loving my life
Kent Paul Dolan
in a box, for home use. Granted, that's priced USD$500
more than the clearance price for two, one terabyte boxes
was two weeks ago, it's still a source of consolation that my
never-ending file growth will not soon catch up with the
technology, no matter how many screen wallpapers I draw,
no matter how many comic link icons I create, no matter
how much "essential porn" I copy to home, no matter how
many MIDI files I keep around to play for me. I'm sure the
price point for that new box of hard drives will slowly erode
to something more within reason, and meanwhile, I just
grin my feral grin and wait to pounce.
xanthian.
Funny factoid: it takes _much_ longer, like tenfold, to update
a web page of my comic linkmark icons from local files on
my hard drive, than it does from the public copies I keep in
San Francisco, at internet speeds from Sun technology file
servers. WinXP just sucks and sucks and sucks, and by all
reports, MS-Vista makes WinXP look like an oral virgin.
Gilchrist
But it comes in a curved box!
--
Gary Heston
[ ... ]
>Funny factoid: it takes _much_ longer, like tenfold, to update
>a web page of my comic linkmark icons from local files on
>my hard drive, than it does from the public copies I keep in
>San Francisco, at internet speeds from Sun technology file
>servers. WinXP just sucks and sucks and sucks, and by all
>reports, MS-Vista makes WinXP look like an oral virgin.
The difference in speed is related to your connection more than
XP, bad as the Windows TCP/IP stack is.
You're connecting through an asymmetric link (the A in ADSL), where
the uplink speed is a small fracting of the downlink speed. For your
typical 1.5Mb downlink ADSL line, the uplink is usually 256K or 384K.
Accordingly, transfer rates from you to the world are slow. (Cable
TV connections are also asymmetrical.)
Your ISP, on the other hand, will be connecting via a full-duplex T1
or T3/FT3 connection, where the uplink and downlink rates are the same;
1.5Mb for a T1, and up to 45Mb for a T3.
Past experience at work showed Windows to move data about half as fast
as a Linux or IRIX system, over the same connection to the same remote
host. Combine that with 1/4 or 1/6 the data rate, and you're doing well
to only see a 10x slowdown.
Nobody I know likes Vista. Nobody.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
"release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?
Kent Paul Dolan
> kpd wrote:
>> Funny factoid: it takes _much_ longer, like
>> tenfold, to update a web page of my comic
>> linkmark icons from local files on my hard drive,
>> than it does from the public copies I keep in San
>> Francisco, at internet speeds from Sun technology
>> file servers. WinXP just sucks and sucks and
>> sucks, and by all reports, MS-Vista makes WinXP
>> look like an oral virgin.
> The difference in speed is related to your
> connection more than XP, bad as the Windows TCP/IP
> stack is.
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote, which means
I wrote it unclearly.
I'm not contrasting moving data outstream as opposed
to instream across a (asymmetric) TCP/IP link.
I'm contrasting repainting a web page from a LOCAL
COPY on my local hard drive of ALL its files, with
repainting a copy of the same web page from the
remote site where I make that web page and all its
embedded image files public.
The issue is thus not the WinXP TCP/IP stack
performance, but the WinXP hard drive access
performance.
It seems a lot more than half past weird to me, that
WinXP hard drive access is so incredibly terrible,
that I can't get data for this web page off my OWN
hard drive, and display it with my browser, anywhere
near as fast as I can fetch the identical data off
hard drives on my ISP's machine, suck it eight
hundred or so miles across presumably a lot of
TCP/IP waystations, through my cable modem, at
fairly limited Internet transmission speeds, and
with the same browser painting the data, paint the
identical set of pixels onto my screen.
[ADSL tutorial snipped]
> Nobody I know likes Vista. Nobody.
You haven't run into the True Believers yet, then.
That same crowd which has been insisting that I
couldn't _possibly_ be seeing the crash rates with
MS-Windows that it has consistently displayed ever
since I shifted over from MS-DOS, roughly early
1990s, are now out there chanting that MS-Vista is
the best thing since sliced bread.
Of course, when you can get one of them cut off from
the herd, the story is instead a long threnody, all
about the horrid support for existing peripherals
MS-Vista has, how they are having to go buy new
hardware because the manufacturers don't want to
sink money into supporting hardware already sold and
superseded [all due to MS-Vista's attempt to be the
"intellectual property stormtroopers" invalidating
how almost every existing driver works so that they
won't run with MS-Vista, how the beast is dog slow,
impedes almost all normal use of "intellectual
property", etc.
My latest Microsoft fiasco is trying like a good
obedient zombot to run the "Is this really a valid
version of WinXP that Hewlett Packard installed in
my computer" software from Microsoft as suggested
along with a WinXP security update, only to have
that test fail and fall flat on its face because,
huge surprise, my default browser isn't drecky
Internet Explorer 6, nor do I have any intention of
ever letting Intellectual Property Nannying IE7
onto my machine.
Trying the M$ suggested fall-back of downloading and
executing the OS validity test program by hand also
produced only a belly up rotting software corpse.
"Is that really a valid MS-Windows instance?" How
the hell am I supposed to tell if Microsoft can't?
Quantum valeat.
xanthian.