facts about winmodems and ping Please !!!
simon....@virgin.net
know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
some answers!
I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at 49333
and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's not a
problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
Will a 'real' modem improve on this? I don't want to buy another modem
to see little or NO difference in my ping.
How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
150
Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
modem...
What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
any perticular model which is really good?
thanks again for any help, I really do want to solve this problem!!
Simon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Paul S Turnbull
I have an internal PCI winmodem in my new GW PC and achieve download rates
of at least 4.5k/sec and a peak of 5.5k/sec. As for my quake pings,
depending on the server, the lowest I can get is 140ms (160-70 av). And all
this is with a 30ft line extenstion leading down into the dining room from
upstairs! This is temporary of course. I'll be moving the PC in a couple of
weeks time.
BTW, my ISP is MSN. And after browsing through some Q3 sites today, I
noticed on that they rated MSN as the best ISP for Id's game.
Paul S Turnbull
<simon....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7rm94u$1hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
John Navas
simon....@virgin.net wrote:
>I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
>know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
>some answers!
>
>I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem
SupraMax? I believe the SupraExpress internal is a standard controller
modem that is ISA only.
>and connect nearly always at 49333
If you are simply looking at the reported connect speeds, those numbers
won't necessarily be dependable or even comparable, since modems can (and
often do) speed shift up and down after the initial connection in a manner
dependent on the particular connection as well as the particular equipment
(including firmware versions) at each end. See my FAQ at
<http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_a.htm#Connect28800>.
Furthermore, all that really matters is net data throughput, and a slower
solid connection can often move more data per minute than a faster but
less stable connection.
>and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
>k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem?
<http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_b.htm#DownloadSpeed>
>i.e it's not a
>problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
Probably not.
>I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
>my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
Sounds too high. How are you measuring the ping? Have you run traceroute
(tracert)?
>Will a 'real' modem improve on this?
Probably.
>I don't want to buy another modem
>to see little or NO difference in my ping.
Buy from a vendor that has a no quibble return policy.
>How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
>150
I doubt that you'll get all the way down from 300+ to 150 with just a
modem swap.
>Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
Different modems. Different measuring tools. Etc.
>Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
>ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
>k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
>simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
>modem...
Latency as measured by ping is an issue for games but not for downloads,
which stream once the transfer starts.
>What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
>any perticular model which is really good?
Standard controller ISA internal.
--
Best regards,
John mailto:jna...@aimnet.com http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
28800-56K Modem FAQ: http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html
v.Richard
connection - check your pings. Also, check your firmware/driver version -
Diamond has a newer version on their 'beta' page.
A Winmodem isn't the cause of low pings; modem firmware is/connection
quality;ISP-equipment & net connect are; gaming/low pings need low-latency -
low-error connections; surfing and file d/loads benefit from 56k connects
with modest error rate which can be death for the gamer.
See http://808hi.com/56k/gamerslag.htm
And for the Rockwell/Conexant-based HCF (Diamond, et al)-
http://808hi.com/56k/rockhcf.htm
Aloha,
Richard
simon....@virgin.net wrote in message <7rm94u$1hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
>know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
>some answers!
>
>I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at 49333
>and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
>k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's not a
>problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
>
>
>I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
>my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
>
>Will a 'real' modem improve on this? I don't want to buy another modem
>to see little or NO difference in my ping.
>
>How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
>150
>
>
>Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
>
>Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
>ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
>k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
>simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
>modem...
>
>What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
>any perticular model which is really good?
>
NuQ
> know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
> some answers!
>
> I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at 49333
> and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
> k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's not a
> problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
>
>
> I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
> my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
>
> Will a 'real' modem improve on this? I don't want to buy another modem
> to see little or NO difference in my ping.
>
> How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
> 150
>
>
> Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
>
> Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
> ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
> k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
> simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
> modem...
>
> What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
> any perticular model which is really good?
>
> thanks again for any help, I really do want to solve this problem!!
>
> Simon
>
Not sure of the answer, but one thing you could do is go ahead and get a
good modem from a store that will let you take it back if not satisfied. If
it doesn't improve performance, then just get a refund. If it helps, then
try and find a better deal online and return it anyway when the one you
order online comes in ;-)
NuQ
James Hale
>
>I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
>know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
>some answers!
>
>I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at 49333
>and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
>k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's not a
>problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
>
>
>I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
>my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
>
>Will a 'real' modem improve on this? I don't want to buy another modem
>to see little or NO difference in my ping.
>
>How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
>150
>
>
>Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
>
>Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
>ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
>k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
>simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
>modem...
>
>What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
>any perticular model which is really good?
>
>thanks again for any help, I really do want to solve this problem!!
>
>Simon
I think I have the answer. I asked a professional about this. The phone line
that you probably have is a voice line(as most people have), to get a better and
faster line you must ask your telephone provider for a balanced internet line.
They will give you a new line, or upgrade it if it is a second line, so that it
doesn't go through voice connections(because voice connections are slow and not
for data).
There is one problem with this!
You will no longer be able to use voice on that telephone line.
John Navas
James Hale <jame...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A bigger problem is that it won't help. It's nothing more than a tested
voice grade line with little red flags that are supposed to prevent techs
from fooling with it. Basically it's a waste of money, because it's no
faster than a standard voice grade line.
John Twernbold
> >I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem
>
> modem that is ISA only.
Only in the US. In the UK, the SupraExpress 56i is controllerless, as are
most internal modems in the UK. I'm not sure why Diamond didn't use the
SupraMax name for this UK modem.
John
chilimac
pings were in the 5 and 6 hundreds. I actually installed a 14.4 modem
and had better pings. I returned the piece of shit winmodem and got
the diamond SupraExpress instead. My pings changed drastically,
hundreds of servers under 200 to choose from, about the best is around
115. I do agree that your ISP has a lot to do with it also.
Goodluck
chilimac
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:54:10 GMT, simon....@virgin.net wrote:
>I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
>know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
>some answers!
>
>I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at 49333
>and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
>k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's not a
>problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
>
>
>I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
>my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
>
>Will a 'real' modem improve on this? I don't want to buy another modem
>to see little or NO difference in my ping.
>
>How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
>150
>
>
>Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
>
>Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
>ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
>k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
>simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
>modem...
>
>What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
>any perticular model which is really good?
>
>thanks again for any help, I really do want to solve this problem!!
>
>Simon
>
>
Pinko Commie
and basically I couldn't play quake online coz I was getting pings of 4-500
even though I was getting 50,666 connections and download speeds of aboot
6k/s.
I now have a Us Robotics 56K internal modem, and I still get a 50,666
connection, but my pings have dropped to between 80 and 250.
Willy Everlearn
willy
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
> simon....@virgin.net wrote:
>
> >I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
> >know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
> >some answers!
> >
> >I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem
>
> SupraMax? I believe the SupraExpress internal is a standard controller
> modem that is ISA only.
>
> >and connect nearly always at 49333
>
> If you are simply looking at the reported connect speeds, those numbers
> won't necessarily be dependable or even comparable, since modems can (and
> often do) speed shift up and down after the initial connection in a manner
> dependent on the particular connection as well as the particular equipment
> (including firmware versions) at each end. See my FAQ at
> <http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_a.htm#Connect28800>.
> Furthermore, all that really matters is net data throughput, and a slower
> solid connection can often move more data per minute than a faster but
> less stable connection.
>
> >and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
> >k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem?
>
> <http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_b.htm#DownloadSpeed>
>
> >i.e it's not a
> >problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
>
> Probably not.
>
> >I've tried 3 ISP's and always get ping times of about 300-350 (EVEN on
> >my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
>
> Sounds too high. How are you measuring the ping? Have you run traceroute
> (tracert)?
>
> >Will a 'real' modem improve on this?
>
> Probably.
>
> >I don't want to buy another modem
> >to see little or NO difference in my ping.
>
> Buy from a vendor that has a no quibble return policy.
>
> >How much difference should I expect to get? I would like a ping of about
> >150
>
> I doubt that you'll get all the way down from 300+ to 150 with just a
> modem swap.
>
> >Why do some people with winmodems claim to get low pings (>150) ?
>
> Different modems. Different measuring tools. Etc.
>
> >Why does a winmodem download/upload at the same speed but get different
> >ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
> >k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
> >simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
> >modem...
>
> Latency as measured by ping is an issue for games but not for downloads,
> which stream once the transfer starts.
>
> >What is the best modem to but for a low ping? i.e isa, external, USB ?
> >any perticular model which is really good?
>
> Standard controller ISA internal.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John mailto:jna...@aimnet.com http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
> 28800-56K Modem FAQ: http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html
--
remove anti-spam to reply.........
Scott
the fact is that I also have a US Robotics v90 56k and I cannot use it for
Q3 as the pings are so high that I always get disconnected. The pings on my
Winmodem are also high (250-500) , but the connection is reliable , so that
is the one I use. DSL or cable are going to be on my next rig. I think its
your phone line and/or your ISP.
Scott
chilimac <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e03393...@news.netdoor.com...
> The longest week of my life was when I had a diamond SupraMax, my
> pings were in the 5 and 6 hundreds. I actually installed a 14.4 modem
> and had better pings. I returned the piece of shit winmodem and got
> the diamond SupraExpress instead. My pings changed drastically,
> hundreds of servers under 200 to choose from, about the best is around
> 115. I do agree that your ISP has a lot to do with it also.
>
> Goodluck
> chilimac
>
>
> >I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
> >know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
> >some answers!
> >
> >and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
> >problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
> >
> >
> >my first hop to the ISP!) is this right?
> >
> >to see little or NO difference in my ping.
> >
> >150
> >
> >
> >
> >ping times? People say it's because it shares CPU usage but i'm using a
> >k6-3 400 and get these ping times just from pinging the server by a
> >simple terminal program which must lkeave alot of cpu power to the
> >modem...
> >
> >any perticular model which is really good?
> >
MattyD
they have a similar advantage to internals as there is no power wart to go
in the wall
and its nice having the true plug'n'play
I use a Netcomm Roadster II USB replacing a very cheap winmodem
My ping times have halved and my connection speeds have risen from
44000/41000
to a regular 49333 and sometimes 50663
just my $0.02 worth
MattyD{Aetherone}
<simon....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7rm94u$1hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
John Navas
"MattyD" <matt...@dont.ask.net> wrote:
>my connection speeds have risen from
>44000/41000
>to a regular 49333 and sometimes 50663
If you are simply looking at the reported connect speeds, those numbers
won't necessarily be dependable or even comparable, since modems can (and
often do) speed shift up and down after the initial connection in a manner
dependent on the particular connection as well as the particular equipment
(including firmware versions) at each end. See my FAQ at
<http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_a.htm#Connect28800>.
Furthermore, all that really matters is net data throughput, and a slower
solid connection can often move more data per minute than a faster but
less stable connection.
--
chilimac
other hand the Diamond SupraExpress is a kickass modem.
chilimac
John Navas
"Pinko Commie" <matt.dot.elk@at@hotmail.dot.com> wrote:
There is no one perfect modem for all conditions. In my own tests the
SupraExpress has been a top performer.
Laessig
many times with pci modems. My zoom external modem gives 90ms ping to my
isp, but a pci modem by the same company was 300+ just like yours. Check
with your isp, and see what they recommend. If they can't help, then try a
zoom 2919 isa modem or something similar.
--
John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and Powerup
Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for any
application.
http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
<simon....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7rm94u$1hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping problem...... I
> know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I could get
> some answers!
>
> I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at 49333
> and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of about 4.5
> k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's not a
> problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
>
>
Realto B. Love
day...I ain't that concerned...Netmedic reported the provider as having a
slowdown....Happens quite a bit...Not as much as it use to.
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:50:29 +0930, "MattyD" <matt...@dont.ask.net> wrote:
quote>>Simon I must recommend USB modems
quote>>they have a similar advantage to internals as there is no power wart
to go
quote>>in the wall
quote>>and its nice having the true plug'n'play
quote>>I use a Netcomm Roadster II USB replacing a very cheap winmodem
quote>>My ping times have halved and my connection speeds have risen from
quote>>44000/41000
quote>>to a regular 49333 and sometimes 50663
quote>>
quote>>just my $0.02 worth
quote>>MattyD{Aetherone}
quote>>
quote>><simon....@virgin.net> wrote in message
quote>>news:7rm94u$1hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
quote>>> I need some facts and answers about this winmodem ping
problem...... I
quote>>> know I've got alot of questions but it really would help if I
could get
quote>>> some answers!
quote>>>
quote>>> I have a supraexpress 56i (pci) modem and connect nearly always at
49333
quote>>> and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of
about 4.5
quote>>> k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's
not a
quote>>> problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
quote>>
quote>>
quote>>
quote>>
-"...Me and the fool I've been, and the two of you."-(From the album "I'm Alive")
Realto B. Love
quote>>Simon I must recommend USB modems
quote>>> and can download files from local sites at a constant rate of
about 4.5
quote>>> k/sec is this a good speed to expect with a 56K modem? i.e it's
not a
quote>>> problem with my phone line that i'm getting a low ping?
quote>>
quote>>
quote>>
quote>>
4.5 is not very good for that high speed of a connection....Are your
settings optimized for a dialup connection? Computer settings, not modem...
John Navas
REAL...@INNOCENT.COM (Realto B. Love) wrote:
>PS=My current ping time is 248 to bellsouth.net....Ranges throughout the
>day...I ain't that concerned...Netmedic reported the provider as having a
>slowdown....Happens quite a bit...Not as much as it use to.
Pay NO attention to what Net.Medic says -- it is all too often wildly off
the mark.
John Navas
"Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and Powerup
>Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
>quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for any
>application.
>http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
With all due respect, there is really almost nothing you can do to reduce
ping times on a given modem, since ping time is mostly a function of
network transit time. The only thing that has any real effect is to set
the serial port speed as high as possible, but that has only a relatively
small effect. With regard to your other recommendations:
* Deleting Client for Microsoft Networks will not lower pings.
* Disabling software compression will not lower pings.
* Changing MTU and RWIN will not lower pings.
For more information, see
<http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_b.htm#GamePlay>.
Ch. Alexander Batara M
John Navas
shr...@voyager.net (ShryQe) wrote:
>>For more information, see
>><http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_b.htm#GamePlay>.
>You are doing a big disservice to online game players by saying "there
>is really almost nothing you can do to reduce ping times on a given
>modem"...that is pure crapola.
Whereas I think it's a big disservice to spread urban myths that cannot be
empirically proven. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ssaurabi[3MC]
these
> and basically I couldn't play quake online coz I was getting pings of
4-500
Sounds like you were unlucky. I always get pings in the 110 to 170 region
with my SupraExpress (bought from Renegade).
--
Ssaurabi
Laessig
published data on port speeds? It seems strange that ping test data is
hardly ever published on different modem settings. Your port speed data is
very rare, and could be expanded. If my connection were an ideal 56k
connection, I might consider it, but I am plagued with mediocre phone lines.
My site actually includes a lot of general recomendations for a stable
online connection together with the tweaks that really lower pings. If I had
to name the most important tweak for lowering dos pings, I would say
increase the port speed to 230400 bps. The second would be to disable
software compression. Maybe its just my Zoom external modem, but I find
disabling software compression makes my ping lower. On my site, I have
posted free software to switch to higher than 115200 bps port speeds. Could
you post a link to it on your site, since you at least endorse this
recomendation?
I also believe, lowering ping times during online games is a bit more
complicated than a simple ping with the OS doing nothing but servicing ping
packets. When games are grabbing all system resources, they tend to run
better with fewer services running such as Client for Microsoft Networks and
Software Compression plus all the other protocols and adapters windows adds
by default. This theoretically makes ping times lower during the game,
however in game pings fluctuate too much to measure accurately. Changing the
maxMTU has NOT affected ping times in my dos ping tests, probably because
game packets are relatively small compared to maxMTU values. My initial
tests of large and small RWIN values supported lower latency with lower rwin
multipliers, but a retest a few weeks ago showed little to no difference as
you suggest.
--
John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and Powerup
Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for any
application.
http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3aHgN3ZAv9rHfd...@4ax.com...
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
> "Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>
> >John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and
Powerup
> >Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
> >quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for
any
> >application.
> >http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
>
> With all due respect, there is really almost nothing you can do to reduce
> ping times on a given modem, since ping time is mostly a function of
> network transit time. The only thing that has any real effect is to set
> the serial port speed as high as possible, but that has only a relatively
> small effect. With regard to your other recommendations:
>
> * Deleting Client for Microsoft Networks will not lower pings.
>
> * Disabling software compression will not lower pings.
>
> * Changing MTU and RWIN will not lower pings.
>
> For more information, see
> <http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_b.htm#GamePlay>.
>
Casey Golliher
OK so I may not be able to prove it "empirically" but in my own
experience in EarthLink's Tech Support floor, we ping customers constantly
to determine and troubleshoot issues. As we are continually having pops'
check daily, and can request a certain pop be tested for a particular
problem, I can say with much security that the number one was to reduce high
pings has been removeing and reinstalling the network devices and
communications in Win95/98. That holds true accross the board. Mac's PC's
they both ping considerably better after a reinstall of network components,
and comunications method.
Yah I know reinstalling won't fix everything, and after that if member's
still having trouble it's line conditions and modem at that point. but the
first step I make on a call, when I was on calls, was to remove the dial
upadapter and any network components from the network control panel, then
remove the communications components from Add/Remove Programs. I've seen it
work literally hundreds of times.
However, others in this groups can undoubtedly refute with empirical
evidence to the contrary, I'm merely giving my opinion and that's gained
from my own personal experience. I'm curious what others have to say.
Casey
Laessig <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote in message
news:7rv715$3km$1...@news1.fast.net...
John Navas
"Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>John, could you publish some of your data on these settings like you have
>published data on port speeds?
What more do you want than
<http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq_b.htm#GamePlay>?
(I generally don't keep data that doesn't show a statistically significant
difference. It would be impossible to catalog all the things that don't
work, so I concentrate on those that do.)
>It seems strange that ping test data is
>hardly ever published on different modem settings.
Unfortunately, Usenet is mostly noise, with people repeating the same
rumors (some true, some untrue) over and over. Many tech support
departments aren't much better -- their objective is to close your call as
fast as possible, not to give you accurate information, so they tend to
spew out a lot of nonsense in the hope that some part of it will satisfy
you.
>Your port speed data is
>very rare, and could be expanded. If my connection were an ideal 56k
>connection, I might consider it, but I am plagued with mediocre phone lines.
Lock your modem down to a lower speed at which it is stable. That way
your results can be more consistent from run to run.
>My site actually includes a lot of general recomendations for a stable
>online connection together with the tweaks that really lower pings. If I had
>to name the most important tweak for lowering dos pings, I would say
>increase the port speed to 230400 bps. The second would be to disable
>software compression. Maybe its just my Zoom external modem, but I find
>disabling software compression makes my ping lower.
3Com Courier external with latest firmware, locked at 28800 bps for
stability, serial port locked at 230 Kbps, pinging the ISP gateway:
Software compression ON:
Minimum = 109ms, Maximum = 112ms, Average = 110ms
Software compression OFF:
Minimum = 110ms, Maximum = 118ms, Average = 112ms
That difference is not statistically significant.
>On my site, I have
>posted free software to switch to higher than 115200 bps port speeds. Could
>you post a link to it on your site, since you at least endorse this
>recomendation?
I don't make such a recommendation for several reasons:
1. Most serial ports and most modems don't support speeds higher than
115200 bps.
2. Higher serial port speeds can increase serial port overrun, resulting
in lower effective performance.
3. Increasing serial port speed from 115200 bps to 230000 bps doesn't
have real demonstrable benefit even when it works; e.g.,
3Com Courier external with latest firmware, locked at 28800 bps for
stability, pinging the ISP gateway:
115200 230000
---------------------------- -----------------------------
Mean 93.45 Mean 94.075
Standard Error 1.04 Standard Error 0.81
Median 92 Median 94
Mode 92 Mode 91
Standard Deviation 6.59 Standard Deviation 5.13
Sample Variance 43.38 Sample Variance 26.33
Kurtosis 4.59 Kurtosis 1.60
Skewness 1.95 Skewness 0.83
Range 32 Range 26
Minimum 86 Minimum 84
Maximum 118 Maximum 110
Sum 3738 Sum 3763
Count 40 Count 40
Confidence Level(95.0%) 2.11 Confidence Level(95.0%) 1.64
My general practice is to only link to sites where I have confidence that
the great majority of the material is accurate and sound. (No offense
intended.)
>I also believe, lowering ping times during online games is a bit more
>complicated than a simple ping with the OS doing nothing but servicing ping
>packets. When games are grabbing all system resources, they tend to run
>better with fewer services running such as Client for Microsoft Networks and
>Software Compression plus all the other protocols and adapters windows adds
>by default. This theoretically makes ping times lower during the game,
>however in game pings fluctuate too much to measure accurately.
In effect you are conceding that this is based on gut feel, rather than
objective measurement. You are also making assumptions that don't have a
sound foundation; e.g., Client for Microsoft Networks does not consume a
significant amount of system resources when it is idle (something that can
be objectively checked).
>Changing the
>maxMTU has NOT affected ping times in my dos ping tests, probably because
>game packets are relatively small compared to maxMTU values. My initial
>tests of large and small RWIN values supported lower latency with lower rwin
>multipliers, but a retest a few weeks ago showed little to no difference as
>you suggest.
The problem is that accurate testing is a very tricky and difficult
proposition, which is part of the reason that there is so much bad
information floating around the Internet.
Laessig
connection for optimal online gaming on WIN95/98. My site
http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig is designed specifically to give a
PROCEDURE people can follow with a few simple changes to achieve good
settings for online games or other applications where latency is an issue.
My recommendations lower ping times, free up system resources, and remove
unecessary network clients/protocols/adapters to make troubleshooting
easier. My site is not directed towards users of old modems, low end modems,
or winmodems. Most "good" modems do support 230k port speed. My site is
directed towards people who have, or will go out and get, a v90 isa or
external modem capbable of 230k port speed for use on win95/98. If their
motherboard doesnt support 230k on the com port, they will get an internal
modem. If a person follows my advice, they should achieve the best possible
online gaming for their system+modem+isp combo. They also will know how to
test their ping time to their isp gateway. My modem happens to be a Zoom
modem and yours is a USR. This also may have an affect on our differing
results.
On your site, I can't find any basic information on the 230k port speed
tweak , and your reasoning below for discounting it is way too conservative
for online gamers to benefit much at all. Your ping vs port speed data taken
on a 28.8 modem is useful information, but could be expanded to include
higher connection speeds, higher port speeds, and kflex/v90/x2. This is
relevant information no one has posted. It would be nice if someone with the
capability to test it posted this information on a web page.
Also, I'm sorry, but I really think your "How can I improve game play over
modems?" section is too sparse and needs some tweaking and more study. No
matter how meager the benefits may be, there really are other things that
help online gaming besides increasing the port speed. "Consider ISDN" is not
a way to improve online gaming over a modem (unless you are saying ISDN uses
a modem). Serial cards in general seem to add some latency to an online
connection and should be avoided, not just the Hayes ESP which might add
high latency. The PCI serial card I tried from byterunner also added high
latency similar to a winmodem. I tried an ISA serial card, which did not add
as high a latency, but did add measureable latency of 10-20ms or more.
For serious gamers, every few milliseconds of latency are important. As your
test showed, disabling software compression gave you 2ms lower ping times on
average. If you let your ping run for awhile longer to give "statistically
accurate" numbers wouldn't you still expect a few milliseconds lower ping?
My tests on 230k port speed show about 8ms lower pings than 115k. Locking
your connection at 28.8 may have affected your results. I typically do all
tests locked at 44k.
My tests have also shown that 115k and 230k port speeds show no difference
in the frequency of serial overrrun errors. Have you tested this too, or is
it just a gut instinct? I happen to have serial overrun errors, so I can
test this. I can honestly say, I would rather have better ping with a minor
overrun error problem, than higher ping and no overruns. I dont notice
overuns while playing games, but I surely notice the better ping. There can
be a problem with overruns spiralling out of control and locking a
connection, but this also is not affected by port speed.
I believe I got some favorable results at one time by removing the client
for MS networks (maybe a couple ms lower ping), but that was way back when I
had win95 and who knows which DUN version. I also have seen many connection
problems with extra adapters and protocols, although I don't know if it
affected ping times I do know it improved connections in some way. For this
reason, I just remove anything in the network list that isn't necessary
which doesnt hurt anything, and may actually help SOME people. I dont think
there is a big affect with the client for MS networks, but I only mentioned
it specifically on my page because I remembered that deleting it will make
it necessary to type in your password each time you connect.
--
John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and Powerup
Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for any
application.
http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:gmLmNwEdq9A3VQ...@4ax.com...
John Navas
"Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>[SNIP]
There were quite a few errors in your lengthy response, but I'm afraid I
just don't have the time to respond to them again in detail, particularly
when you gave such short shrift to the hard data I posted previously.
Therefore, feel free to think and recommend whatever you want, but don't
expect to get any endorsement from me.
Laessig
done many many times. I have helped many others with various modem brands
implement these tweaks all with good results (as long as the modem can
handle 230k port speed). Ping times are always lower with the tweaks.
Usually pings are 5-10 ms lower with 230k port speed, and another 2ms lower
with disabled software compression. Your site is very outdated as far as
information and innovation when it comes helping people lower their ping
times.
--
John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and Powerup
Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for any
application.
http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:maDmNyyOJbne2m...@4ax.com...
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
> "Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>
> >[SNIP]
>
> There were quite a few errors in your lengthy response, but I'm afraid I
> just don't have the time to respond to them again in detail, particularly
> when you gave such short shrift to the hard data I posted previously.
> Therefore, feel free to think and recommend whatever you want, but don't
> expect to get any endorsement from me.
>
John Navas
"Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
>news:maDmNyyOJbne2m...@4ax.com...
>> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
>> "Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>>
>> >[SNIP]
>>
>> There were quite a few errors in your lengthy response, but I'm afraid I
>> just don't have the time to respond to them again in detail, particularly
>> when you gave such short shrift to the hard data I posted previously.
>> Therefore, feel free to think and recommend whatever you want, but don't
>> expect to get any endorsement from me.
>I was expecting something more than a simple repeat of the same tests I've
>done many many times.
I gave you a great deal more -- new real tests, carefully controlled, with
real results and real statistics. You apparently find it hard to accept
real data that conflicts with what you want to "believe," choosing instead
to rely on what you "think," thereby missing an opportunity to learn
something that would seem to be important to you.
>I have helped many others with various modem brands
>implement these tweaks all with good results (as long as the modem can
>handle 230k port speed). Ping times are always lower with the tweaks.
>Usually pings are 5-10 ms lower with 230k port speed, and another 2ms lower
>with disabled software compression. Your site is very outdated as far as
>information and innovation when it comes helping people lower their ping
>times.
Repetition does not make unsubstantiated claims any more persuasive,
particularly when the available evidence conflicts with those claims (as
is the case here).
I will not respond further. Feel free to have the last word.
--
Best regards,
John "help stamp out urban myths" Navas
Laessig
based on real tests not just belief. My tests are just as "real" as yours,
and there is plenty of evidence from other people doing real tests that
shows that these tweaks work. It's not a new test, since I started pinging
my isp gateway with 230k port speed about a year ago and I learned how to
get 230k from others online. It surprises me that you never did this test
before. Actually, your results surprise me, since the 115k ping is lower
than the 230k ping. This is unreasonable data. I suggest you try this test
again maybe at a higher connection speed, and maybe with a different modem
before you discount it as myth. If you want some statistics, my site poll
says 53% of people trying to the tweaks get better pings. You actually did
benefit by 1.5 ms according to your own data.
Repetition decreases the statistical error. Also, repetition on different
modems builds a database of knowledge. Currently, I know these tweaks helped
some ISA and external modems by Zoom, Diamond, USR, and Shark to varying
degrees. I don't write down every ping time someone sends me. I try to
remember the difference in pings between tweaked and untweaked systems. I am
giving users the benefit of much experience with these particular tweaks,
its based on real data. The advice is sound. You can choose to discount it
as myth because your one test didnt show any significant benefit, but it
would be better to find out why some of us do better than you. Luckily
people are finding my site and other sites that promote these tweaks for
lowering pings. I posted a poll on my web page to see how much I am helping
people. More than half the people polled are helped, the others half are
not. How do you explain that so many are helped? Only a few actually respond
to the poll, since I get about 25 visitors a day (actual visitors, not page
refreshes). Only a few people get worse pings with the tweaks, and I suspect
they are owners of winmodems or possibly have excessive overrun errors on
external modems. Some people are helped by 20ms or better. In short, I think
you are being unfair in your assessment of these tweaks.
--
John -- See my web site for Modem Tweaks That Really Lower Ping, and Powerup
Timer stand alone timer with hotkeys that works with any online game as a
quad timer, game timer, item timer, ..., or as a general alarm timer for any
application.
http://www.downloadit.gr/~v_laessig
John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:Sf3mN5R2MLdxRF...@4ax.com...
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
> "Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
> >news:maDmNyyOJbne2m...@4ax.com...
> >> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems]
> >> "Laessig" <v_la...@downloadit.gr> wrote:
> >>
Y@rgèth
Ssaurabi[3MC] wrote in message <37e24...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
What is Renegade? Online sales?
If so would you post the addy please, thanks, Y@rgčth___
yar...@kellnet.com