Dane Helm wrote:
> Did any of you switching from win95 to linux notice an increase in modem
> (downloading) preformance?
>
> I did just the opposite for the beginning of school. I needed win 95 to
> run Corel Office. But I noticed my downloads seem to be slower
> (21K-24Kbps), but with linux I was up near 30kbps (atleast according to
> minicom, or the zmodem).
>
> So if linux does give better performance would you recomend getting
> another 486/66 and 2 NIC's, through my modem in the linux box and then I
> can run my internet from Win95 at teh better performance.
>
> PS: I am thinking of getting another box just so I can have Linux
> anyways.. its cheaper to get another 486 w/ 500mb HD than to go get a new
> HD.... So the modem performance isnt my only reason for new (used) box.
>
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> Dane Helm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bremerton, WA
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Well, Dane,
That�s interesting. In my experience on a dual boot system (Win 98 with IE 4 and
Linux kernel 2.0.35 with Netscape 4.5b2), downloads on the M$ side are, sad to
say, faster and more reliable. That coincides with recent criticism of Netscape�s
browser on this list. I�ve had all of those bugs, too.
Another point: at the beginning of a download, Netscape starts with very high baud
rates and then goes down, down, down whereas IE4 goes up steadily to achieve a
higher rate. Does anyone on the list know why this is so?
But, to set things in perspective, I�ve never had Netscape crash my system, I
could easily delete it and still have a workable OS and we (at least those in the
know...) can fix it�s bugs.
--
See you,
Christoph Hammann
###############################################
# ;-) too freaking busy feigning computer literacy (-; #
#############################################
