 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Aidens Daddy
Re: ha! said by Aidens Daddy:That limit is based on the bus that the network interface is connected to. The actually bus/chipset/processor/storage/etc of the device is the real limit. That is correct, and thats why the 10/100 ports on the Linksys (and many others) cant handle much more than 15Mbps.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by wifi4milez:said by Aidens Daddy:That limit is based on the bus that the network interface is connected to. The actually bus/chipset/processor/storage/etc of the device is the real limit. That is correct, and thats why the 10/100 ports on the Linksys (and many others) cant handle much more than 15Mbps. Don't take this the wrong way, but this is typical of computers circa 2003ish.. yes, many of us still have 6 year old computers, but anything designed with a 2006+ motherboard with onboard 10/100 or 10/100/1000 (gigabit) ports should pull closer to 100megabits. Pci Bus 2.0+ or PCi Express 1.0 should give you the full 100 throughput less minor overhead. Even on my old 2003 desktop with onboard lan, I'm pulling 40-85mbits depending upon compression ratios of the data I'm transferring computer to computer via lan file sharing between computers). The internet is quite different, although you see "speed tests" and "downloads" which take into account your not on a lan so speeds won't necessarily be consistent.. Speed tests such as speakeasy.net screw up some days and show less speed than is your real throughput.
Internet user experience is a subjective thing.. if someone is satisfied with a 5/512 connection vs a 20/5 connection on two competitive technologies at similar price... whatever floats your boat.. but an educated consumer should be able to tell the difference in real world usage if the product is more valuable to their overall experience. Many would disagree the the cable product is as good or better, especially during prime time (3-9pm weekdays) on a cablemodem service compared with a fttp network such as FIOS. The jury is just being paneled for Docsis 3.0 product lineup. This is based upon 2.0 vs fttp |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by tmc8080:Don't take this the wrong way, but this is typical of computers circa 2003ish.. yes, many of us still have 6 year old computers, but anything designed with a 2006+ motherboard with onboard 10/100 or 10/100/1000 (gigabit) ports should pull closer to 100megabits. We are talking about two different things. I am talking about port speed on routers, NOT individual PC's. This is the very reason Verizon choose the Actiontec router; because it could handle the throughput.
said by tmc8080:Internet user experience is a subjective thing.. if someone is satisfied with a 5/512 connection vs a 20/5 connection on two competitive technologies at similar price... whatever floats your boat.. but an educated consumer should be able to tell the difference in real world usage if the product is more valuable to their overall experience. Thats just my point. The one example of a user experience I gave was the PS3. My other examples were more general, that the overall experience isnt much different on a 5Mbps connection as compared to a 20Mbps connection. I dont download large files (rarely), and I dont torrent. As such, there is virtually no discernible difference between what I had (TWC) and what I have (FIOS). However, as you said its a subjective thing. You might do a lot of pirating or downloading (and uploading) of large files. In that situation, you (collectively) would probably prefer FIOS.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
|
|
| I don't even really think this guy has FIOS, Just hating on it. If you can't notice a differnece from a 5/512k to a 20/5 connection something is seriously wrong with you. I had OOL boost wich was a 30/5 connection. I now have a 35/20 connection and notice a difference in Latency and connection stability. And as far as PS goes the PSN is a POS as it is so I'am not surprised you see no speed difference. I believe they cap all connections @ 1MB per second. But I did notice the ps3 logs onto the PSN alot faster than before. I mean I can't make you like something but I have yet to hear people complain about the PQ on the 7216. I have that box and have superb PQ SD or HD, Maybe you just have a bad box . Try to get them to send you out a new one. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Theman2006:I don't even really think this guy has FIOS, Just hating on it. If you can't notice a differnece from a 5/512k to a 20/5 connection something is seriously wrong with you. I had OOL boost wich was a 30/5 connection. I now have a 35/20 connection and notice a difference in Latency and connection stability. I think you are confusing yourself. I said I didnt see any difference between the speed of my TWC connection and my FIOS connection. You are now talking about latency and connection stability, which are two very quantifiable things. The latency and connection reliability of my TWC connection was comparable to my FIOS connection, so thats not a factor here.
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Theman2006
said by Theman2006:I have yet to hear people complain about the PQ on the 7216. I have that box and have superb PQ SD or HD, Maybe you just have a bad box . Try to get them to send you out a new one. I am very surprised by that, the SD quality (with FIOS in general) has been a HUGE topic here at DSLR. If you have the time, below is a 43 page thread dedicated to the topic.
»1.6.2 Upgrade Thread
--
"The only morality they recognize, is what will further their cause"
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
