The Screen Shot Says It All

[God Hack]

Originally posted by muchspl2@7 December 2003 - 22:24
I doubt the poster will come back

Wrong

[RealitY]

Originally posted by God Hack+8 December 2003 - 04:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (God Hack &#064; 8 December 2003 - 04:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@7 December 2003 - 22:24
I doubt the poster will come back

Wrong [/b][/quote]
Ah, so have you been educated and are you now humbled somewhat...

[Revan]

I think u lot can be quite harsh

Some people actually are so stupid they really do not understand

Its not there fault is it now?

[Marius24]

Originally posted by Revan@8 December 2003 - 21:05
I think u lot can be quite harsh

Some people actually are so stupid they really do not understand

Its not there fault is it now?

it is, he came here showing off so we naturally had to have a comback

[muchspl2]

oh well either he learns or he doesn&#39;t, who really cares whos right or wrong, just as long as he understands he was wrong

[shoutman]

u think shadows is better, i&#39;m guessing u mean BT shadows clients right?

[muchspl2]

correct or anything built on shad0w&#39;s core like torrent storm or ABC to name a few

[Switeck]

Originally posted by stupendo44@7 December 2003 - 15:51
80 Kb/s = 10 KB/s
80 KB/s = 640 Kb/s
Typical dial-up speed = 53 Kb/s = 6.6 KB/s
Typical fast dsl speed = 1500 Kb/s = 187 KB/s

Happy now?

No, because it paints a false picture.

If your ISP says you have a 512k connection (be it ADSL or cable), and 512 kilobits/sec is the fastest TOTAL download bandwidth it can sustain then without compression (which is seldom used with broadband connections) it will not be able to download even at 60 KB/sec sustained because tcp/ip packet overheads will reduce EFFECTIVE download speeds below 60 KB/sec.

A dial-up 56k modem is unlikely to be able to download even at 5.5 KB/sec for the same reason. It typically uses smaller MTU packet sizes, so the TCP/ip packet overheads are even greater per KB of files sent/received.

A 1.5 mbps connection (1,500 Kb/s) will probably only get about 140-160 KB/sec download speeds for the same reason.

But on the UPLOAD side, it is even worse&#33;
If you&#39;re downloading at 100 KB/sec, about 3 KB/sec of upload bandwidth is used to communicate with the uploader to keep the upload going at that speed. This isn&#39;t good if you only have 128 kb/s (16 KB/sec) theoretical max upload bandwidth and wish to share/upload files yourself&#33; So you&#39;ll end up uploading only about 8-12 KB/sec max while downloading at 100 KB/sec. If most broadband users try to do that, where are they going to get fast downloads from? There wouldn&#39;t even NEED to be a single true leech because for every ONE 100+ KB/sec downloader there&#39;d be 5-20 broadband users that have downloads <5 KB/sec and would think the network sucks ass.

[stupendo44]

When I had dial-up, I typically got a maximum of 6 KB/s, and sometimes it would go up to 6.5 KB/s.

My post wasn&#39;t to describe how the advertised speeds are not actual, it was to describe the difference between bits and bytes. So my post isn&#39;t misleading at all, although I admit the last part could be taken that way. Typical fast dsl speed is advertised at 1.5 Megabits per second. I&#39;m not saying that people will be able to download at that speed, just that it&#39;s not the same as 1.5 MegaBytes per second.

Stephen

[nukemdomis]

Originally posted by God Hack@6 December 2003 - 21:33
Here&#39;s a screen shot of me downloading on shareaza.

Yeah thats some pretty big numbers&#33;&#33; Great job&#33;&#33;

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong though, but I think kb/s and KB/Sare two totally different values...