Dial-up

[Swimmer]

yeah.. I think this has to do with external modem.. I am pretty sure, not positive, that the 100ms refers the amount of time that it takes the computer to sent it to the modem, connected to the computer via serial, and then receive the sent message.

By doubling the bandwidth and using the product, which will bond the connections to the user..  but when it comes to download/uploading it would use both the lines seperate. so if you were trying to download like 5mb.. one line would download 2.5 and the other would download 2.5 assuming that the server allows multiple connections.

This seems article seems to be way out of date also.. there is no mention of 56k at all. and the apple product they are comairing it to is also connected to serial..  Where as the product that i posted can be connected to serial, which would enduce transmission time or it can be connected via ethernet.  Which would mean that it would induce less than 1ms.

[cholla]

I did some checking on the serial port latency What I found was about 26ms but thats each direction so 52ms for round trip.

This is on tracert & latency

http://www.modemsite.com/56k/backbone5.asp

[Swimmer]

Alright i might have confused my self completly.. it has been one of those days.. if you have that hardware.. and you increase bandwidth and lag remains that same.. to the user.. that would be faster.. it would be like taking a t1 and upgrading it to like t3 with the same lag.. you could push more data over the pipe there by increasing the "speed" of the connection.

[cholla]

Thats the way I understand it.The speed & bandwidth stay the same but since more data is sent each trip there are fewer trips & fewer headers etc.So it takes less time.Like taking two trucks the same size full of merchandise to the same location at the same time & same speed instead of using one truck to make two trips at the same speed.

[trogers]

Hey guys, here is part of that link illustrating what you are trying to understand:

Part of the problem here is misleading use of the word "faster".

Would you say that a Boeing 747 is three times "faster" than a Boeing 737? Of course not. They both cruise at around 500 miles per hour. The difference is that the 747 carries 500 passengers where as the 737 only carries 150. The Boeing 747 is three times bigger than the Boeing 737, not faster.

Now, if you wanted to go from New York to London, the Boeing 747 is not going to get you there three times faster. It will take just as long as the 737.

In fact, if you were really in a hurry to get to London quickly, you'd take Concorde, which cruises around 1350 miles per hour. It only seats 100 passengers though, so it's actually the smallest of the three. Size and speed are not the same thing.

On the other hand, If you had to transport 1500 people and you only had one aeroplane to do it, the 747 could do it in three trips where the 737 would take ten, so you might say the Boeing 747 can transport large numbers of people three times faster than a Boeing 737, but you would never say that a Boeing 747 is three times faster than a Boeing 737.

That's the problem with communications devices today. Manufacturers say "speed" when they mean "capacity".

[cholla]

I think the comparison would still be like two Boeing 747's taking off at the same time,from the same place, same flight speed & destination.Since the modem Swimmer put in his post was for 2 phone lines into one modem designed to be two 56K out to acheive 112K in theory anyway.So its different that doing it with 1 plane because with 1  500 pasengers arrive at one time with 2 1000 passengers arrive at one time.They didn't get there faster just in fewer trips.But the second 500 are at their destination a lot sooner than if the plane had to fly back to get them & return.This accomplishes greater speed.

The boeing 747 would be like a 56k modem& the boeing 737 like a 28 K modem.

[trogers]

To sum up what it all means:

Combining multiple lines of dial-up increases bandwidth or the data carrying capacity per second.

Even if we can combine lines to achieve a bandwidth of say 560 Kbps it will be slower than a DSL of the same bandwidth because dial-up has a higher device latency.

Adding to this, the article in the link was trying to make consumers aware that manufacturers often boast about capacities of their devices but do not advertise on the performance of these devices with respect to latency. So if I am to choose among routers or among modems of the same capacity, I should choose one with the least device latency.

[tommie gorman]

So in simple users terms, even though the actual downloadspeed would be the same, would it appear to, or seem to be twice as fast in performance. Page loading, browsing, etc...

[cholla]

trogers: Except for a little variation in the examples the article made I basically agree with it.

Capacity is advertised as speed.

tommie gorman :DSL would definately be faster.But on the 56K the combined 2  56k lines would

would load faster because more data would be coming into the connection at once.I think it would test faster on a download test or upload for this reason.If the speed was measured from each 56K line seperatly then it would be the same speed as 1 56k modem on that line.The only bottleneck would be if the PC receiving the data could process all of it as fast as it was coming in.

I have never used a bonded modem system(shotgun) .I would like to see how one performed.With DSL as cheap as it is now when it is available it would be better performance for less money.But if only dial-up was available & cost wasn't a factor then a multiple line system would definately improve performance for some things.Probably not gaming though.

[tommie gorman]

Thanks "cholla" just teasing ROM-DOS's free dial up, with modem modem-bonding, for kids computer upstairs. But in reality might be better to share my slow dway on wireless, just burning up my brain circuits playing with ideas.