Norton AV 2003 or 2004?

[null]

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).

I see (roughly). This subject of contention gives a clue as to the
handling of various classes (and costs) of service. Interesting
subject.


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

 

[kurt wismer]

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.

while it's true that one does share the pipe, it strikes me as odd to
think that providers would be able to legally sell up to 50 other users
the same chunk of bandwidth in that pipe...

my understanding has always been that you get a fraction of the pipe's
total bandwidth allocated to you the customer, not that the pipe
becomes a first come first serve bandwidth buffet for up to 50 other
users...

(of course if the pipe's total bandwidth is 50 times the fraction
allocated to you it should work out to about the same thing)

 

[kurt wismer]

Flaming everyone equally, cq now says:

i was wondering if this would ever make it to my news server...

A 120G HD colds 5 times the capacity at around double the component
price (and something like 7% of the system price). So yes; you do get
lamer-bait systems that still peddle that kind of shite, but what does
that tell you about the vendor's care about your interests?

while i agree that the vendors aren't really looking out for their
customers interests, and my uncle and i did discover that the
difference between a system with a 40G drive and the same system with
an 80G drive was a whopping $20 cdn, this is all a non-sequitur...

the previous poster said 80 was as low as you could get, and the
previous postwer was wrong...

[snip]

Except perhaps the modem - which is why pulling down 7M engine updates
for bloatware bites the other cheek of yer ass.

modems are very much an *optional* part of a computer... you're right
of course that conventional modems are slower than hard drives - in
fact most I/O devices are slow... really, i think the keyboard must be
one of the slowest...

that said, most applications are still run from local media rather than
over a telecommunications link - normal day to day operation still has
drive i/o as it's most significant speed bottleneck... as slow as a
modem can be, the number of gets and sends over the phone line is
dwarfed by the number of disk reads/writes - absolute time wasted on
disk i/o is still king...

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

Flaming everyone equally, cq then said:

[/QUOTE]

the previous poster said 80 was as low as you could get, and the
previous postwer was wrong...

Point taken - and also, there's the used-PC market to consider too,
not to mention laptops with their shrunken capabilities.

modems are very much an *optional* part of a computer... you're right
of course that conventional modems are slower than hard drives ...
that said, most applications are still run from local media rather than
over a telecommunications link

No, I was thinking that large antivirus software may tend to have
large data and especially engine updates to download on a regular
basis. That's not a given; an av app may wrap a lean-and-mean engine
in several megs of user-friendly swaddling clothers, which could be
quite a nice way to design such a product.

Online time becomes a very sore point when your local telco charges
you per second for local phone calls to your ISP. Not only do s-l-o-w
update downloads cost money, they also require you to hang around
until they finish so you can disconnect the line afterwards.

An av that is a pain to get updated is likely to get updated less
often, and a seldom-updated av is a weak av. So in a very real sense,
the bloatware effect can weaken real-world functionality.

------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

I swear to god i must be the only true

 

[kurt wismer]

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
[snip]

An av that is a pain to get updated is likely to get updated less
often, and a seldom-updated av is a weak av. So in a very real sense,
the bloatware effect can weaken real-world functionality.

agreed...

 

[* * Chas]

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.

I think the operant term in consumer technology is "Feature
Sprawl"! US cell phones that work as cameras, gameboys, mp3
players, ad-nauseum.... Buttons with 10 functions, hell I
just want my cell phone to connect and stay connected! My
phone goes to roam mode while I'm sitting at my desk in my
office an I live in the Bay Area!

Ten years ago, a lot of code for consumer oriented software
was written by post acne wanker geeks who grew up playing
too much Dungeons and Dragons. Their goal was to make
programs mysterious and anti-intuitive; they were driven by
marketing managers who wanted to get the latest version out
on the street ASAP. "Don't worry about fixing the bugs,
we'll have a new version out next month"!

This mentality led to more and more feature sprawl which
resulted in bloatware.