|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 08/09/07 13:54
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:22:13
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
> Scripsit Neredbojias:
>
>> I, too, remember when 1200 baud was "fast" -compared to the
>> prevailing 300 baud rate then prevalent.
>
> Oh, what a luxury. My first experience about using a network
> connection at home was with terminal that that had a manual switch for
> selecting between 110 and 300 bit/s.
Teletype speed. Luckily, 300 baud pretty much held sway for connecting
to bbses when I started "surfing".
> For comparison, people are _still_ using the Internet over 9600 bit/s
> GSM connections. Faster wireless connections are becoming affordable,
> but 9600 bit/s is really sufficient for purposes like normal (no
> attachments, please) e-mail and much of surfing on no-nonsense web
> pages.
>
>> But today's cable speeds
>> are typically like 1+, 2, 4 and even 7 mbps, and some connections are
>> even higher.
>
> That's nominal maximum speed. The real speed is something different
> and varies. And a connection between a client and a server is usually
> not faster than the slowest part of the data path, and a fast
> connection does not make an overloaded server any faster.
Nope. I still see images load a fraction at a time when the server's
choked.
> Well, this was just to put all these speed things into perspecive.
> Whatever the technical status of connection speed is, it'll always be
> better to spend less bytes in data transfer. I'm pretty sure that when
> they finally find out a way to connect my brain directly to the
> Internet, the speed will first (for the pioneering phase that might
> last years) be something lousy, by today's standards.
I recently heard they were doing some experimental bio-digital direct-
connects in Sweden, but, unfortunately, all the volunteers are ending up
permanently wired.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|