Download Connection is:: 15236 Kbps about 15.24 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB)

Download Speed is:: 1860 kB/s

Upload Connection is:: 1406 Kbps about 1.4 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 172 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1)

Test Time:: 2007/05/19 - 8:18pm

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-UPZKJDLY0

U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-V3QFJH79G

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070417 Fedora/2.0.0.3-4.fc7 Firefox/2.0.0.3

I know this doesn't have much to do with this post, but I did notice a 1-2Mbps download speed increase switching from a generic Ambit modem to a Moto SB 51xx. Our VPN's stay connected  more consistently, and my upload speeds don't fade when uploading a large file (1GB+). ...

I've got a solution for you.. ditch the lame suites and install Avast Anti-Virus (Free for home use!) and use firefox with AdBlock Plus and filterset G updater.... No ads, no popups, no viruses.

Chrsi

Well, here you go... I was working on some QT development on my Fedora box and decided to take a test...

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. testmy.net test results ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Download Connection is:: 12557 Kbps about 12.56 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB)

Download Speed is:: 1533 kB/s

Upload Connection is:: 1407 Kbps about 1.4 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 172 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1)

Test Time:: 2007/05/19 - 11:00am

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-RAFBWZLSD

U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-ZH6N2CMWP

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070417 Fedora/2.0.0.3-4.fc7 Firefox/2.0.0.3

Now here is moments later, same connection, same variables, Windows XP box (this box has pulled 20+ down[see sig]  in the past, and is fully tweaked.. the linux box is totally as-was in  the networking department)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. testmy.net test results ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Download Connection is:: 5905 Kbps about 5.91 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB)

Download Speed is:: 721 kB/s

Upload Connection is:: 754 Kbps about 0.8 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 92 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1)

Test Time:: 2007/05/19 - 11:01am

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-MB2LC9U7X

U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-VKLQW759C

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3

Although the XP install is about 7 months old... oh the windows networking stack sucks. I'd like to see windows tests form someone with the Killer network card (~$200 NIC that runs linux and offloads all networking from windows stack)...

I don't really want to spend the $200 to play with it, but if I saw this big of speed difference all the time.....

Meanwhile, speedtest.net has some work to do to get big enough files for anyone with a decent connection...

Linux:

Windows:

The linux one is nice to believe, and my download is unregulated, but I doubt I'm pulling that anymore, my service has gone way down hill since the days of my signature...

lol since about 2001.

i have an old dell 17 inch crt i can switch to if i need...

untill i get my 22inch widescreen lcd 

rocking a 22 and a 19 side by side...

::::::::::.. testmy.net test results ..::::::::::

Download Connection is:: 7879 Kbps about 7.88 Mbps (tested with 12160 kB)

Download Speed is:: 962 kB/s

Upload Connection is:: 1386 Kbps about 1.4 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 169 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Server 1)

Test Time:: 2007/05/16 - 6:02am

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-RDIFWZNL7

U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-IGZP5FJAR

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3

we won't talk about how much I pay a month... 

my speeds have dropped amazingly in the past 2-3 months... it's great.

for pure comparison:

I don't even want to talk about hop distance...  :tickedoff:

I get caught up in sprints retarded network.. And don't even talk about getting to a level3 network... here's to testmy.net:

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    6 ms    5 ms    6 ms  10.45.48.1

  3    7 ms    5 ms    5 ms  host-221-9-220-24.midco.net [24.220.9.221]

  4    6 ms    5 ms    6 ms  24.220.3.17

  5    8 ms    7 ms    8 ms  gsr-west.midco.net [24.220.1.85]

  6    40 ms    39 ms    39 ms  sl-gw13-che-4-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.136.61]

  7    32 ms    30 ms    31 ms  sl-bb20-che-3-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.15.157]

  8    50 ms    49 ms    50 ms  sl-bb24-chi-3-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.160]

  9    50 ms    49 ms    49 ms  sl-bb23-chi-14-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.26.102]

10    50 ms    50 ms    49 ms  sl-bb20-chi-8-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.26.53]

11    50 ms    53 ms    51 ms  sl-st20-chi-13-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.3]

12    45 ms    45 ms    45 ms  144.232.8.114

13    56 ms    54 ms    54 ms  ae-32-56.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.101.190]

14    45 ms    52 ms    54 ms  ae-1-100.ebr1.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.69.132.41]

15    83 ms    87 ms    90 ms  ae-3.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net [4.69.132.61]

16  101 ms    86 ms    90 ms  ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net [4.69.132.37]

17    83 ms    87 ms    90 ms  ae-2.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.69.132.106]

18    *        *        *    Request timed out.

19    69 ms    70 ms    73 ms  THE-PLANET.car4.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.71.122.2]

20    69 ms    70 ms    71 ms  te9-2.dsr02.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.87.253.30]

21    69 ms    71 ms    70 ms  4e.fd.5746.static.theplanet.com [70.87.253.78]

22    71 ms    71 ms    71 ms  gi1-0-1.car17.dllstx4.theplanet.com [67.18.116.6

9]

23    70 ms    74 ms    70 ms  55.b3.1243.static.theplanet.com [67.18.179.85]

Trace complete.

Bah.

it's not that huge of a kill on download speed, 10-12 %.. if you've got a fast connection it's no biggie.. you can register AVAST home and get a key for free that expires in a year (then you can re-register again for free)

Avast is a very nice suite. just pop it off when you're doing a download test here...

Avast home is free and x64 capable.

don't know about vista though, would be worth a shot.