Re: Who Thought Of This

[Sidecar Bob]

All of the replies to my previous post were a waste of space. If you don't have something useful to say, don't reply to this.

It has been my experience that when I am running k-lite it takes a long time to load ANY webpage, and certain ones that have a lot of unnecessary graphics load REALLY slowly or not at all. One or two of the discussions I participate in elsewhere come in a lot faster - almost as fast as when nothing else is running. They are the ones with the least useless graphics to load, and are usually the ones with the most useful content.

It was even worse when I was running WinMX.

Maybe I was wrong to assume that the file sharing software would suck back bandwidth for most users, but it sure does for me!

I am running a PII, 266Mhz, 128Mb ram. I have a 56K modem that usually connects at 48K - about normal in this area. The only high speed connection available in this area is wireless and the equipment cost is prohibitive.

My son is studying programming. Due to his influence, I regularly run msconfig and remove anything I don't need from startup whenever I install something new. My system tray is susrprisingly empty. My system resources are usually about 96% free at startup. I run Ad-aware about once a week. I use an independant local ISP - not AOL or Sympatico that require their software to run when you are connected

In other words, I am not one of those people who has a whole bunch of garbage runnning all the time. And although I am new to this forum, I have been participating in internet discussions for a few years. And although I am relatively new to K-lite, I have been using file sharing for over a year and have over 2000 files shared.


My point was simply this: I would think, since most of the world is not wired for high speed internet, that most users have a hard time downloading webpages with high graphic content while they are are running k-lite. I would also think that most users, at least the first time they come to this board, come here via the link on the opening page ("Web") of K-lite. There is other message board software available that downloads faster and therefore gives the novice a better chance of actually loading it and getting some of the help they are coming here for in the first place.
I think it is great that people are willing to give their time to help others figure out how to make this work better, and I am glad that this board is available at all, but it could work a lot better if it wasn't nearly impossible to access initially.

[clocker]

Bob,

Had your first post been more like this one then perhaps the responses would have been more useful to you.

You sorta got what you asked for in the first thread.

[balamm]

You are running kazaa for what purpose?

To get software, music, video...

With that processor, you can't even begin to run most of what this forum is about.

Does your mother board not support an upgrade to at least 400 mgh?

Try $25 for an upgrade if it does.

You still won't be anywhere near what it takes to participate in the internet of 2003.

Should the rest of us be restricted by your choice to hang on to 1998 or earlier technology?

I seriously doubt you'll be able to sell that idea.

Anyway, if this is a software problem, we have a software world to post in. If it's hardware related as I believe the case to be, then it should be moved to hardware world. As I will now do. >>>

[MagicNakor]

Although the world may not be "wired for high-speed internet," it certainly has progressed far past the 266 Mhz machine. Your speed issues have far less to do with your connection than they do with your CPU.

Edit:

Should the rest of us be restricted by your choice to hang on to 1998 or earlier technology?

I've got a 466 that's over (or about) 6 years old, so 266 would likely be '96?

[Somebody1234]

So you say that the answers given in the other thread were a waste of space?

Did you at least follow what was said and turn off signatures and avatars?

And, Oh!, Since you seem to be so worried about wasted space... What's all this then?

[Pitbul]

i read ur other post and u were well pretty much an ass. i am far from well off im only 15 but im not so cheap as to not upgrade my own Computer.seriously by the end of this year all ur computer is gonna be good for is an over sized paper weight i highly recommend u upgrade to something simple u can find somewhat decent computers for under 400 dollars u wont get a "100GHz" computer like u seem to think everyone but little ole' you has, but u will have soemthing that can actually run a simple program such as K-Lite.my friend has a 700 Mhz Celeron and he can run K-Lite eazy surely u can fork over some money for at least a 1.0Ghz computer.you are the only person i have seen complain about the K-Lite forum have to much graphical content that it is hard to load the forum.

[LTJBukem]

I've read your other thread and i'm a bit baffled. What do you expect to happen? If you are using peer to peer software to download files then it will need your internet connection, to.

I have a decent pc, but only a dial up connection. I don't try to surf the internet when downloading with Kazaa because obviously my limited bandwidth is already being used.

It doesn't take too much intelligence does it.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by LTJBukem@7 September 2003 - 18:27
I have a decent pc, but only a dial up connection. I don't try to surf the internet when downloading with Kazaa because obviously my limited bandwidth is already being used

if you wish to run k-lite and surf at the same time, you may want to look into a program called Net Limiter
this will limit the bandwdith k-lite takes up, leaving plenty enough for decent loading times while surfing

@Sidecar, if you have a faster cpu, you will also see an improvement in webpage loading times due to better cache usage
on my old P4 1.6GHz, webpage loading was a lot better than on my Pentium Family 100MHz
the difference between my P4 and my athlon 2700 is marked. loading times are approximately half of what they used to be, simply because of better cache management

[firebird32]

you really are asking too much of your machine, running kazaa, winmx and surfing at the same time, there is only somuch bandwidth to play with and if incorrectly configured kazaa and winmx are going to take it all leaving you nothing for surfing...you need a major upgrade my friend to meet your internet needs

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Sidecar Bob@7 September 2003 - 06:49
certain ones that have a lot of unnecessary graphics load REALLY slowly or not at  all.

...

most users have a hard time downloading webpages with high graphic content while they are are running k-lite.

it's your opinion that the graphics are unnecessary. i'm sure a lot of people might agree with you, but a lot would also disagree. web designers have decided that splashy, graphics-heavy sites attract visitors... every day, it seems that more and more corporate/commercial sites are being produced with more graphics & sound than is convenient for 56k'ers to view. it's a trend, it's a trend that seems to be succeeding, and it wouldn't succeed without support from internet users via their silent compliance with the trend (reflected by the growing market for residential broadband). if EVERYONE were on 56k and hardly anyone had the patience to wait for the sites to load, data collected from hit counters and such would indicate to website administrators that the sites are not accomplishing their goals, and they'd re-tailor them for dialup traffic.

yes, certainly k-lite would make things even worse for a 56k user, since websites are approaching the point where they hog a 56k connection's bandwidth completely so that adding any other activity to that just makes the connection perform at a painfully slow rate.

i hate to say sound like a snob or anything, but maybe you should reconsider the usefulness of a 56k connection for filesharing activities. personally, i found dialup to be painfully slow 3 or 4 years ago, when i just wanted to get a few songs from napster once in a while. the average size and the variety of files available through peer-to-peer filesharing has naturally grown at a rate comparable to the consumers' adoption of broadband... and i would say it's grown to the point where 56k is no longer a reasonable portal through which to try to squeeze such fileshare content. at the least, it's no longer reasonable to trade files via peer-to-peer AND surf the web simultaneously.