Worthless internet connection - Creative modem on XP


P

philo 

I now have my Creative EXT modem connected to the XP computer. I
connected with no problems, am connected at 38.6.
I was able to read a few messages on this newsgroup. I ten opened
Seamonkey and went to Filehippo.com. I intended to check the download
speed of some random file. I chose Acdsee. I have waited 26 minuites
so far, just for the download page to load. Have not even gotten to the
actual download, and the data transfer has nearly come to a stop. I
cant even open messages on my newsreader at the same time.

<snip>


Have you ever tried Linux?


You may want to see if you can connect better using Linux then dual
boot. Use Linux for all your Internet stuff, then boot to XP if you
need to run win-apps
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

casey.o

I now have my Creative EXT modem connected to the XP computer. I
connected with no problems, am connected at 38.6.
I was able to read a few messages on this newsgroup. I ten opened
Seamonkey and went to Filehippo.com. I intended to check the download
speed of some random file. I chose Acdsee. I have waited 26 minuites
so far, just for the download page to load. Have not even gotten to the
actual download, and the data transfer has nearly come to a stop. I
cant even open messages on my newsreader at the same time.

While this EXT modem connects better than the internal one, the
connection is totally useless.

At 29 minutes, the download page on Filehippo timed out, and is dead.

This is the same shit I have gotten trying to use my Win2K install dual
booted on my Win98 machine, with same modem and phone line and ISP.


I think I'd be better off going back to sending Telegraphs, using the
Morse Code, than this shit!!!

I'll have to disconnect and reconnect to the internet just to send this
message! My newsreader shows no connection posssible, yet I am
connected.

I shut down, had to try 4 times to connect, shut modem off to reset it.
I now have a 42.6 connection. Lets see if I can send this messasge,
 
B

BillW50

Have you ever tried Linux?

You may want to see if you can connect better using Linux then dual
boot. Use Linux for all your Internet stuff, then boot to XP if you
need to run win-apps

I have two Linux machines and they make great dust collectors. ;-)
 
C

casey.o

This is a dial-up modem with a potential maximum data transfer rate of
56 Kbps. What are you expecting --- 10 Mbps, such as from a cable modem
connected to an Internet line? Even a DSL connection would be at least
10 times better than dial-up.

GR

I expect the same speed and connection I get using Windows 98. Yea.
dialup is slow, but that is all I can get. When you live in a rural
area, there are limits on internet access. The only way I can get high
speed here is to get satellite tv with internet at a cost of close to
$100 a month. NO THANKS. I cant afford it, and dont want the TV stuff.

I can download at as high as 7.3kb/sec using Win98. I cant get over
1.2kb/sec using the same ISP, modem, and phone line. The same is true
when I use Win2000, on the *SAME* computer that Win98 is on. In other
words, Win98 works well, for dialup. Seems that no form of NT based
windows works in any reasonable manner. (Once again, same ISP, same
modem, and in the case of Win2000, same computer.

I really dont have any major complaints abotu dialup. Sure it's slow,
but I can read my email, use the newsgroups and go to websites at home
for little money. If I want to download something big, like SP3, I go
to a wifi spot with my laptop.

My whole reason to upgrade to XP, was because there are no longer any
browsers that will work properly on Win98, since they came out with that
HRTML5 crap. If it was not for this, I'd be totally content sticking
with Win98. It does everything else I need, even plays videos well with
some added features.
 
P

philo 

I have two Linux machines and they make great dust collectors. ;-)



I've been using Linux for 14 years.

About five years ago I started using it as my full time OS.


About the only time I have had to use Windows was when I published my
book. There is no good publication software for Linux AFAIK.
 
C

casey.o

<snip>


Have you ever tried Linux?


You may want to see if you can connect better using Linux then dual
boot. Use Linux for all your Internet stuff, then boot to XP if you
need to run win-apps

Nothing against you or your choice of OSs, but just the thought of Linux
makes me shudder..... I tried it back in the mid 90s, and about 5 times
since then, with the latest being about 3 years ago. I have never
gotten anything to work or load except my stress level. In fact just a
few weeks ago, I got a copy of an older version of PcLinux on a CD and
it was a self loading CD. I thought, what the heck, I'll stick it in
the CD drive and see what it looks like. I unplugged my harddrive just
to make sure no data got corrupted. stuck the CD in the drive and was
taken to that dreaded Linux command line after several error messages.
I believe it was PcLinux from 2008. I'd think that should have run on a
computer from 2002.

At the same time, this modem mess is getting as bad as the linux command
line, with all those init strings and such. I'm about ready to just
give up on the whole thing, and just live with the script errors in the
limited browsers still usable in win98. In the meantime, I'm getting
more and more serious abotu buying an Apple based computer. I was under
the misconception that XP was pretty much plug-n-play compared to Win98.
Boy was I wrong!!! I can plug almost any external modem into the W98
computer, install some drivers and get a good connection. I have not
had such a terrible time connecting a modem to XP (and Win2K), since
back around 1993 when I tried to connect a modem to Windows 3.x. And I
even did get that working sooner than I'm experiencing now. I'm close
to just accepting the fact that dialup internet just can not be used on
any NT based operating systems.

I'm just glad I have my Win98 system which connects fine to the
internet. Thank God for Win98!

I just wish someone would make a newer browser that works on Win98.
That would solve everything!
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

casey.o

I've been using Linux for 14 years.

About five years ago I started using it as my full time OS.


About the only time I have had to use Windows was when I published my
book. There is no good publication software for Linux AFAIK.

I've heard many times that Linux lacks in software apps. Even if I
could get it to work, I'm too used to certain Windows software to have
to relearn everything. I know a few programs (like Firefox) are made
for both Windows and Linux, but for the most part, none of my windows
software could be used. And most of the software I use is actually
older stuff, like PaintShopPro from around 1999. It, like most
software, got too damn bloated and complicated later on. Just like
these damn "Smartphones". NO THANKS.... Just give me a cellphone that
makes calls, and nothing more. I'm probably showing my old age :).
 
B

BillW50

philo said:
I've been using Linux for 14 years.

About five years ago I started using it as my full time OS.

About the only time I have had to use Windows was when I published my
book. There is no good publication software for Linux AFAIK.

I just fired up this Linux machine about 25 minutes ago (after dusting
it off) and I had to wait 20 minutes for Thunderbird to respond. And
Linux is claiming my battery now at 80% will take 20 hours to charge to
100%. Yes Linux is really good for something, click and wait, click and
wait.

Amazing! Now it says that my battery is 90% charged and just 10 hours
now to finish. Gee it thinks 10 hours just past in less than a minute.
At least the outside temp seems right on the money and it got the time
and date right. So it is good for something.
 
B

BillW50

BillW50 said:
I just fired up this Linux machine about 25 minutes ago (after dusting
it off) and I had to wait 20 minutes for Thunderbird to respond. And
Linux is claiming my battery now at 80% will take 20 hours to charge to
100%. Yes Linux is really good for something, click and wait, click and
wait.

Amazing! Now it says that my battery is 90% charged and just 10 hours
now to finish. Gee it thinks 10 hours just past in less than a minute.
At least the outside temp seems right on the money and it got the time
and date right. So it is good for something.

Linux at idle is eating 40% of the processor power (reported by the
System Monitor), that is huge! Windows 7 on this same machine eats 50%
at idle and XP eats 10% at idle.
 
B

BillW50

BillW50 said:
Linux at idle is eating 40% of the processor power (reported by the
System Monitor), that is huge! Windows 7 on this same machine eats 50%
at idle and XP eats 10% at idle.

Linux is waiting 20 minutes to play an asf audio stream. Firefox reports
it is transferring data. I gave up and tried a mp3 stream. At least it
can play that. Although the CPU is pushing 90% for such easy work.

Frankly I don't know how you put up with all of the limitations of
Linux. Every time I fire Linux up, I am more disappointed over how
little I can actually do. Under Windows, I can actually download those
asf streams and use the Bulk Rename Utility to quickly rename them in
one sweep. Yet another simple task that Linux doesn't want to do.

Every time I install Linux on a new machine, I think what a waste of
good hardware. As the machine is never going to be able to do that much
at all. Heck it doesn't even know there is a webcam on this machine. :-(
 
P

philo 

I've heard many times that Linux lacks in software apps. Even if I
could get it to work, I'm too used to certain Windows software to have
to relearn everything. I know a few programs (like Firefox) are made
for both Windows and Linux, but for the most part, none of my windows
software could be used. And most of the software I use is actually
older stuff, like PaintShopPro from around 1999. It, like most
software, got too damn bloated and complicated later on. Just like
these damn "Smartphones". NO THANKS.... Just give me a cellphone that
makes calls, and nothing more. I'm probably showing my old age :).



I did not suggest you use Linux for your applications.

My suggestion was to dual boot and to use Linux for all your Internet
activities. You could probably try out a live cd just to see how your
dial-up works. With Linux you'd not have to worry about viruses
and you could then keep on using XP for the next 30 years and not have
to worry about it
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

philo 

I just fired up this Linux machine about 25 minutes ago (after dusting
it off) and I had to wait 20 minutes for Thunderbird to respond. And
Linux is claiming my battery now at 80% will take 20 hours to charge to
100%. Yes Linux is really good for something, click and wait, click and
wait.


Your machine is either underpowered or you have no idea how to set it
up. The machine I am now using is a dual boot Linux/XP .

My guess is that you have installed Linux on an old hunk of junk that's
probably got very little RAM...and then are using a resource hungry GUI
such as KDE.


Even though I am a bit of a Luddite I realize that with newer hardware
you get more bang for your buck. I just bought 8 gigs of DDR3 for a
machine I'm building for $60. I was going to use an older motherboard
but 4gigs of DDR-2 would have cost $80


Xp runs very well on my machine but on the Linux side everything
responds quite a bit faster.


It takes 30 seconds for Linux boot yet XP takes about 4 minutes for
the same.

On shut down, Linux takes THREE seconds and XP takes about 90
seconds...sometimes a lot more.


I certainly do not have to defrag, nor does Linux need the hassle of a
virus checker etc.
 
B

BillW50

Your machine is either underpowered or you have no idea how to set it
up. The machine I am now using is a dual boot Linux/XP .

My guess is that you have installed Linux on an old hunk of junk that's
probably got very little RAM...and then are using a resource hungry GUI
such as KDE.

Same machines that I run Windows on. And my earlier posts sig had one of
the Linux machines listed. And the EeePC one runs Windows 2000/XP just
fine with 2GB of RAM. But Ubuntu Netbook Remix is pretty dang slow. Yet
it is specially configured for that machine. So far you got nothing
right yet.
Even though I am a bit of a Luddite I realize that with newer hardware
you get more bang for your buck. I just bought 8 gigs of DDR3 for a
machine I'm building for $60. I was going to use an older motherboard
but 4gigs of DDR-2 would have cost $80

Xp runs very well on my machine but on the Linux side everything
responds quite a bit faster.

Maybe you don't know how to setup Windows? As Windows 2000/XP blows
Linux away here on the same machines. The other Linux machine has
dualboot Ubuntu/Puppy on a Gateway M465. Same machines that I run XP,
Windows 7, and Windows 8 on.
It takes 30 seconds for Linux boot yet XP takes about 4 minutes for
the same.

Windows 2000 boots on the EeePC in 30 seconds on those mini SSD. Linux
takes 40 seconds on the same SSD.
On shut down, Linux takes THREE seconds and XP takes about 90
seconds...sometimes a lot more.

Yup, you have Windows setup incorrectly. As all mine shuts down in 10
seconds or less.
I certainly do not have to defrag, nor does Linux need the hassle of a
virus checker etc.

I don't defrag Windows drives either. And of course most Linux users
don't care about security. That is why a Linux trojan was infecting
machines for almost 7 months before someone was smart and had an AV on
their Linux machine and finally caught it.

Linux: Infected by Complacency
http://computingondemand.com/linux-infected-by-complacency/
 
P

philo 

Same machines that I run Windows on. And my earlier posts sig had one of
the Linux machines listed. And the EeePC one runs Windows 2000/XP just
fine with 2GB of RAM. But Ubuntu Netbook Remix is pretty dang slow. Yet
it is specially configured for that machine. So far you got nothing
right yet.

Then how come Linux works fine here and you are afraid to post the specs
of the machine. The problem is on your end I'd say.
Maybe you don't know how to setup Windows? As Windows 2000/XP blows
Linux away here on the same machines. The other Linux machine has
dualboot Ubuntu/Puppy on a Gateway M465. Same machines that I run XP,
Windows 7, and Windows 8 on.


I've been doing this a bit longer than you, I did my first computer
repair back in the days before PC's existed.
<snip>

nor does Linux need the hassle of a
I don't defrag Windows drives either.


That kind of proves my point that you are clueless when it comes to
computers...even newbies know how to defrag.
 
P

Paul

philo said:
Your machine is either underpowered

I'm hoping Bill will include hardware specs (CPU speed
and amount of RAM) in his answer. So others can better
understand what is going on.

*******

For recent Linux distros, the developers have been more
or less promising "death to old computers", by raising
the resource level needed for Linux. A user can battle back
a bit, by using XFCE rather than Gnome or KDE. And perhaps
look for an Xorg server setup with slightly less "plugin"
material in it. For example, I think some version of
Knoppix might have XFCE, and possibly Linux Mint has that
as an option.

A reasonable starting point now, might be 512MB of RAM.

There are some things you can tune on Linux.

And if you want to see an environment with a lot of
control in that regard, that would be Gentoo. With
Gentoo, I could set up an environment with PulseAudio
completely removed. So if something needs to be tuned,
Gentoo is how you do it. I even set up a distcc server,
just so I could compile faster while doing experiments
on it. (Gentoo is compiled from source, and the time
to build your desktop from source is around 10 hours.
Once the environment is built and works to your
satisfaction, then you stop compiling stuff.)
With Bill's computer collection, he could make
a room full of distcc machines :)

Gentoo is how Kaspersky rescue disc is constructed,
and it's an example of a distro pared down for
distribution on the Internet. (Lots of executables
removed, to make the ISO file smaller.) And it's
relatively light-weight, because they need the RAM
to waste for their AV scanner :)

If you want a lightweight window manager, you can
use XWM that comes with Xorg. It doesn't get much
lighter weight than that. And it also doubles as
an "education" in what a Windows Manager is. When
XWM is killed, you can't move the windows around
the screen. When you run another copy of XWM, the
windows get their decorations around the edges again,
and you can move the windows again if you want. And
XWM would use less resources than things like
Gnome or KDE.

There's a lot of "space" to explore in Linux. If
you have the curiosity.

Also, if you don't like how the Ubuntu stuff is
working these days, you can try starting with
a Ubuntu server version. Which is more or less
Debian, with no Windows Manager and Xserver (Xorg)
at all. Then, you install component parts, like
install Xorg, run XWM, and then once you have a
GUI, add whatever you need on top of that. I did
that here, in a VM, to show that Ubuntu doesn't
always mean a "pig" of a distro.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9074/u1110svr.gif

And a person might ask "what motivated you to do that" ?
Was it a love of Linux ? No. It was the Ubuntu folks
switching to tiles for their interface, and also
removing the ability to disable the tiles. For
that particular distro, I wanted to see whether
that silly shit could be disabled, and that's where
the idea of starting with Ubuntu Server and building
it up from there came from. It was my wish to return
control to the users. That was my only motivation.

Paul
 
P

philo 

I'm hoping Bill will include hardware specs (CPU speed
and amount of RAM) in his answer. So others can better
understand what is going on.


I asked him twice now, but he has ducked the issue....but the bottom
line is that if it's not running well, he does not have the hardware for
whatever distribution he's using. There are a lot of distributions out
there designed to run well on a low end machine.


The problem with Linux nay sayers is simply that they do not know what
they are doing.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BillW50

Then how come Linux works fine here and you are afraid to post the specs
of the machine. The problem is on your end I'd say.

I told you what machines they were over and over again. You are just
very forgetful.
I've been doing this a bit longer than you, I did my first computer
repair back in the days before PC's existed.

My first was on the top secret VTAS computer in '74.
<snip>

nor does Linux need the hassle of a

That kind of proves my point that you are clueless when it comes to
computers...even newbies know how to defrag.

What? I have been defragging for decades. What the hell are you talking
about? I had to defrag MFM drives all of the time and it helped a huge
amount. Since IDE drives, defragging only helps by 2% during my
experiments. That is a very lousy way to increase disk speed. You are
much better off getting a faster drive if you are looking for a speed
increase. And if you are serious about real speed then run RAID like I
do on my game machines.
 
B

BillW50

I told you many times now already including these:

On 3/14/2014 5:05 AM, BillW50 wrote:
I just fired up this Linux machine about 25 minutes
ago (after dusting it off) and I had to wait 20
minutes for Thunderbird to respond. And Linux is
claiming my battery now at 80% will take 20 hours to
charge to 100%. Yes Linux is really good for
something, click and wait, click and wait.

Amazing! Now it says that my battery is 90% charged
and just 10 hours now to finish. Gee it thinks 10
hours just past in less than a minute. At least the
outside temp seems right on the money and it got the
time and date right. So it is good for something.
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

On 3/14/2014 5:43 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Linux at idle is eating 40% of the processor power
(reported by the System Monitor), that is huge!
Windows 7 on this same machine eats 50% at idle and
XP eats 10% at idle.
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

On 3/14/2014 11:09 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Same machines that I run Windows on. And my earlier
posts sig had one of the Linux machines listed. And
the EeePC one runs Windows 2000/XP just fine with 2GB
of RAM. But Ubuntu Netbook Remix is pretty dang slow.
Yet it is specially configured for that machine. So
far you got nothing right yet.
[...]
Maybe you don't know how to setup Windows? As Windows
2000/XP blows Linux away here on the same machines.
The other Linux machine has dualboot Ubuntu/Puppy on
a Gateway M465. Same machines that I run XP,
Windows 7, and Windows 8 on.

I don't know why this is so hard for you? Here let me spell it out for you.

Asus EeePC 702
Celeron 900 MHz
4GB SSD
Intel 915GM
2GB of PC5300 RAM

Gateway M465
Intel Core Duo T2300 1.66 GHz
40GB 7200RPM SATA hard drive
Intel 945GM
2GB of PC5300 RAM
I asked him twice now, but he has ducked the issue....but the bottom
line is that if it's not running well, he does not have the hardware for
whatever distribution he's using. There are a lot of distributions out
there designed to run well on a low end machine.

What a load of crap! My Gateway M465 with an Intel T2300 with 2GB of RAM
and a 7200rpm SATA hard drive is plenty of power for Ubuntu and Puppy.
And so is my EeePC with a 900MHz Celeron with 2GB of RAM is as well.
The problem with Linux nay sayers is simply that they do not know what
they are doing.

Just the opposite in my experience. Linux supporters are generally too
clueless and don't know what in the hell they are talking about. If
Linux isn't so hot, they falsely blame your hardware. And they are
generally too stupid to even install an antivirus checker which means a
trojan was allowed to roam free undetected for almost 7 months.

http://computingondemand.com/linux-infected-by-complacency/
 
B

BillW50

I'm hoping Bill will include hardware specs (CPU speed
and amount of RAM) in his answer. So others can better
understand what is going on.

I have many times already. I guess some are just slow.

Asus EeePC 702
Celeron 900 MHz
4GB SSD
Intel 915GM
2GB of PC5300 RAM

Gateway M465
Intel Core Duo T2300 1.66 GHz
40GB 7200RPM SATA hard drive
Intel 945GM
2GB of PC5300 RAM
*******

For recent Linux distros, the developers have been more
or less promising "death to old computers", by raising
the resource level needed for Linux. A user can battle back
a bit, by using XFCE rather than Gnome or KDE. And perhaps
look for an Xorg server setup with slightly less "plugin"
material in it. For example, I think some version of
Knoppix might have XFCE, and possibly Linux Mint has that
as an option.

A reasonable starting point now, might be 512MB of RAM.

I don't see the point of running Linux on hardware that won't even run
XP either.
There are some things you can tune on Linux.

Of course.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BillW50

Also, if you don't like how the Ubuntu stuff is
working these days, you can try starting with
a Ubuntu server version. Which is more or less
Debian, with no Windows Manager and Xserver (Xorg)
at all. Then, you install component parts, like
install Xorg, run XWM, and then once you have a
GUI, add whatever you need on top of that. I did
that here, in a VM, to show that Ubuntu doesn't
always mean a "pig" of a distro.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9074/u1110svr.gif

And a person might ask "what motivated you to do that" ?
Was it a love of Linux ? No. It was the Ubuntu folks
switching to tiles for their interface, and also
removing the ability to disable the tiles. For
that particular distro, I wanted to see whether
that silly shit could be disabled, and that's where
the idea of starting with Ubuntu Server and building
it up from there came from. It was my wish to return
control to the users. That was my only motivation.

What to see what some of my XP desktops look like?

http://themes.astonshell.com/aston2/39/
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top