Recommended Tests

funny stuff here, and interesting, i like it 

Someone should put this in dial-up forum, would get ROM-DOS's attention then maybe we could better info on it.

lol ~ I think my speeds had alot to do with me being only two blocks away from the switching station.

I'm not sure if Modem bonding or Modem teaming still works?
. . .you'll have to investigate that.  I might have toyed with the thought, but I think you would have to have another dial-up line installed.

I just got on board with Qwest's DSL a couple of weeks back ~ and now I'm experiencing some strange DNS server problems ~ I think?  or they're doing some downtime updates? ~ lol

::::::::::.. Download Stats ..::::::::::
Connection is:: 5713 Kbps about 5.7 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB)
Download Speed is:: 697 kB/s
Tested From:: http://testmy.net (server2)
Test Time:: Sun Feb 5 10:31:00 PST 2006
Bottom Line:: 102X faster than 56K 1MB download in 1.47 sec
Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 152.23 % faster than the average for host (qwest.net)
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-NLGYFC8KX

lol ~ I crashed once ~ un-installing AOHell from my system a few years back ~ but when I re-installed I decided to partition my drive 3 ways and install Windows XP twice and dual-boot ~ no problems since.

. . .and now that I got my DSL settings set and running right ~ it's time to up-grade my system.

tommie man ~ have you tried any of the XP tweaks in  * Performance Tuning and Services * ?
[If you feel a little hesitant ~ just PM me and I'll help you with a few that might help speed up your system and maybe your surfing speed, too]. . . .you'll be a tweak freak, yet ~ lol

Combining multiple 56k lines will only increase throughput (capacity per sec) limits, but not speed. Here is a link to explain:

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html

yeah.. I think this has to do with external modem.. I am pretty sure, not positive, that the 100ms refers the amount of time that it takes the computer to sent it to the modem, connected to the computer via serial, and then receive the sent message.

By doubling the bandwidth and using the product, which will bond the connections to the user..  but when it comes to download/uploading it would use both the lines seperate. so if you were trying to download like 5mb.. one line would download 2.5 and the other would download 2.5 assuming that the server allows multiple connections.

This seems article seems to be way out of date also.. there is no mention of 56k at all. and the apple product they are comairing it to is also connected to serial..  Where as the product that i posted can be connected to serial, which would enduce transmission time or it can be connected via ethernet.  Which would mean that it would induce less than 1ms.

Alright i might have confused my self completly.. it has been one of those days.. if you have that hardware.. and you increase bandwidth and lag remains that same.. to the user.. that would be faster.. it would be like taking a t1 and upgrading it to like t3 with the same lag.. you could push more data over the pipe there by increasing the "speed" of the connection.

Hey guys, here is part of that link illustrating what you are trying to understand:

Part of the problem here is misleading use of the word "faster".

Would you say that a Boeing 747 is three times "faster" than a Boeing 737? Of course not. They both cruise at around 500 miles per hour. The difference is that the 747 carries 500 passengers where as the 737 only carries 150. The Boeing 747 is three times bigger than the Boeing 737, not faster.

Now, if you wanted to go from New York to London, the Boeing 747 is not going to get you there three times faster. It will take just as long as the 737.

In fact, if you were really in a hurry to get to London quickly, you'd take Concorde, which cruises around 1350 miles per hour. It only seats 100 passengers though, so it's actually the smallest of the three. Size and speed are not the same thing.

On the other hand, If you had to transport 1500 people and you only had one aeroplane to do it, the 747 could do it in three trips where the 737 would take ten, so you might say the Boeing 747 can transport large numbers of people three times faster than a Boeing 737, but you would never say that a Boeing 747 is three times faster than a Boeing 737.

That's the problem with communications devices today. Manufacturers say "speed" when they mean "capacity".