Dirk T. Verbeek

NoStop wrote:
> Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
>>> Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
>>> test. I wonder why that is?
>>>
>> I am tempted to say the Linux way of setting up a network connection is
>> superior.
>> But I can't imagine such a large discrepancy.
>
> Why not? Here's a test I ran a couple years ago. You can go and do your own
> testing.
>
> http://www.w-3productions.com/cvcs/w...g_linux_1.html
>
> Cheers.
>
My ISP provides a couple of special files for speed testing.
IMO that is the only fair comparison for testing the speed of your ISP,
something not using unknown parts of the network.

See:
ftp://ftp.xs4all.nl/pub/test/README

I'd love to use them for comparison between XP and Linux but I'm
presently in a remote location on a satellite link, the results would be
rather dramatic

As a matter of fact, because of the Corporate Proxy server that all
communication passes through I only have port 80 and 443 available.
Yet thanks to both Linux on my end and BSD on the end of my ISP a simple
ssh tunnel to the ISP's root servers allows me to access both mail and
news

Christopher Hunter

NoStop wrote:

> Because the Linux tcp stack is better put together than the Windoze tcp
> stack. This has been the case for years.


The "Windows" IP stack is the one Gates and Cutler stole from BSD in the
early 90s. The idiots stole the broken version! Conspiracy theorists
suggest that this was a deliberate ploy on the part of the Regents of
Berkeley! MS no longer have staff who have any understanding of the
"legacy code", so huge binary blobs like the broken IP stack remain in
Windoze and are inviolate.

C.

Alias

Moog wrote:
> NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
>>>> Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
>>>> test. I wonder why that is?
>>>>
>>> I am tempted to say the Linux way of setting up a network connection is
>>> superior.
>>> But I can't imagine such a large discrepancy.
>> Why not? Here's a test I ran a couple years ago. You can go and do your own
>> testing.
>>
>> http://www.w-3productions.com/cvcs/w...g_linux_1.html
>
> Woooah....
>
> I've just done the test on a Vista Box
> It returned
>
> Download 199kbps
> Upload 357kbps
>
> And with Gutsy on the same wireless network with a slightly weaker
> signal....
>
> Download 353kbps
> Upload 356kbps
>
> Interesting? Well yes...
>
> BTW. I think The reason for the slow download is that the test server
> I used is in California and I'm in the UK.
>
> But...hell. It's a significant difference, isn't it?
>

Try this test from a Spanish server:

http://www.internautas.org/testvelocidad/

Alias

NoStop

Moog wrote:

> NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
>>>> Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
>>>> test. I wonder why that is?
>>>>
>>> I am tempted to say the Linux way of setting up a network connection is
>>> superior.
>>> But I can't imagine such a large discrepancy.
>>
>> Why not? Here's a test I ran a couple years ago. You can go and do your
>> own testing.
>>
>>
http://www.w-3productions.com/cvcs/w...g_linux_1.html
>
> Woooah....
>
> I've just done the test on a Vista Box
> It returned
>
> Download 199kbps
> Upload 357kbps
>
> And with Gutsy on the same wireless network with a slightly weaker
> signal....
>
> Download 353kbps
> Upload 356kbps
>
> Interesting? Well yes...
>
> BTW. I think The reason for the slow download is that the test server
> I used is in California and I'm in the UK.
>
> But...hell. It's a significant difference, isn't it?
>
Moog,

Your test certainly does confirm similar results to my test of a couple
years ago. My test was maybe a little more "scientific" in that it came
from the same wired box as opposed to wireless which can introduce some
additional disparities in the comparison process. The fact of the matter is
that somehow Linux has figured out how to deliver faster Internet than
Windoze can do, by a rather significant amount and continues to do so up to
today. :-)

Cheers.

--
Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
-- My Wife

Joe

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:

> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
> Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
> test. I wonder why that is?
>
> Alias

Windows sucks?




--
Joe - Registered Linux User #449481
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Joe

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:13:51 +0000, Moog wrote:

> NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
>>>> Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
>>>> test. I wonder why that is?
>>>>
>>> I am tempted to say the Linux way of setting up a network connection
>>> is superior.
>>> But I can't imagine such a large discrepancy.
>>
>> Why not? Here's a test I ran a couple years ago. You can go and do your
>> own testing.
>>
>> http://www.w-3productions.com/cvcs/w...hives/2005/04/
comparing_linux_1.html
>
> Woooah....
>
> I've just done the test on a Vista Box It returned
>
> Download 199kbps
> Upload 357kbps
>
> And with Gutsy on the same wireless network with a slightly weaker
> signal....
>
> Download 353kbps
> Upload 356kbps
>
> Interesting? Well yes...
>
> BTW. I think The reason for the slow download is that the test server I
> used is in California and I'm in the UK.
>
> But...hell. It's a significant difference, isn't it?

I usually use speedtest.net. Allows you to choose your closest
location. I get 14526kbps down, 1836kbps up. Haven't tried it with
Windows yet, and I am remotely connected right now, so I'll try to
remember to do the test when I get home and see what the difference is...




--
Joe - Registered Linux User #449481
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Eeyore

Mr Nice wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
>
> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
> > test. I wonder why that is?
> >
> > Alias
>
> Because XP uses your connection to send crap

Pure nonsense.

Graham

Joe

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:00:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

> Mr Nice wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
>>
>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
>> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
>> > test. I wonder why that is?
>> >
>> > Alias
>>
>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap
>
> Pure nonsense.

So, please explain to us why the M$ OS frequently gets about 20% lower
throughput?




--
Joe - Registered Linux User #449481
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

Eeyore wrote:

> Mr Nice wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:33:17 +0100, Alias wrote:
>>
>> > I consistently get 7 to 8 megs download with XP Pro and 8 to 10 with
>> > Ubuntu Gutsy on the same machine (a dual boot) and the same on line
>> > test. I wonder why that is?
>> >
>> > Alias
>>
>> Because XP uses your connection to send crap
>
> Pure nonsense.

You have a better explanation why Windows throughput is 25% to 45% lower
than Linux?

If it's not doing something else with the bandwidth then it flat out
broken.

Moog

Alias illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

> <...>
>> Woooah....
>>
>> I've just done the test on a Vista Box
>> It returned
>>
>> Download 199kbps
>> Upload 357kbps
>>
>> And with Gutsy on the same wireless network with a slightly weaker
>> signal....
>>
>> Download 353kbps
>> Upload 356kbps
>>
>> Interesting? Well yes...
>>
>> BTW. I think The reason for the slow download is that the test server
>> I used is in California and I'm in the UK.
>>
>> But...hell. It's a significant difference, isn't it?
>>
>
> Try this test from a Spanish server:
>
> http://www.internautas.org/testvelocidad/

OK....

Windows Vista...
Download 2208kbps
Upload 360kbps

Gutsy....
Download 4384kbps
Upload 360kbps

Crikey.

--
Moog

"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
leather straps."