Norton AV 2003 or 2004?

[null]

I prefer local shop support to put together a computer to 'my' specs.
My new build 98SE, not ready for XP, <$500. This included installing
my old 3 gig HD in a removable drive. Very handy.

I find good good buys around here on "previously owned" PCs My
present Hp Pavilion with a PIII 900 mhz cpu, 43 gig h.d. and Win ME
only cost $150. I also use a backup drive on a removable tray. Mine is
6 gig split into D: and E: each 3 gig. I treat two different backups
differently. The one on my E: partition I'm most careful with.

The other approach is to buy an el cheapo whizbanger with an AMD cpu
built by one of the kids who make a business out of building and
selling them. Right now I can get a 1.2 ghz for $250 without a
monitor. But I've gone that way before and I don't like cheap
hardware. It isn't worth the aggravation. And I don't need\want any
more cpu or bus speed anyway. I doubt if I'd notice it for what I do.

I have always used local ISP's. For 10 years I had $25/yr access via
a University connection. Presently for $10 month, access with two
email accts, 12 hr/day telephone support with 4 hrs on Sundays. About
10% of the time it dials twice before getting access.

I'm stuck for DSL here with just one available provider which is owned
by the telco who won't let anyone else in. It costs me $49 + change
per month. If I drop it and use dialup I'd have to pay $17 or $18 per
month for an extra phone line ... plus the cost of dialup service.
Good ISPs with unlimited service get $19 to $21 here. So my added cost
of DSL is only about $11/month or so. I hear that out west (here in
the U.S.) DSL is quite a bit cheaper. The only real competiton here in
the near future will be cable, which I'll consider when it comes if
it's cheap enough. It would have to be really cheap for me to consider
fooling with it though. I don't like the idea of shared bandwidth at
all.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[FromTheRafters]

Because they are ignorant and this is not meant to be condescending.
They know too little about this stuff to make informed decisions. You
can blame that partly on AV companies and especially their marketing
departments I suppose.

And unfortunately, often otherwise useful programs are bloatware. Though
in the case of AV software, there is a particularly huge bloat-to-useful
code ratio. :-(

It really shouldn't surprise anyone, it is evident in most forms of
evolution. There are adaptations that prove their worth through
increasing the fitness of the entity, and then there are the other
adaptations (like the peacock's feathers) adopted mostly for sex
appeal.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Cooling Hell! They used them for heating!

" - Real programmers like vending machine popcorn. Coders
pop it in the
microwave oven. Real programmers use the heat given off
by the cpu.
They can tell what job is running just by listening to the
rate of popping."

That's a good quote. :O)

Line-printer Snoopy calendars for the year 1969 and 10"
Reel-to-Reel Tapes. A ten inch reel of computer tape could
hold about two hundred million characters, occupied one
hundred and four cubic inches of space, and weighed two and
a half pounds.

I was at CMU in the late 60's and had unmonitored access to
their IBM 360 which was the largest Big Iron in existance at
that time.

I had remote use of an IBM 360 and a GE 225 in the early 70's
through time-sharing - never came face-to-face with them though.

Someone would slide you a punch card. You'ld go
to a terminal with a line printer and run the card. After
much machination it would spit out the time and location of
the next keg party!

Computers were useful then, now they seem to just play games
and act like telephones <grumble-grumble>. A co-worker of
mine believes that I am computer literate, and so has asked me
for help with her computer ~ she wants to install "The Sims"
because she is tired of playing online "checkers" <sigh>.

Where is it all going? TCPA?

A lot of my friends there were working in AI at the time.
;-)

That is a very interesting field, and may just prove to be a very
important endeavor.

 

[James Egan]

I don't like the idea of shared bandwidth at
all.

Like a contended dsl connection, you mean?


Jim.

 

[null]

Like a contended dsl connection, you mean?

Care to explain?


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[optikl]

I'm stuck for DSL here with just one available provider which is owned
by the telco who won't let anyone else in. It costs me $49 + change
per month. If I drop it and use dialup I'd have to pay $17 or $18 per
month for an extra phone line ... plus the cost of dialup service.
Good ISPs with unlimited service get $19 to $21 here. So my added cost
of DSL is only about $11/month or so. I hear that out west (here in
the U.S.) DSL is quite a bit cheaper. The only real competiton here in
the near future will be cable, which I'll consider when it comes if
it's cheap enough. It would have to be really cheap for me to consider
fooling with it though. I don't like the idea of shared bandwidth at
all.

What's the downstream speed with DSL out where you're at? Cable
downstream is now about 3.0 Mbp/s (375 KB/s)in most parts of the US.
By Q1 '04, everyone should be getting that downstream speed. Last time I
checked, for what I pay for cable, I'd get a lot less downstream speed
with DSL. Shared bandwidth is an issue only if the cable provider is too
cheap to maintain their infrastructure.

 

[James Egan]

Care to explain?

You don't like the idea of sharing "bandwidth" by moving to cable but
you are already sharing with dsl.


Jim.

 

[null]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

What's the downstream speed with DSL out where you're at?

I have the lowest cost DSL service Epix provides at 640K d/l and 120K
u/l. You pay more for more bw.

Cable
downstream is now about 3.0 Mbp/s (375 KB/s)in most parts of the US.
By Q1 '04, everyone should be getting that downstream speed. Last time I
checked, for what I pay for cable, I'd get a lot less downstream speed
with DSL. Shared bandwidth is an issue only if the cable provider is too
cheap to maintain their infrastructure.

Were you born yesterday? If not, you should know that you'll be
sufferering on overloaded cable service sooner or later. I hear of
people complaining about sluggish performance during peak hours. The
name of the game is corporate greed and screw the stupid customers.

I hear that out west, customers get more speed at less cost than I'm
getting with their DSL service. Sometimes I wonder if the additional
speed is theoretical to a great extent because of demand on servers.
Even with just 640K d/l I sometimes experience much lower than usual
speeds with certain servers I use regularly. I pretty consistently get
60 to 65 KBytes/sec actual mileage but when servers are overloaded (or
whatever) it might drop to 20 or 30 KBytes/sec and sometimes even
less.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[null]

You don't like the idea of sharing "bandwidth" by moving to cable but
you are already sharing with dsl.

In what way? With DSL I have my own private copper run to telco fiber
about a half mile away (maybe 800 meters to Brits ). It's quite
unlike the cable scheme where you literally have to share available
cable bandwidth with other customers.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[BoB]

I'm stuck for DSL here with just one available provider which is owned
by the telco who won't let anyone else in. It costs me $49 + change
per month. If I drop it and use dialup I'd have to pay $17 or $18 per
month for an extra phone line ... plus the cost of dialup service.
Good ISPs with unlimited service get $19 to $21 here. So my added cost
of DSL is only about $11/month or so. I hear that out west (here in

With luck, I'll by out of this TN humidity and in AZ by next year.

the U.S.) DSL is quite a bit cheaper. The only real competiton here in
the near future will be cable, which I'll consider when it comes if
it's cheap enough. It would have to be really cheap for me to consider
fooling with it though. I don't like the idea of shared bandwidth at
all.

I have my 'updating' finished and msgs, to read off-line, done by 7 AM,
so we sneak by with one phone line. I've heard that some around here
who got cable were initially impressed but as more and more customers
were added, their speed was reduced drastically. Eventually they go back
to their 56k dialup. I'm sure the speed reduction could be minimized if
they were more customer oriented and less profit oriented.

Speaking again about software bloat, one of my favorite old games was
an aerial combat called Sopwith. It took days or weeks of practice to
learn how to win the air battles and be able to 'fly off into the
sunset'. As I recall Sopwith was 46K.

BoB

 

[null]

I've heard that some around here
who got cable were initially impressed but as more and more customers
were added, their speed was reduced drastically. Eventually they go back
to their 56k dialup.

That's the pits.

I'm sure the speed reduction could be minimized if
they were more customer oriented and less profit oriented.

LOL! Maybe on a different planet, but not this one.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[James Egan]

In what way? With DSL I have my own private copper run to telco fiber
about a half mile away (maybe 800 meters to Brits ). It's quite
unlike the cable scheme where you literally have to share available
cable bandwidth with other customers.

You are still sharing your "...up to" 512kbps.


Jim.

 

[null]

You are still sharing your "...up to" 512kbps.

I repeat. In what way? And where did the 512 kbs come from? I had
stated that my particular service is 640K d/l. I get that regardless
of how many customers my telco has on their DSL service.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[optikl]

Were you born yesterday?

Last time I checked, no <g>.

If not, you should know that you'll be

sufferering on overloaded cable service sooner or later. I hear of
people complaining about sluggish performance during peak hours. The
name of the game is corporate greed and screw the stupid customers.

How is that different from what I said? That sharing of bandwidth is
only a problem if the infrastructure isn't maintained?
Anyway, the folks who are having problems are having them precisely
because the infrastructure isn't sufficient to carry the load. I'm not
saying I've never had problems, but so far, they've always been resolved
by the network engineers. FYI, there isn't a shortage of fiber-optic
cable <g>.

 

[Conor]

I repeat. In what way?

You share a "pipe" with up to 50 other users.

 

[null]

Last time I checked, no <g>.

If not, you should know that you'll be
How is that different from what I said? That sharing of bandwidth is
only a problem if the infrastructure isn't maintained?
Anyway, the folks who are having problems are having them precisely
because the infrastructure isn't sufficient to carry the load. I'm not
saying I've never had problems, but so far, they've always been resolved
by the network engineers. FYI, there isn't a shortage of fiber-optic
cable <g>.

Shortages of fiber optic cable have nothing to do with it. Apparently,
you don't understand the electrical engineering fundamentals of the
cable scheme. Basically, every customer shares in the bandwith
limitation of the cable distribution system to customer's sites. The
more customers on line at any one time, the less available bandwidth
for every customer. You see? So their advertised bw is pretty much
just BS.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[null]

You share a "pipe" with up to 50 other users.

Optical? Does it mean DSL users suffer when all 50 are connected at
once? Actually, I've never heard of DSL available bw reduction due to
the number of users funneling through any one local telco utility ...
or whatever.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[optikl]

Shortages of fiber optic cable have nothing to do with it.

Technically, you're right. I was making a point about infrastructure and
should have qualified my point better.


Apparently,

you don't understand the electrical engineering fundamentals of the
cable scheme.

Sure I do. I'm sort of familiar with the technology <g>.

Basically, every customer shares in the bandwith

limitation of the cable distribution system to customer's sites. The
more customers on line at any one time, the less available bandwidth
for every customer.

Performance issues can be resolved by the cable company adding a new
channel and splitting the base of users. Cable companies can monitor
performance and add another channel when the bandwidth per user hits a
certain point.

That's why God made equipment manufacturers (Nortel, Cisco, Alcatel).

You see? So their advertised bw is pretty much

just BS.

I'll not contest that statement.

 

[Conor]

Optical? Does it mean DSL users suffer when all 50 are connected at
once? Actually, I've never heard of DSL available bw reduction due to
the number of users funneling through any one local telco utility ...
or whatever.

When all 50 users are connected at once and downloading with as much
bandwidth as they can, something that doesn't happen that often ATM.

 

[James Egan]

I repeat. In what way? And where did the 512 kbs come from? I had
stated that my particular service is 640K d/l. I get that regardless
of how many customers my telco has on their DSL service.

I didn't see the 640 till later. However, look through your terms and
you will see you are contended (usually by 20 or 50 to 1) so your
speed wil be *up to* 640

http://217.155.161.234/TechDocs/Telecom_General/adsl1.htm

It's about adsl over here but yours will no doubt be similar. You will
be sharing already but won't notice most of the time (so far).


Jim.