ROM-DOS Posted October 20, 2005 Author CID Share Posted October 20, 2005 Freak Topic Read 2000 times ~ lol It's funny now ~ 'cause I'm looking for the best(most stable) on-line gaming settings. Which means I'm lowering alot of my settings. (I just want to be 'normal' again ~ lol) [move] [move] [/move] [/move] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netmasta Posted October 20, 2005 CID Share Posted October 20, 2005 3. We do not support v.92 protocols in your area at this time. ROM-DOS;You're probably right about looking for another ISP this is my 3rd one.I just don't like the hassle of changing my e-mail .I put in a test because it shows my ISP. nts-online.net :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 45 Kbps about 0 Mbps (tested with 97 kB) Download Speed is:: 6 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Thu Oct 20 03:03:32 CDT 2005 Bottom Line:: 1X faster than 56K 1MB download in 170.67 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 3.62 % of your hosts average (nts-online.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-W7XPB1A3N It's 2005 and they still don't support v.92? That doesn't seem right. As for the e-mail, you could use one of the free web base services. I've used Yahoo! Mail since 1998 and have never had any problems with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholla Posted October 20, 2005 CID Share Posted October 20, 2005 netmasta: I copied & pasted the reply above strait from the e-mail from my ISP.I'm Checking into it further so it may be a few days.So far they blame SBC for this because thats who has the phone lines & they don't support V.92 or the other 2 protocols. On the e-mail I do have G-mail but I mean letting people who have the E-mail address with my ISP know.Anyway I'm Looking into another ISP . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted October 21, 2005 CID Share Posted October 21, 2005 that's what i mean. with your own domain you don't need the isp's email services, except maybe to forward stuff from your domain to to use their webmail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netmasta Posted October 21, 2005 CID Share Posted October 21, 2005 On the e-mail I do have G-mail but I mean letting people who have the E-mail address with my ISP know.Anyway I'm Looking into another ISP . If I understand right, you use more than one address, possibly for spam protection? e.g.: One for trusted sites and friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted October 21, 2005 CID Share Posted October 21, 2005 it's what i do too. untrustworthy people and sites get the [email protected] that i don't even check, except maybe to pick up a validation link or something. in fact if i am not sure and think i might want to receive from someone i give an address, i give him a nonexistent one @mydomain and let the catchall put it in my inbox. if it turns out i get spammed there, i then go and actually set up the email as a forward to my spamsink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted November 3, 2005 Author CID Share Posted November 3, 2005 I took the MSN Speedtest(which is really CNET's Bandwidth meter) http://tech.msn.com/products/speedtest.armx and got this; 190.6 Kbps - You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraNsEdgE 01 Posted November 3, 2005 CID Share Posted November 3, 2005 Seriously Rom-dos your not tweaking anything you know that righty, all your doing is a cached resuilt, showing us your speeds when your bursting , so therefor that is fake speedtest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted November 3, 2005 Author CID Share Posted November 3, 2005 Seriously Rom-dos your not tweaking anything you know that righty, all your doing is a cached resuilt, showing us your speeds when your bursting , so therefor that is fake speedtest. now this would be 'catching' (hitting the back button) 13161.3 Kbps - You 13161.3 kbps I don't think you can do that with testmy.net speed test. . . .but, I do think it has to do with some kind of dial-up 'burst' and I can't control that, I can only repeat the test all over again. (I'ld really like to 'lock' that burst rate though ~ lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholla Posted November 3, 2005 CID Share Posted November 3, 2005 TraNsEdgE 01 :ROM-DOS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted November 4, 2005 Author CID Share Posted November 4, 2005 Thanks Cholla, I'm connected to my ISP at 50.2Kbps my Received compression during the test was 20% :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 86 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 11 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Thu Nov 3 20:28:21 PST 2005 Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB download in 93.09 sec Diagnosis: Looks Great : 14.67 % faster than the average for host (nocharge.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-KF80AI5RO Now, Cholla ~ what about maintaining dial-up burst with some kind of positronic hafnium tractile quantic coefficient inductor stabilizer ~ lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholla Posted November 4, 2005 CID Share Posted November 4, 2005 what about maintaining dial-up burst with some kind of positronic hafnium tractile quantic coefficient inductor stabilizer ~ lol I think that will work if we can figure out which direction it should flow through the Kanuter valve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted December 6, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 6, 2005 . . .is anyone else able to download test with compression on? <img src="http://imagehouze.com/uploader/files/126/bush_monkey.gif" alt="bush_monkey.gif" /> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted December 31, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 31, 2005 The Master of Dial-Up is back!! :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 575 Kbps about 0.6 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 70 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Fri Dec 30 18:14:59 PST 2005 Bottom Line:: 10X faster than 56K 1MB download in 14.63 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 618.75 % faster than the average for host (nocharge.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-RTDBPMGNJ . . .just added the Kanuter valve to my positronic hafnium tractile quantic coefficient inductor stabilizer ~ lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman Posted December 31, 2005 CID Share Posted December 31, 2005 damn thats crazy is that ur real speed???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted December 31, 2005 CID Share Posted December 31, 2005 that's the speed he sometimes gets. there are currently (to my knowledge at least, there might be some national security issues he's being looked into for that are not on the public record) 5 investigations for everything from fcc violations to fraud for uncapping his modem running against him. we wish him well and hope he manages to beat the telcos that are trying to keep the people on dialup slow. the epa is thinking about opening an investigation about his use of particle acceleration to send tachyons into the phone line to boost his upload speeds as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted December 31, 2005 CID Share Posted December 31, 2005 The Master of Dial-Up is back!! :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 575 Kbps about 0.6 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 70 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Fri Dec 30 18:14:59 PST 2005 Bottom Line:: 10X faster than 56K 1MB download in 14.63 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 618.75 % faster than the average for host (nocharge.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-RTDBPMGNJ . . .just added the Kanuter valve to my positronic hafnium tractile quantic coefficient inductor stabilizer ~ lol :haha: thats awesome, good tweaking dude what speed do you get on the 1496 KB test? Or 2992 KB test VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted December 31, 2005 Author CID Share Posted December 31, 2005 that's the speed he sometimes gets. there are currently (to my knowledge at least, there might be some national security issues he's being looked into for that are not on the public record) 5 investigations for everything from fcc violations to fraud for uncapping his modem running against him. we wish him well and hope he manages to beat the telcos that are trying to keep the people on dialup slow. the epa is thinking about opening an investigation about his use of particle acceleration to send tachyons into the phone line to boost his upload speeds as well. resopalrabotnick ~ after I tortuously re-assembled my silent-UHF nieghborhood cordless interceptor/converter piggyback rider attenuator, I was able to add the Kanuter valve in stealth mode. . . .but, maybe I'm the only one left on Dial-Up ~ lol http://www.testmy.net/forum/index.php?topic=9723.msg101108#msg101108 On a full expaination on how this may be done, read * 56K Modem bandwidth and noise parameters * http://www.testmy.net/forum/index.php?topic=9597.msg94757#msg94757 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROM-DOS Posted January 2, 2006 Author CID Share Posted January 2, 2006 :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 700 Kbps about 0.7 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 86 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Sun Jan 1 23:03:12 PST 2006 Bottom Line:: 13X faster than 56K 1MB download in 11.91 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 753.66 % faster than the average for host (nocharge.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-7LS9AFV31 My connect speed is 49.2 w/31% compression. I also downloaded a 27.5MB file @ 12.23 KB / sec. and took a snapshot cholla did the conversion for the 27.5MB = 28160KB 27.5 X 1024=28160 28160 / 12.23 = 2302.5 2302.5 seconds / 60 seconds = 38 minutes So that means you DLed 27.5MB in 38 minutes 8 x 12.23 = 97.84 12.23KB/sec = 97.84 Kbps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholla Posted January 3, 2006 CID Share Posted January 3, 2006 I have been reading posts that suggest 8.192 is the correct multiplier/divider depending which direction..Between Kbps & kB/s.I used 8 because 8 bits(( = 1byte(.Since both are already K I thought 8 was correct.Since 1024B =1KB then 8 X 1024 =8192 so 1KB = 8192b..To get the conversion to K 8192 is divided by 1000 to get 8.192Kb..I still don't know why 1024 isn't used to divide it which would be 8. So if 8 X 12.23 is correct then the speed is 97.84 If 8.192 is correct then 8.192 X 12.23 is 100.188 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted January 3, 2006 CID Share Posted January 3, 2006 if everyone using K in conjunction with data amounts (as well as m and g for mega and giga, tera too, and so forth.) would consistently use it as the binary 1000000000 = decimal 1024 it would be no problem. the problem is that marketing departments like big numbers. and the way to make a number look bigger is to use the 1000 instead of 1024 multiplier. it can give you several hundred megs on a harddrive for example, or a substantial increase in the xxxx kbps connection. when the usually 1000 multiplier used in kilobitspersecond (kbps) gets converted to kilobytespersecond (kB/sec) it is easy to just divide by eight to turn bits into bytes. ignoring the little margin of error that creeps in. this then propagates into the higher units and cause confusion and strife. as in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted January 3, 2006 CID Share Posted January 3, 2006 Resop take a break man, you are cracking me up. Dammit be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cholla Posted January 3, 2006 CID Share Posted January 3, 2006 resopalrabotnick ; I understand to some extent the problem is using decimal system math to convert binary..I still need to learn more about binary.So the 8.192 would be the correct conversion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted January 3, 2006 CID Share Posted January 3, 2006 if the kbps refers to thousands of bits per second then yes, the correct way to convert to kB/s would be to divide by 8.192. the long way would be to multiply by 1000, divide by 8, then divide by 1024. same result but a little more logical as to how and why. once you have kB/sec you can then use the usual 1024 multiplier to get to MB/sec, GB/sec and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.