Doc said:
I find that when downloading a file, the initial kbps speed shown
typically starts out much faster than it ends up. It might show a
speed of 15 or 20 kbps and then eventually winds down to typically
around 5 kbps.
During those initial seconds when the speed is higher, it might d/l
300 or 400 kb really quick, at a much faster pace than it does for the
rest of the download.
It seems that the modem is capable of taking the data much more
rapidly than the speed at which it maintains the download, why doesn't
it maintain the higher speed?
I've noticed that in Firefox, that the download dialog doesn't take into
account stuff that started to download before the dialog started
to register the data. The initial transfer rate ends up overestimated,
and declines with time.
What I just tried, is I went to Control Panels:Administrative_Tools
erformance.
(This is in Win2K, may be slightly different in other OS versions.)
In there is a charting tool. It starts out empty, and shows no statistics.
(BTW - this puzzled me for the longest while when I first tried to use it.)
I started clicking on stuff in frustration, and eventually discovered that
if I right clicked in the lower right area, I could "Add counters". A box
with categories shows up, and one category is "Network Interface". I was
able to select my Ethernet interface (as it connects to a router and ADSL
modem). In "Select Counters", I picked "Bytes Received/sec".
Then, I went to the Intel site, and downloaded a technical document.
With the Performance graph in view, and the Firefox Download box also
in view, I started a transfer from the Intel site. The Intel site
usually has a pretty good transfer rate, so I wasn't expecting any
trouble from the site.
For the most part, the Performance graph was a flat line at about
124KB/sec during the transfer. Firefox, on the other hand, reported
about 300KB/sec at the beginning of the transfer, and that declined
during the duration of the transfer, and was getting close to the
number the other tool reported near the end.
So, what you need, is a tool with better reporting capabilities.
The Performance tool looks a bit more reasonable.
Paul