Moog

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

> <...>
> 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.

I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
stronger wireless connection to the router.

Figures are
Vista 90% signal strength
Gutsy 35% signal strength

> 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. :-)

I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the results I've got. If anything,
the environment of my LAN gives Vista a huge advantage.

Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
scientific examination.

I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
with vanilla installs on the same box though.

--
Moog

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

Moog

Moog illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
> 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.

I Just did the same thing on a Virtualisation of Feisty on my Vista Box.

Results....

Vista
Download 2879kbps
Upload 323kbps

Feity VM running as host to above Vista Guest
Download 3759kbps
Upload 361kbps

Unbelievable.

--
Moog

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

Moog

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

> <CORRRECTION>
> I Just did the same thing on a Virtualisation of Feisty on my Vista Box.
>
> Results....
>
> Vista
> Download 2879kbps
> Upload 323kbps
>
> Feity VM running as host to above Vista Guest

Du'h..........
Feisty VM running as guest to above Vista Host (What a clot)

> Download 3759kbps
> Upload 361kbps
>
> Unbelievable.
>


--
Moog

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

brummie

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:05:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> 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.

winblows reserves bandwidth for sevices. Its not just quicker.
You can stop it doing it by removing the QoS feature.

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

brummie wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:05:14 +0100, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> winblows reserves bandwidth for sevices. Its not just quicker. You can
> stop it doing it by removing the QoS feature.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because Windows is still slower, it
would mean Windows QoS implementation is horribly broken. QoS prioritizes
existing traffic, it's not suppose to reserve unused bandwidth for
traffic taht doesn't exist.

Actually, Windows is simply a piss poor multitasker and cludges had to be
applied to keep the interface from sputtering when transferring data at
high speeds across TCP/IP networks. It's either slower Internet, or
notable degradation of overall system performance.

I guess Micro$oft thought their users were so stupid they wouldn't notice
Windows was robbing them of a portion of the broadband Internet they were
paying a premium for. <sigh>

Hadron

Mr Nice <saerimner=TRAP=@gmail.com> writes:

> 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

Nonsense. It's because something is configured wrong.

--
El hombre no vive, como las bestias salvajes, en un mundo de cosas
meramente fÃ*sicas, sino en un mundo de signos y sÃ*mbolos.
-- John Dewey. (1859-1952).

Hadron

Joe <joe@hits-buffalo.no.spam.com> writes:

> 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?

It's interesting. See other post for how my Linux was noticeably slower
than XP. Do post if you find the reasons.

--
El hombre no vive, como las bestias salvajes, en un mundo de cosas
meramente fÃ*sicas, sino en un mundo de signos y sÃ*mbolos.
-- John Dewey. (1859-1952).

Hadron

Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> writes:

> 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.
>> Could it be one of the two uses a 'digital' counter and the other a
>> decimal' one?
>> I mean as in 1MB is not equivalent to 1000KB but 1024KB.
>>
>>> Alias
>
> Same computer. Same NIC. Same cable connection. I did the test about
> 50 times on XP and Ubuntu. Ubuntu was/is *consistently* 2 megs faster
> for download. For upload, XP and Ubuntu tested the same speed.
>
> Alias

It was exactly the opposite for me. XP was almost twice as fast until I
disabled ip6 on Ubuntu.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202838

MOIWYW

--
El hombre no vive, como las bestias salvajes, en un mundo de cosas
meramente fÃ*sicas, sino en un mundo de signos y sÃ*mbolos.
-- John Dewey. (1859-1952).

Hadron

Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> writes:

> NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>
>> <...>
>> 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.
>
> I understand that, but if anything, the windows box has the much
> stronger wireless connection to the router.
>
> Figures are
> Vista 90% signal strength
> Gutsy 35% signal strength
>
>> 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. :-)
>
> I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the results I've got. If anything,
> the environment of my LAN gives Vista a huge advantage.
>
> Like you say though, it is simply a comparison and not really a
> scientific examination.
>
> I would be staggered if the results turned around to Vista's favour
> with vanilla installs on the same box though.

It's looking like a wireless issue. Have you tried with cable to router?

--
Yes, it is written. Good shall always destroy evil.
-- Sirah the Yang, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown

Christopher Hunter

Hadron wrote:

> It was exactly the opposite for me.

It /would/ be for you!

C.