 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Where's the fibre? Who's afraid of fibre? All the DSL and Cable providers! |
|
 rameusWho's got my pickle?Premium
join:2001-01-28
Martinez, CA
 ·SONIC.NET
| Why would they roll out FTTC or FTTH when lighting up RTs is so much cheaper at this point? Besides, even if they did and sold 10.0/10.0 connection plans, the modems and or PCs would be the bottleneck. Current consumer RAM and VRAM couldn't process data that fast. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
--
One ping only, Please. |
|
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Gbcue
You wouldn't see the difference between 200 megs/sec and 1000 megs/sec since your HD's can only handle about 150 megs/sec eh?
But you WOULD see the difference from 1.1 megs/sec(what I have), and 100 megs/sec.
--
I want to go back to HIGH SCHOOL! My BLOG! N B 4 DA' LOCK! | In the great state of Kahlifoania. |
|
| reply to rameus
all of my computers here handle 100mbit LAN just fine.
My old 200mhz pentium machine seems to cope with serving up files at around 11,600 kbytes a second...
Consumer RAM is capable of gigabytes a second bandwidth.. the bottleneck is the network card/linespeed. And it probably will be for a long time.
I dont see japanese ISP's with 100mbit fiber having problems with ONU's coping... |
|
| reply to Gbcue
Why should they be afraid of that? Fibre is a LONG way from being in every household. MANY people still don't even have access to cable and DSL yet and are stuck with dial-up.
said by Gbcue:
Who's afraid of fibre? All the DSL and Cable providers!
|
|
 Vamp5c077Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to rameus
said by rameus:
Why would they roll out FTTC or FTTH when lighting up RTs is so much cheaper at this point? Besides, even if they did and sold 10.0/10.0 connection plans, the modems and or PCs would be the bottleneck. Current consumer RAM and VRAM couldn't process data that fast. You wouldn't be able to see the difference.
thats the funniest post I ever read... you do know besides the processor the ram is the fastest component in your PC? like said above they are in the Gigabits/sec speed. The bottlenecks would be in the HD, and network equipment.
Maybe you should do more research on ram before posting something so stupid
Edit: and the differents might not be so great when browsing, but the latency and transfer speeds will be about 10 times better.
--
Best game ever > »www.desertcombat.com
|
|
|
|
army5
join:2002-04-30
Oklahoma City, OK | reply to Gbcue
Don't get Megabits (Mb) confused with Megabytes (MB). For example, common DSL downloads are 1.5 Mbps (Megabits/sec) where common data transfer rates for HD's are 133 MB/sec (Megabytes/sec). A Megabit is 1 million bits. A Megabyte is 1 million bytes. 8 bits = 1 byte. As you can see there is a huge difference.
Jeff
--
To fill the hour, that is true happiness - Ralph Waldo Emerson |
|
| HD's can not tranfers anywhere near their interface specs. Except burst to and from the buffers. With a 100Mb connection, who needs a hd anyway? Just get everything realtime  |
|
army5
join:2002-04-30
Oklahoma City, OK |  I'm not sure what your point is. I was trying to explain that MB does not equal Mb. I wasn't getting into the technical specs of HD's. Rather I was using common numbers used in the industry as performance marks (i.e. ATA 100/133) as a reference to my explanation.
--
To fill the hour, that is true happiness - Ralph Waldo Emerson |
|
