by Tanvir Hassa » Sun, 05 Mar 2000 04:00:00
I have a cable modem hooked up to my NE2000 compatible ISA card. In Windows
98 my fastest throughput is 8140Kbps and my average is about 2000Kbps. In
linux my fastest throughput is 2000Kbps and my average is 500Kbps. I have
done the Win98 TCP RWin registry fix. Is there a need for a similar fix for
Linux? Why does Linux networking suck so bad?
by Rod Roa » Sun, 05 Mar 2000 04:00:00
>I have a cable modem hooked up to my NE2000 compatible ISA card. In Windows
>98 my fastest throughput is 8140Kbps and my average is about 2000Kbps. In
>linux my fastest throughput is 2000Kbps and my average is 500Kbps. I have
>done the Win98 TCP RWin registry fix. Is there a need for a similar fix for
>Linux? Why does Linux networking suck so bad?
Apart from that, nobody can help you without a great deal more
information.
-- Rod
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
----------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bill Unr » Sun, 05 Mar 2000 04:00:00
]>
]>I have a cable modem hooked up to my NE2000 compatible ISA card. In Windows
]>98 my fastest throughput is 8140Kbps and my average is about 2000Kbps. In
]>linux my fastest throughput is 2000Kbps and my average is 500Kbps. I have
]>done the Win98 TCP RWin registry fix. Is there a need for a similar fix for
]>Linux? Why does Linux networking suck so bad?
You probably are using that bastardisation pppoe and are using the
drivers supplied by your isp.
by Tanvir Hassa » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
Also, RE: ppoe and custom drivers, I just changed my TCP/IP configuration
and ran a registry hack to change my TCP RWin default size. I have not
installed my cable modem software yet. So this is as much apples to apples
networking comparison as I can get.
Anyone have suggestions as to how I can get my Linux to perform better?
> >I have a cable modem hooked up to my NE2000 compatible ISA card. In
Windows
> >98 my fastest throughput is 8140Kbps and my average is about 2000Kbps.
In
> >linux my fastest throughput is 2000Kbps and my average is 500Kbps. I
have
> >done the Win98 TCP RWin registry fix. Is there a need for a similar fix
for
> >Linux? Why does Linux networking suck so bad?
> You seem to be saying that your measurements with Linux, including the
> slower ones, are about 1/4 of the corresponding ones under Windows.
> However since you're also saying your Linux box is capable of
> 2Mbits/sec, this does not compute.
> Apart from that, nobody can help you without a great deal more
> information.
> -- Rod
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
> http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
by Mark Lan » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
> Also, RE: ppoe and custom drivers, I just changed my TCP/IP configuration
> and ran a registry hack to change my TCP RWin default size. I have not
> installed my cable modem software yet. So this is as much apples to
apples
> networking comparison as I can get.
> Anyone have suggestions as to how I can get my Linux to perform better?
> > >I have a cable modem hooked up to my NE2000 compatible ISA card. In
> Windows
> > >98 my fastest throughput is 8140Kbps and my average is about 2000Kbps.
> In
> > >linux my fastest throughput is 2000Kbps and my average is 500Kbps. I
> have
> > >done the Win98 TCP RWin registry fix. Is there a need for a similar
fix
> for
> > >Linux? Why does Linux networking suck so bad?
> > You seem to be saying that your measurements with Linux, including the
> > slower ones, are about 1/4 of the corresponding ones under Windows.
> > However since you're also saying your Linux box is capable of
> > 2Mbits/sec, this does not compute.
> > Apart from that, nobody can help you without a great deal more
> > information.
> > -- Rod
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
> > http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tanvir Hassa » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
> > Hmmm...Let me clarify. What I was saying is that my performance on
> Windows
> > is 400% faster than my performance on Linux. Note that both my AVERAGE
> > performance and my PEAK performance numbers for Windows are 400% FASTER
> than
> > my AVERAGE and PEAK numbers on Linux, which leads me to conclude that
for
> > some reason my RH6.1 Linux is 4 times slower than Windows.
> > Also, RE: ppoe and custom drivers, I just changed my TCP/IP
configuration
> > and ran a registry hack to change my TCP RWin default size. I have not
> > installed my cable modem software yet. So this is as much apples to
> apples
> > networking comparison as I can get.
> > Anyone have suggestions as to how I can get my Linux to perform better?
> > > >I have a cable modem hooked up to my NE2000 compatible ISA card. In
> > Windows
> > > >98 my fastest throughput is 8140Kbps and my average is about
2000Kbps.
> > In
> > > >linux my fastest throughput is 2000Kbps and my average is 500Kbps. I
> > have
> > > >done the Win98 TCP RWin registry fix. Is there a need for a similar
> fix
> > for
> > > >Linux? Why does Linux networking suck so bad?
> > > You seem to be saying that your measurements with Linux, including the
> > > slower ones, are about 1/4 of the corresponding ones under Windows.
> > > However since you're also saying your Linux box is capable of
> > > 2Mbits/sec, this does not compute.
> > > Apart from that, nobody can help you without a great deal more
> > > information.
> > > -- Rod
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
> > > http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
by ggscrip » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
What's the URL for the web page, I'll try IE4 and NS4 from Win95 andQuote:> Yup, I am sure the measurements are correct because I used a web page
that
> supposedly measures your approximate speed, so there was NO chance of
> mistaking Kbytes/sec vs Kbits/sec. I used MSIE on Windoze and
Netscape on
> Linux.
You See All.. You Show All.. You Use GGScript.. http://www.ggscript.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
by Bill Unr » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
Again you give no information. If you are asking is Linux always slowerQuote:>Yup, I am sure the measurements are correct because I used a web page that
>supposedly measures your approximate speed, so there was NO chance of
>mistaking Kbytes/sec vs Kbits/sec. I used MSIE on Windoze and Netscape on
>Linux.
by Bill Unr » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
]> Yup, I am sure the measurements are correct because I used a web page
]that
]> supposedly measures your approximate speed, so there was NO chance of
]> mistaking Kbytes/sec vs Kbits/sec. I used MSIE on Windoze and
]Netscape on
]> Linux.
]>
]What's the URL for the web page, I'll try IE4 and NS4 from Win95 and
]see what the speeds are.
]And also NS4 on Linux..
I do not think he has any such information. This is a troll.
Repeated requests for more info have simply met with silence.
by anonymou » Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:00:00
Hey... i got a couple sites you can check your speed... on mine, linux flysQuote:> Again you give no information. If you are asking is Linux always slower
> than Win, the answer is no. Thus to figure out why yours is you need to
> give more information as to how you have set things up.
by Rod Roa » Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:00:00
So if you're serious about wanting help, start coughing up some
credible details. Otherwise we can only question your motives.
-- Rod
>> Apart from that, nobody can help you without a great deal more
>> information.
>> -- Rod
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
>> http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tanvir Hassa » Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:00:00
Quote:> What's the URL for the web page, I'll try IE4 and NS4 from Win95 and
> see what the speeds are.
> And also NS4 on Linux..
by Brian Johnso » Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:00:00
> It's an MSN site, so maybe they do something that makes IE look faster...but
> I didn't see anything in the code on that page that would suggest something
> like. You can check it out for yourself.
> I took an average of about 5 runs and took the highest as a simple indicator
> of my best performance. I took them in Linux and then rebooted in Windows
> (you need to do it at the same time because cable modems share bandwidth).
> I did these trials over severals days and late at night when my bandwidth is
> the best. Yes, my Linux can reach 2000Kbps, but for some reason my Windows
> can reach ~8160Kbps. I want to know how to fix this.
by ggscrip » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00
Windows box, 333 Celeron, 64Meg
Windows, IE5
41 Kbps
5 bytes/sec
Windows, NS4
42 Kbps
5.1 bytes/sec
Linux box, 133 pentium, 24Meg
Linux, NS4
40.6 Kbps
5 bytes/sec
You See All.. You Show All.. You Use GGScript.. http://www.ggscript.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
1. So is Windows XP faster or slower than 98/ME/2000?
In this article:
Lab Report: Windows XP Outperforms Earlier Versions
http://www.microsoft.
com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.asp
I see the following claims:
"On average, Windows XP-based computers:
* Score 36% higher than Windows 98 SE on Business Winstone 2001.
* Score 77% higher than Windows 98 SE on Content Creation Winstone
2001. * Perform equivalent to the record-setting speed of Windows
2000 Professional, even with the addition of extensive new
productivity features."
Yet elsewhere in COLA, I see postings claiming the exact opposite.
Which one should anyone believe? The Microsoft one (above) which is
bound to say "it's faster!" or the COLA ones which are bound to say
"it's slower!".
I think I prefer The Register's take on this:
Is XP performance worse than Win2k, or just the same?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22753.html
"A pretty comprehensive set of benchmarks over at The Tech Report
comes up with the possibly less than earth-shattering conclusion that
WinXP is pretty much neck and neck with Win2k, from a performance point
of view. XP seems to be slightly better than Win2k when it comes to
office productivity, but is pretty well tied with it on graphics and
gaming, in some cases even marginally losing."
On my home machine, Windows XP boots faster than Windows ME. I can't
say anything about the speed of applications, as I've not compared them
as yet. The slowest system to boot is Linux Mandrake; it's also the
slowest to login.
Perhaps the answer to this question is: "Who cares?"
--
Pete Goodwin
---
(My opinions are my own)
3. linux for ppc, linux for x86, macOS 9, macOS X, windows 98 all on one network?
4. Asante Ethernet card does not work
5. how to make a network between windows 98 and linux?
6. fsck error
7. can Linux see windows 95/98 network neighborhood??
8. Italian keyboard map needed.
9. Networking linux with WINDOWS 98
10. which how-to? network linux with windows 98?
11. how to network linux & windows 98
12. PCI Network Card that definetly work in Linux and Window 98
13. Linux to Windows 98 Network Question?