🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <c7976e1501fa09d47456cd797f9e5140@base.xs4all.nl>, 
nobody@base.xs4all.nl writes...
> With all this talk of swoopy, high-priced tech for linking to the net
> at astronomical connect rates, I can't help but ask the obvious
> question:  What's the point, when net congestion and server overloads
> are such that you rarely can move data at sustained rates over 28.8k
> anyway?
> 
> An example:  A knucklehead friend who's always downloading smut .JPGs
> from porn sites told me the other day that he finally sat down and
> figured it out - his actual, averaged download speed on this junk is as
> slow as it was in 1983 with an old 300-baud modem.  How would some zippy
> cable modem improve that?
> 
> If I can't keep up a simple 16K streaming audio feed with a 50K connect,
> what difference will dropping the bucks for 128b ISDN make?
> 
> If the average FTP site downloads at only a quarter to half the speed of
> my K56 modem's capability, why bother with something faster?
> 
> What am I missing here?


Take my word for it that there are plenty of sites and hosts on the net
that can sustain very fast speeds.

That your buddy can't get decent performance from his underfunded and
overhyped smut sites (and probably at 8pm at night I presume) is no
real surprise.

Try downloading something from ftpX.netscape.com (where x is a number 
between 2-15 or so) at 3am in the morning from a T-1 line and you'll 
see what I mean.  Goes Real Fast.

And no, you don't have to do everything in the middle of the night, 
but depending on the site and where you're located, it can help.



Phil


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization          [see below]
-----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millenium-------------
References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . c o m