On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:29:58 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/8/2016 1:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.


I'd like to see the actual claim.

A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.

If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?


The claim made sense when cable speeds were very close to DSL speeds.
If DSL was 3 mb and cable was 5 mb sharing would cut it back quite a bit
at peak times. Potentially it could be slower than DSL

Now that DSL is 6 mb and cable is 60 mb or more, sharing cuts it down
just a tiny be that you'd not notice or care about.

DSL has speeded up here too. I am getting a real 10mb over copper and
it can be 20 if you are close enough to the fiber front end. FiOS is
really speedy when it is working.

On 04/08/2016 11:19 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).


The maximum here (medium-size town in Texas) is 150Mbps down / 7.5Mbps
up. They're talking about eventually having 1Gbps.

I've read that some municipalities (sorry, can't remember any names) are
installing their own public fiber networks but are being sued over
competing with commercial enterprises.

Perce

On 08/04/2016 19:43, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/08/2016 11:19 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Out of interest, do you know the percentage of people in the US who can
get fibre (so called Superfast internet) ?

Here in the UK it's over 90% rising to 95% by 2017.

For the record mine is 50Mbps down 19Mbps up using ethernet (wired).


The maximum here (medium-size town in Texas) is 150Mbps down / 7.5Mbps
up. They're talking about eventually having 1Gbps.

I've read that some municipalities (sorry, can't remember any names) are
installing their own public fiber networks but are being sued over
competing with commercial enterprises.

Perce

Similar here. Some folks form a collective and club together to pay for
the telecom companies to install it when the telecom companies won't do
it because of the high cost to particular properties.

--
Bod

On 4/8/2016 2:20 PM, wrote:
I use DSL because a 10 meg connection that is working beats the hell
out of a 50 meg connection that is down.
I understand Comcast may be OK in other places but they suck here and
that is the only other wired option.


I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:26:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.

The ISP test really doesn't much if you are not hitting sites out of
that ISP building. That is just a wrap test.

On 4/8/2016 7:42 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:26:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.

The ISP test really doesn't much if you are not hitting sites out of
that ISP building. That is just a wrap test.


Test at www.broadbandreports.com Ypu can choose sites all over to test
with.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:26:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.

....'flush and reboot'
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 19:42:58 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:26:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.

The ISP test really doesn't much if you are not hitting sites out of
that ISP building. That is just a wrap test.

Yep. try a more distance server. Things change.

PING the site if the browser timed out. Packets travel around the
world :-\

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 20:10:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/8/2016 7:42 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:26:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.

The ISP test really doesn't much if you are not hitting sites out of
that ISP building. That is just a wrap test.


Test at www.broadbandreports.com Ypu can choose sites all over to test
with.

http://www.dslreports.com/ Also has a speed (page bottom)

"DSLReports is a neutral place to share ISP reviews, news & tech
information Established: 1999"

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:52:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 00:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Many companies, banks and educational institutions are buying dark fiber in order to set up their own networks. I've a feeling that banks like the security of having their own network and not having to send information over The Internet. ^_^

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-dark-fiber.htm

[8~{} Uncle Fiber Monster

It used to be all that way before the internet and they ran on leased
4 wire. That was very secure but expensive. I remember on the early
90s one company was leasing space on a TV cable, getting the
equivalent of a T1 line and the question was, "how secure was that"?
In those days it was pretty secure because the hardware to extract
that data was pretty rare but it was going to every set top box on
that node.

I've installed and serviced a lot of data and telecom equipment including T1 equipment. Before I got too sick to work, I worked on systems in national auto parts stores where they were linking their computer system to the corporate office via a T1 line with a 3G link as a backup. I recall that some of them started using a cable modem link with the wireless backup. The systems were designed to automatically failover to the cell phone network if the main link went down. Me and the guys also installed a lot of WiFi access points on the ceilings of those stores and a lot of other retail stores because they were using potable inventory scanners linked wirelessly to the store's network. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Wireless Monster

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:22:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:29:58 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/8/2016 1:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, wrote:

[snip]

With cable internet, you are sharing a node with a bunch of your
neighbors. Your speed will vary based on what they are doing.

This is often used to claim that DSL is better. the rest of the internet
uses shared connections too.


I'd like to see the actual claim.

A claim that DSL is "better" because you don't share your connection means
nothing unless you back that up with some numbers.

If I take an isolated back road to Grandma's house, I don't have to
share the road with anyone. However, if I take a shared highway, I can
get there in half the time. Is the back road "better" merely because
I didn't have to share it?


The claim made sense when cable speeds were very close to DSL speeds.
If DSL was 3 mb and cable was 5 mb sharing would cut it back quite a bit
at peak times. Potentially it could be slower than DSL

Now that DSL is 6 mb and cable is 60 mb or more, sharing cuts it down
just a tiny be that you'd not notice or care about.

DSL has speeded up here too. I am getting a real 10mb over copper and
it can be 20 if you are close enough to the fiber front end. FiOS is
really speedy when it is working.

Back when DSL first hit Birmingham, our shop had two POTS lines and because of the incompetent AAM CSR's at the Bellsouth office, we wound up with 1.5mbs DSL on both lines. We told them to leave it alone because we knew if we asked for it to be corrected, they'd frak it up. I don't remember all the details but we took an old computer, put two NIC's in it and loaded it with a Linux server program that allowed us to bond the two DSL connections together to get more speed. Gosh that was a long time ago. It's a lot easier now than it was back then. o_O

http://www.wikihow.com/Combine-Two-Internet-Connections

[8~{} Uncle Network Monster

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

5m may be pushing it but the 10 I have seems to do all I need to do.
When the kids are here, I can support a couple streams and still read
my Email.

On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:43:47 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

5 meg up is a lot faster than most US connections.
Most are less than a meg

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

5m may be pushing it but the 10 I have seems to do all I need to do.
When the kids are here, I can support a couple streams and still read
my Email.

What are you or the kids doing that requires more than 5 MB up or
even gets close to needing that?

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:43:51 AM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

Does it make a big difference if that backup takes 30 secs or an hour?
Seems backups can be auto scheduled to run at 3AM. And even if it's
running in the background, PCs today have the HP to do that without
you even noticing.

On 04/08/2016 10:34 AM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK. I assume that it is just the rate
that they've decided to offer.


Could it be a way to discourage people from operating servers, and so
using more bandwidth?

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I DO want your money, because god wants your money!" [Reverend Larry,
from _Repo_Man_]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:06:33 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 04/08/2016 10:34 AM, Bod wrote:

[snip]

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK. I assume that it is just the rate
that they've decided to offer.


Could it be a way to discourage people from operating servers, and so
using more bandwidth?

As I said earlier when you are talking about content producers like
Comcast, they may just be trying to slow down pirates.

On 04/08/2016 11:51 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

[snip]

Probably DOCSIS 3, 4X. According to wikepedia, that modem should be able
to handle 152 Mbps downstream and 108 Mbps upstream.

--

It is a Surfboard 6121. A DOCSIS 3.0 from the docs. Should be able to do
172 Mbps download. That is over 3 times the speed of 50 Mbps that I am
suspose to be getting.

The same model I have. The wikipedia article actually has both numbers
(152 and 172). Apparently, the higher number includes overhead.

It must be something between the modem, router, and computer. I just got a
Win 10 computer and it will show 50 mbps downlink while another 2 computers
will only give 10 to 25 mbps plugged into the same eithernet cable. The old
and new computers both have a 3 Ghz processor and are almost identical in
most things such as memory and processor.

I used to have one laptop that wouldn't ever get full download speed
(IIRC it got 38M instead of the 50M the others got). The problem was
with WiFi. It was getting a 72.2M (802.11n) WiFi connection. I found a
way to double that and now get the full 50M.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I DO want your money, because god wants your money!" [Reverend Larry,
from _Repo_Man_]

On 04/08/2016 05:26 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 4/8/2016 2:20 PM, wrote:
I use DSL because a 10 meg connection that is working beats the hell
out of a 50 meg connection that is down.
I understand Comcast may be OK in other places but they suck here and
that is the only other wired option.


I tried my ISP's speed test. My browser timed
out before the test was complete. There is a
message in there some where.


My ISP's speed test doesn't seem to be working. A good one is
http://testmy.net/ This one does NOT use Flash.

BTW, I just got 52.9/5.1 (good for 50/5 service).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I DO want your money, because god wants your money!" [Reverend Larry,
from _Repo_Man_]

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 12:03:10 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:43:51 AM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

Does it make a big difference if that backup takes 30 secs or an hour?
Seems backups can be auto scheduled to run at 3AM. And even if it's
running in the background, PCs today have the HP to do that without
you even noticing.

If I were doing a lot of cloud computing, I'd want a fast upload connection to decrease latency. Of course I'm not doing anything that intensive but with the move toward turning everything into a smart terminal with limited local storage for cloud computing, fast upload speeds along with the fast download speed would be beneficial. Of course that's my unimportant opinion. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Terminal Monster

On 09/04/2016 16:43, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low
upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

Indeed.

--
Bod

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 5:35:32 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 12:03:10 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:43:51 AM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

Does it make a big difference if that backup takes 30 secs or an hour?
Seems backups can be auto scheduled to run at 3AM. And even if it's
running in the background, PCs today have the HP to do that without
you even noticing.

If I were doing a lot of cloud computing, I'd want a fast upload connection to decrease latency. Of course I'm not doing anything that intensive but with the move toward turning everything into a smart terminal with limited local storage for cloud computing, fast upload speeds along with the fast download speed would be beneficial. Of course that's my unimportant opinion.. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Terminal Monster

Latency and upload speed are really two different though interrelated
things. What we've really been talking about here is throughput. Latency
is the time between initiating something and getting a response. The
latency is affected by the throughput, but it may not be the dominant
factor at 5mb.
Even if you're doing a lot of cloud computing, it really depends on whether
you're just working on a spreadsheet or editing movies. A 5 mb link is
probably fine for spreadsheets, not so fine for movies or anything where
the file size is large.

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 7:06:00 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 5:35:32 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 12:03:10 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:43:51 AM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/09/2016 09:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I wonder why the ISPs over there are offering such relatively low upload
speeds compared to here in the UK

If I was a conspiracy guy I would suggest that the content providers
want to slow down pirates. When you understand Comcast (one of the
biggest broadband providers) also owns NBC and Universal studios, it
is not that far out. I am surprised that they are not blocking binary
usenet groups and bit torrent feeds.

IDK about pirates, but various ISP may want to differentiate pricing
for commercial users who are hosting substantial websites from casual
home users. For a typical home user, 5mb up is plenty, while if you
had some heavy usage commercial thing you're trying to run out of your
house, it might not be.

If I wanted to backup a few TB of data to "the Cloud" (and could afford
to do store it there) 5mbps would be impractically slow.

Perce

Does it make a big difference if that backup takes 30 secs or an hour?
Seems backups can be auto scheduled to run at 3AM. And even if it's
running in the background, PCs today have the HP to do that without
you even noticing.

If I were doing a lot of cloud computing, I'd want a fast upload connection to decrease latency. Of course I'm not doing anything that intensive but with the move toward turning everything into a smart terminal with limited local storage for cloud computing, fast upload speeds along with the fast download speed would be beneficial. Of course that's my unimportant opinion. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Terminal Monster

Latency and upload speed are really two different though interrelated
things. What we've really been talking about here is throughput. Latency
is the time between initiating something and getting a response. The
latency is affected by the throughput, but it may not be the dominant
factor at 5mb.
Even if you're doing a lot of cloud computing, it really depends on whether
you're just working on a spreadsheet or editing movies. A 5 mb link is
probably fine for spreadsheets, not so fine for movies or anything where
the file size is large.

I was thinking of something that requires a lot of throughput like video editing or animation production. I'm not a pirate who's uploading movies so I really don't need the high upload speeds but I do need a high download speed so I can watch those streaming pirated movies. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Streaming Monster

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:




I was thinking of something that requires a lot of throughput like video editing or animation production. I'm not a pirate who's uploading movies so I really don't need the high upload speeds but I do need a high download speed so I can watch those streaming pirated movies. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Streaming Monster

Maybe I am still a victim of the "distributed processing" craze that
started in the 80s when we unhooked from mainframes and did the work
on our desk.
Now it seems we are going back to the mainframe (cloud) model and
depending on far away computers to do what we did on our desk.

Back your work up now and then to a remote server and work where you
are. This is not a new concept. There are lots of ways to keep your
local data secure from anything but theft, a fire or a meteor strike.
Theft is still possible in the cloud but you will still have your copy
.... if you made one.

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 6:22:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:




I was thinking of something that requires a lot of throughput like video editing or animation production. I'm not a pirate who's uploading movies so I really don't need the high upload speeds but I do need a high download speed so I can watch those streaming pirated movies. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Streaming Monster

Maybe I am still a victim of the "distributed processing" craze that
started in the 80s when we unhooked from mainframes and did the work
on our desk.
Now it seems we are going back to the mainframe (cloud) model and
depending on far away computers to do what we did on our desk.

Our company tried the cloud for both apps and data for about 2 years. Now we
are back to "local machines" for the applications with all of our data on
network drives. Our networks (which span the world) couldn't handle the
traffic. Even now, we have times when things just stop for a few seconds,
sometimes up to 10-15 seconds. As you know, that's a coon's age when you're
sitting in front of a computer, you click and nothing happens. Nothing!

Worse yet is when the window dims and the dreaded "(Not Responding)" is added
to the app name in the title bar.


....snip...

On 4/10/2016 7:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 6:22:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:




I was thinking of something that requires a lot of throughput like video editing or animation production. I'm not a pirate who's uploading movies so I really don't need the high upload speeds but I do need a high download speed so I can watch those streaming pirated movies. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Streaming Monster

Maybe I am still a victim of the "distributed processing" craze that
started in the 80s when we unhooked from mainframes and did the work
on our desk.
Now it seems we are going back to the mainframe (cloud) model and
depending on far away computers to do what we did on our desk.

Our company tried the cloud for both apps and data for about 2 years. Now we
are back to "local machines" for the applications with all of our data on
network drives. Our networks (which span the world) couldn't handle the
traffic. Even now, we have times when things just stop for a few seconds,
sometimes up to 10-15 seconds. As you know, that's a coon's age when you're
sitting in front of a computer, you click and nothing happens. Nothing!

Worse yet is when the window dims and the dreaded "(Not Responding)" is added
to the app name in the title bar.


...snip...


I remember that happening just before I crashed one computer at work.
They finally got me a better computer and that one did ok for about 5
years. When it was going on it's 6th year I was running out of space
and it would hiccup, blink, pause, and turn itself off randomly. I told
the powers that be if they didn't want to lose 6 years of back-up files
they better find me another drive I could store it all on. They finally
got me a new pc that wasn't old as dirt.

--
Maggie

On 04/10/2016 07:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Our company tried the cloud for both apps and data for about 2 years. Now we
are back to "local machines" for the applications with all of our data on
network drives. Our networks (which span the world) couldn't handle the
traffic. Even now, we have times when things just stop for a few seconds,
sometimes up to 10-15 seconds. As you know, that's a coon's age when you're
sitting in front of a computer, you click and nothing happens. Nothing!

Worse yet is when the window dims and the dreaded "(Not Responding)" is added
to the app name in the title bar.


...snip...

The Cloud *might* work if we all had fast reliable fiber links
but most of us are stuck in AT$T SlowVerse territory.

Does anyone at AT$T actually think the Cloud is usable with a 1Mb uplink?