so is this good...or not?
ID:174223
 Sep 14 2003, 5:08 pm
|
|
i don't know if i have a good enough connection for it. i tried the speed test at bandwidthplace.com earlier and got this....
so is this good...or not? | |
I find that highly unlikely since you'd need a cable modem with a connection to your computer better than the standard 10mbps. As far as I know they don't make dsl or cable modems that support a faster connection.
| |
notice how the picture is edited? mods, close this post please.
[edit] that site doesnt have errors, its a very good bandwidth testing site...and if you somehow got that you should inform this of that mistake...because 93 megs a second would cost about 1000 or more A WEEK, so thats why i said its edited ^^;...besides..the person that would have that kind of connection would know weither or not he had a good one...ehehe...edit bs ..thats all[/edit] | |
Karasu Kami wrote:
notice how the picture is edited? mods, close this post please. Calling a picture edited just because you find the site's results implausible (and they are, wildly) is illogical. What motivation would he have to edit the picture? Furthermore, Camaro has posted even wilder results. While it's possible he could have done an edit, too, I also consider that unlikely. I tested the site out myself, but I got a fairly accurate result of about 200KB/s, which is what I've already observed. The ISP used by these two could be a factor in why they got skewed results, or the fact that they're both using Compaqs running WinXP. They may also have picked the wrong test. Lummox JR | |
/me wonders he hosts for Camaro....
That's right! Camaro is having trouble configuring his router and other stuff, so untill then, it's my kickbutt job! woot! | |
most likely, i did notice something about harddrive times...hm...i called it an edit because ive been on forums where people do such idiotic things...not being mean or anything..but...its just strange that someone got 93.2 MEGS A SECOND! -.-;....i found it un-likely that they did edit them..but its probably the site....i dont like that site much anyway ...i thought they were using bandwidthtest.com
| |
I editeded his to suit mine :). I have a win XP silver, he had win XP blue. So i had to edit that, then I just did some 'magic numbering'. :). but while putting my taskbar on his, i noticed my screen resolution was like totally bigger than his :( so I had to edit that. In conclusion, I 5() 3|)173|) that one |)()()|)!
[edit] Aww, I'm not as good at editing as I thought I was:( Lummox JR wrote: I tested the site out myself, The ISP used by these two could be a factor in why they got skewed results, or the fact that they're both using Compaqs running WinXP. They may also have picked the wrong test. I have a dell :(. I guess I forgot to change the title line, too ^_~. ~Cam | |
they arent called by their color -.-;;;..you can set the colors in the display...therefor an "XP blue" and easily turn into an "XP silver" ..call it home or pro..please..color matters not..but anyway..i knew it was editted somehow ^^;
| |
Karasu Kami wrote:
they arent called by their color Uh, don't you think I know this? 'Cause as you see I have the silver display. You can't buy a silver XP, it comes with the blue colors.. Obviously. It's just MY way of comparing them. ~Cam | |
That's some *1337* speed you've got there Camaro. Too bad your megabyte to megabit conversion is messed up(faked). :)
| |
There's usually lots of ways for sites like that to get messed up. Say for example the downloaded file gets cached, the browser will be able to bring it up quickly. Also if the file is almost all the same, repeating sequences, some providers like Earthlink do compression on THEIR super-fast servers, and then send the compressed file to you, for it to be uncompressed.
| |
Crap, I knew I forgot to change one thing 8D.
~Cam ps: how do ya like the multi colored winXP theme ^.^ | |
You're a very slow person..
I forgot to change the title bar color to silver.. So i joked about my mistake.. It's not bragging. ~Cam | |
Well, I don't care much about the thread topic for thanks for the links :P Now I know my cable connection is somewhere between awesome and insane anyway, 1664k. (My upload is between fast and faster, 247k)
Not that it applies to anything in any way. (Except maybe having a typical cable hookup to compare with.) | |
The speed that site reported to you is roughly 44 times what mine is downloading.
I've never heard of cable connections using better than 10-base T, which I believe is 10 Mb/s, or about 1/9 of the speed you were told. And nobody uses that entire capacity; it's split up among subscribers. You'd have to max out a 100-base T line to get 11.1 MB/s.
Lummox JR