"CD-Text is an extension of the Red Book Compact Disc specifications standard for audio CDs. It allows for storage of additional information (e.g. album name, song name, and artist) on a standards-compliant audio CD. The information is stored either in the lead-in area of the CD, where there is roughly five kilobytes of space available, or in the Subchannels R to W on the disc, which can store about 31 megabytes. "
I remember seeing support for CD-Text on car CD changers almost 10 years ago, and most non-cheapo CD players these days support it if they have room for text on their display. But CD-Text never seemed to catch on for some reason. Maybe because the record companies never bothered to add the data to their pre-recorded CD's. Or that a lot of CD player displays only consist of Track Number and Play Time, so there's no way to display text.
Most burning programs like Nero, and even iTunes, support both burning CD-Text and reading it from discs that have it, so you can add it to your own CD's if you feel like it...or if you even bother burning music CD's these days.
Nope, Vista still hides file extensions by default (I agree, stupid setting.) But if you do have file extensions showing, and rename the file, it doesn't select the extension, just the filename.
And make Windows explorer do what Nautilus does; show the damned file extension but don't select it automatically when you rename the file, so the extension stays unchanged unless you specifically select it!
While I agree about paying for content, to correct your statement about how much of your time it takes to copy a DVD:
Using AnyDVD and CloneDVD2 takes about 5 minutes of your time to copy a DVD. It takes about 1/2 hour to an hour or more for your computer to rip, convert to fit on a single layer disc, and burn it (depending on the speed of your computer) but you don't have to babysit it. You can go do something else or use your computer for other purposes. Not that I have ever copied a DVD myself, but I hear this is how it works...;)
They finally took the 20 minutes, and fixed that in Vista. For desktop backgrounds, you now have 5 options: 1) fit to screen (ignores aspect ratio) 2) tile 3) center (original picture size) 4) maintain aspect ratio (stretches to fit screen while maintaining aspect ratio) 5) crop to fit screen
I urge you to reconsider moving to Bend if you're in the tech industry. Consider the Willamette Valley instead.
I grew up in Bend, until my girlfriend (now wife) and I decided to move to the Portland area when I was 20, in '94. The main reason we moved? Lack of decent jobs in Bend, most notably tech jobs. While the situation has changed somewhat in the years since then, Bend has nothing on the Willamette Valley. It isn't nicknamed "The Silicon Forest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Forest for nothing: Intel, Tektronix, HP, Symantec, Netflix...and of course, Portland is the current home of Linus Torvalds. Just take a look at the tech jobs currently available on dice.com in the Portland area. High tech is everywhere here in Portland, and readily available...I currently have at least 3 different options for broadband internet in my neighborhood (including Fios), and I live in a lower-income area. And we have a Fry's Electronics in the area (Wilsonville.)
Granted, Bend is beautiful, and a paradise if you're into outdoor activities like skiing, hiking, camping, etc. But you can get that anywhere in Oregon. But Bend has changed from a nice sleepy town into a rapidly-growing mini-metropolis with huge traffic problems (my mom tells me the traffic during rush hour is worse than in the Valley!) and truly outrageous home prices, even compared to the overinflated prices in Portland. I now consider Portland my home, and Bend is just a nice place my wife and I visit my mom.
You do get used to the rain in Portland. And because of all that rain, it is one of the most beautiful, green parts of the country I've ever seen. The other day, on my morning commute, I saw a bald eagle just sitting on a tree, in the middle of Beaverton. And that's far from the only eagle I've seen, there's several nests within the city limits of Portland, on Smith and Bybee Lakes.
And to another poster who complains about "ugly women" in Portland: yes, if you consider only blond tanned plastic surgically-altered women beautiful, you will often be disappointed. I know, I lived in Phoenix for 5 years, and the women there were pretty hot in general. But I found that I missed the Oregon women after a while. If you like a woman to look like an actual real woman with real curves, there are babes a-plenty here. Just come visit when the weather starts warming up and the layers of flannel start coming off and you'll see what I mean.:)
What you're remembering is probably "Word Processor of the Gods" from the short story collection Skeleton Crew by Stephen King. The main character's nephew creates a "magic" word processor out of cobbled-together parts (including a model train transformer.) Whatever you type on the word processor then happens in the real world. The train transformer quickly begins arcing and giving off an electrical-burning ozone smell. The "science" behind the story is lame, like most of Stephen King's stories and novels, but it's a fun "what-if" story.
I liked the Barenaked Ladies when they had their hit "One Week", and I bought their album Stunt, but I didn't become a HUGE fan until I downloaded a bunch of mp3's of their live concerts from the web (just before Napster.) Since then I've bought every single BNL retail album in CD format, along with most of their back catalog. Would I have become as big a fan without those "illegal" downloads? Maybe, maybe not, but my downloading definitely didn't decrease the revenue BNL (or their record company) received from me one bit.
Since then, BNL has shown they really respect and trust their fans. They went indie for their latest double album "Barenaked Ladies Are Me" and "Barenaked Ladies Are Men", selling unencumbered mp3 and flac versions of it on the web. I picked up the flac version for less than $20, a steal considering that it includes 27 songs, and I've listened to it almost 50 times (according to iTunes.) They also sell decent mp3 versions of ALL of their concerts for around $15. I purchased up the mp3 of the concert my wife and I attended in Portland last November. Could I have picked it up on p2p for free? Probably, but BNL has demonstrated that they deserve my money, so I will continue to support them as long as they keep treating their fans right. Other artists would be wise to follow BNL's lead.
Thanks for actually reading my full posts and thinking about the possible explanations before simply knee-jerk responding that a perceived Vista improvement couldn't possibly exist, like some others have done. You've given me an explanation that sounds like it's spot-on with my experiences. Sounds like you know a little something about networking.
In fact, it looks like Comcast finally figured it out, as just yesterday I started getting throttled back to 8 MBit/sec max in Vista. Damnit. Hmm, a few days after I post that I'm getting extra speed out of my Comcast connection...does someone at Comcast read slashdot?;)
Now, I generally will get a spike up to 12 MBit/sec and sometimes as high as 24 MBit/sec, but it quickly drops back to a solid 8 MBit/sec within 30 seconds. Oh well, the extra speed was nice while it lasted. And I'm not really complaining - Comcast has consistently provided me with exactly the amount of bandwidth they promised to me...which is unfortunately all too uncommon with ISPs.
So I'm in Knoppix now. Knoppix appears to have approximately the same maximum network bandwidth as Vista (on my computer.) Running a speed test at dslreports, I can get 19.83 Mbit/sec: http://www.dslreports.com/im/22307322/3521.png
I'm big enough to admit I was wrong...sorta.:) The way I read it, it's not that Vista is so great...it's the fact that XP's network stack is bad...or at least slow. But then we probably all knew that already. Which is why Microsoft rewrote it for Vista. So now it is as good as Linux's network stack...at least as far as: sustained download speeds from newsgroups using Comcast. Who knows if it's as good in any other way. Time will tell. My point in posting in the first place was to say: I was getting drastically better download speeds using Vista, so Microsoft definitely did at least one thing right - but YMMV. I think I'll keep Vista, it works for me.
It seems like it's pretty obvious now that both Vista and Knoppix are exploiting Comcast's speed boost somehow. Because I don't pay for a 20 Mbit connection, I pay for 8 Mbit, and 8 Mbit is all I was getting in XP...with the occasional boost up to 12 Mbit. When I was doing sustained downloading in XP using NewsBin, I would get a constant 8 Mbit/sec. But in Vista, I can sustain 20-24 Mbit/sec, for days at a time, while downloading from newsgroups. Don't know if I would be able to do the same from Linux...maybe, maybe not. I can't really test it since I'm using a live cd, and I don't think NewsBin is compatible with Linux...although I understand it runs fine under Wine.
I'd still like to hear from any other Vista users. Anyone else's internet speeds dramatically increase while using Vista? Or is it just me? (And thanks to those that responded to my posts. It was educational.:)
1) So my XP is so horribly misconfigured that I was able (and still am able, my XP is still installed as dual boot) to download at the supposed maximum limit of my Comcast cable connection? That makes sense.;)
I'm paying Comcast for a 8 MBit connection. Comcast does have some kind of turbo deal where it speeds up some downloads. I was occasionally able to get 12 MBit/sec in XP, but it always only lasted a minute or two at the most.
Ok, some data. I timed a newsgroup download with a stopwatch:
You and one other poster suggested a Knoppix cd. Ok, I'm game, I'm on the Knoppix site now. I'll download a copy and try it out, and go to dslreports and get a speed rating from there...or do you have a better suggestion of a download site that should be able to max out a 20-24 MBit connection?
BTW, here's a dslreports url for a test I just did, in Vista: http://www.dslreports.com/im/22303118/7336.png Not sure if that url is persistent, but it's working right this second at least. The Atlanta, GA server seems to be the fastest. Not as fast right now as earlier at 3 am, when I was getting 23 Mbit/sec. Didn't save the png url like above though, sorry.
Ok, downloaded the 696 MB ISO in about 9 minutes. Off to burn this cd and go to dslreports from within Knoppix. I'll post back with my results.
I'm not a Microsoft programmer. Maybe you should ask one of them?
I have no way to prove to you my claims are true. You have no way to prove my claims are false. I gave several theories in my previous posts why this could be happening. Since I'm not a programmer, I can't tell you why this is happening.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that my claims are true. I'm simply asking my fellow geeks if they have any theories as to what could be causing this. Believe me or don't believe me, it's all the same to me.
It IS pretty unbelievable. Which is why *I* didn't believe it at first, but when my files continued to download at 24 Mbit/sec for weeks, I was forced to conclude it was real, and it was due to something in Vista. Boot back into XP, 8 Mbit/sec downloads using NewsBin or Firefox. Boot into Vista, 24 Mbit/sec downloads using NewsBin and Firefox. It's easily reproducible. If it's not Vista causing this speed difference, what is it? And if it is Vista, what exactly in the tcp/ip stack is it that's causing it? I'd really be interested in the answer to that, I've been highly curious ever since it started. I'm a pretty skeptical person, but I can't deny what's happening right before my eyes, on my computer.
And this is downloading compressed RAR files of already highly-compressed Xvid and DivX avi files, so it's not some data compression causing this. I realize there is no way I can prove my claims, and you have no reason to believe me. I just ask that you keep an open mind, and try it yourself before dismissing the OS as a huge pile of crap.
Sure, it's tempting to think something was wrong with my previous XP install, but I assure you (only my word, of course) it was a highly tuned lean install of XP with only the minimum programs running. I had installed XP fresh only a month or two previously (I do so at least twice a year.) Standard install of XP SP2. Using newest 4-in-1 chipset drivers from VIA, as well as the VIA IDE accelerator and SATA/RAID drivers.
I've been building my own PC computers since 1994 or so. (Before that, I had an AppleIIc.:) Every new version of Windows has had some improvements (except Me...I "upgraded" to Me, then soon after downgraded back to 98SE) and some downfalls. Vista, in my experience, has vastly improved networking speed. Vista's version of file Explorer...not so great. Lots of changes for no apparent reason, except just to do things differently I guess. Takes a while to get used to. Vista's Explorer also refuses to move a directory that contains DVD-video files (VIDEO_TS, VTS_01_4.VOB, etc.)...it says I don't have permission, and there's no way to bypass it (I turned the UAC off after a few days and noticed Explorer was quite a bit peppier right away. I've had a total of one virus ever, which I was able to remove immediately, so the added "protection" of UAC for me was dubious.) You have to create a new destination directory, then copy the DVD-video files to the new directory, then delete the old directory after. Some kind of copy-protection/DRM related to DVDs, I'm sure.
I do understand that anecdotal experience does not connote a trend. Which is why, in my previous post, I asked for other Vista users' comments, to see if anyone else's networking has sped up since installing Vista. Maybe I just have some strange combination of hardware and software that exploits some Vista bug or Comcast configuration issue. I am running an XP driver for my USR gigabit ethernet card, since Vista drivers don't exist (and might not ever exist)...hmm...
Also...un-DRMed HD video, including 1080i & 1080p, plays just fine in many different video players in XP and Vista, and Linux and OS X as well. Including Zoom Player, VLC Media Player, and even Windows Media Player, as long as you have the correct codecs installed. No HDCP necessary. No DRM, no degradation. We're talking broadcast HD video captured from over the air, digital cable, or satellite, as unencrypted transport streams. Star Wars Ep 1-6, Serenity, 2001, Batman Begins, The Fly, etc., in 1080i and 1080p HD. *cough* usenet: alt.binaries.hdtv *cough*
Not to mention the new tcp/ip stack chugging away with QOS processing that will likely be nullified as soon as the packet hits your ISP's first server's kernel. My download speeds have *tripled* since installing Vista.
I have Vista installed as my primary OS at home (dual-booting with my previous installation of XP SP2.) I was quite shocked when I first fired up my usenet newsreader and discovered that I could download at sustained speeds of *24 MBit/sec* over my *8 MBit/sec* Comcast cable modem connection.
After happily shouting "Holy crap! What the hell?" I verified this download speed on several speed test sites on the web. In addition, my wife's XP computer on the same network seems to be unaffected; she can surf the web with no slowdown, as if I'm not even downloading at all. When I used XP, my download speed would affect her download speed considerably, so that I had to throttle my downloads whenever she was at her computer. I tested my speed by booting back into XP, and my speeds top out at 8 Mbit/sec, as expected.
I have no explanation as to how Vista accomplishes this "magic" speed boost that exceeds the rated speeds of my cable modem line by three times. Something about IPv6? Does Comcast have a separate IPv6 network built for future use that I'm tapping into? I don't know enough about networking to know. I can download a GB of data in about 5 minutes, so I'm definitely not complaining.
Don't discount the new tcp/ip stack in Vista so quickly without trying it yourself. It's the best feature in the OS. I don't like everything about Vista, in fact there's a lot NOT to like about it, but the enhanced tcp/ip performance is reason enough for me to keep it. I do a lot of downloading that would probably not be condoned by the RIAA/MPAA, but so far Vista hasn't stopped me from playing anything, the way I want to play it...including HD video. I don't intend to use HD-DVD or Blu-Ray any time soon...neither my HD-resolution monitor nor my video card have HDCP anyway. But who needs that when you can download DRM-free HD video TODAY?
I'm just waiting for Comcast to discover this "bug" and throttle my connection, as soon as new Vista-preinstalled computers start to appear at the the end of the month, and Comcast sees their bandwidth usage triple. I've been downloading daily, almost 24/7, at 24 MBit/Sec, for over a month now, and have yet to receive a letter from Comcast informing me I'm using too much bandwidth. (However, since I download at 24 MBit/sec, I don't NEED to download 24/7, my downloads finish so quickly!) It might be the fact that I live in a fairly poor area of my community (the poor side of Hillsboro, OR), where the computer and broadband penetration is probably not that great...so I'm not likely impacting many others' cable performance with my downloads.
I'd like to hear from other Vista users, to see if I'm just an anomaly, or if others have experienced the same download speedups. I could find nothing on google to explain this, except the following link, an in-depth interview with the Microsoft team that wrote the new Vista network stack:
Quite a long video (40 minutes), but very interesting. They say at one point in the video that they were able to realize drastic speedups using a Vista computer on some of their data lines...with no change on the server side, the only change being using a Vista computer as a client.
Speaking of the QoS on Vista...while I was watching that video, Vista automatically throttled the bandwidth allotted to my newsreader, allowing that high-bandwidth streaming video to play without a hitch. As soon as the video completed, my newsreader's full data bandwidth was restored. No, I have no complaints about the new network stack in Vista.:) Only time will tell if it is more secure and robust than XP's network stack, but it is certainly drastically faster!
Slashdot Mirror
Music CD's DO support metadata, and have since 1996: CD-Text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cd_text
"CD-Text is an extension of the Red Book Compact Disc specifications standard for audio CDs. It allows for storage of additional information (e.g. album name, song name, and artist) on a standards-compliant audio CD. The information is stored either in the lead-in area of the CD, where there is roughly five kilobytes of space available, or in the Subchannels R to W on the disc, which can store about 31 megabytes. "
I remember seeing support for CD-Text on car CD changers almost 10 years ago, and most non-cheapo CD players these days support it if they have room for text on their display. But CD-Text never seemed to catch on for some reason. Maybe because the record companies never bothered to add the data to their pre-recorded CD's. Or that a lot of CD player displays only consist of Track Number and Play Time, so there's no way to display text.
Most burning programs like Nero, and even iTunes, support both burning CD-Text and reading it from discs that have it, so you can add it to your own CD's if you feel like it...or if you even bother burning music CD's these days.
Nope, Vista still hides file extensions by default (I agree, stupid setting.) But if you do have file extensions showing, and rename the file, it doesn't select the extension, just the filename.
And make Windows explorer do what Nautilus does; show the damned file extension but don't select it automatically when you rename the file, so the extension stays unchanged unless you specifically select it!
Vista does this.
While I agree about paying for content, to correct your statement about how much of your time it takes to copy a DVD:
;)
Using AnyDVD and CloneDVD2 takes about 5 minutes of your time to copy a DVD. It takes about 1/2 hour to an hour or more for your computer to rip, convert to fit on a single layer disc, and burn it (depending on the speed of your computer) but you don't have to babysit it. You can go do something else or use your computer for other purposes. Not that I have ever copied a DVD myself, but I hear this is how it works...
They finally took the 20 minutes, and fixed that in Vista. For desktop backgrounds, you now have 5 options:
1) fit to screen (ignores aspect ratio)
2) tile
3) center (original picture size)
4) maintain aspect ratio (stretches to fit screen while maintaining aspect ratio)
5) crop to fit screen
Before pasting your network link, type <<, paste the link, then >>. Like so:
<<\\network name\here>>
Outlook will remove the first < and last >, and turn it into a clickable hyperlink. Not at all obvious, but it is possible to do it.
I urge you to reconsider moving to Bend if you're in the tech industry. Consider the Willamette Valley instead.
:)
I grew up in Bend, until my girlfriend (now wife) and I decided to move to the Portland area when I was 20, in '94. The main reason we moved? Lack of decent jobs in Bend, most notably tech jobs. While the situation has changed somewhat in the years since then, Bend has nothing on the Willamette Valley. It isn't nicknamed "The Silicon Forest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Forest for nothing: Intel, Tektronix, HP, Symantec, Netflix...and of course, Portland is the current home of Linus Torvalds. Just take a look at the tech jobs currently available on dice.com in the Portland area. High tech is everywhere here in Portland, and readily available...I currently have at least 3 different options for broadband internet in my neighborhood (including Fios), and I live in a lower-income area. And we have a Fry's Electronics in the area (Wilsonville.)
Granted, Bend is beautiful, and a paradise if you're into outdoor activities like skiing, hiking, camping, etc. But you can get that anywhere in Oregon. But Bend has changed from a nice sleepy town into a rapidly-growing mini-metropolis with huge traffic problems (my mom tells me the traffic during rush hour is worse than in the Valley!) and truly outrageous home prices, even compared to the overinflated prices in Portland. I now consider Portland my home, and Bend is just a nice place my wife and I visit my mom.
You do get used to the rain in Portland. And because of all that rain, it is one of the most beautiful, green parts of the country I've ever seen. The other day, on my morning commute, I saw a bald eagle just sitting on a tree, in the middle of Beaverton. And that's far from the only eagle I've seen, there's several nests within the city limits of Portland, on Smith and Bybee Lakes.
And to another poster who complains about "ugly women" in Portland: yes, if you consider only blond tanned plastic surgically-altered women beautiful, you will often be disappointed. I know, I lived in Phoenix for 5 years, and the women there were pretty hot in general. But I found that I missed the Oregon women after a while. If you like a woman to look like an actual real woman with real curves, there are babes a-plenty here. Just come visit when the weather starts warming up and the layers of flannel start coming off and you'll see what I mean.
What you're remembering is probably "Word Processor of the Gods" from the short story collection Skeleton Crew by Stephen King. The main character's nephew creates a "magic" word processor out of cobbled-together parts (including a model train transformer.) Whatever you type on the word processor then happens in the real world. The train transformer quickly begins arcing and giving off an electrical-burning ozone smell. The "science" behind the story is lame, like most of Stephen King's stories and novels, but it's a fun "what-if" story.
I liked the Barenaked Ladies when they had their hit "One Week", and I bought their album Stunt, but I didn't become a HUGE fan until I downloaded a bunch of mp3's of their live concerts from the web (just before Napster.) Since then I've bought every single BNL retail album in CD format, along with most of their back catalog. Would I have become as big a fan without those "illegal" downloads? Maybe, maybe not, but my downloading definitely didn't decrease the revenue BNL (or their record company) received from me one bit.
Since then, BNL has shown they really respect and trust their fans. They went indie for their latest double album "Barenaked Ladies Are Me" and "Barenaked Ladies Are Men", selling unencumbered mp3 and flac versions of it on the web. I picked up the flac version for less than $20, a steal considering that it includes 27 songs, and I've listened to it almost 50 times (according to iTunes.) They also sell decent mp3 versions of ALL of their concerts for around $15. I purchased up the mp3 of the concert my wife and I attended in Portland last November. Could I have picked it up on p2p for free? Probably, but BNL has demonstrated that they deserve my money, so I will continue to support them as long as they keep treating their fans right. Other artists would be wise to follow BNL's lead.
Link to download BNL music: http://www.werkshop.com/store/artist.action?artist_id=10&cat_id=1
Replying to remove my accidental "Redundant" mod...sorry, meant to give you Insightful!
Thanks for actually reading my full posts and thinking about the possible explanations before simply knee-jerk responding that a perceived Vista improvement couldn't possibly exist, like some others have done. You've given me an explanation that sounds like it's spot-on with my experiences. Sounds like you know a little something about networking.
;)
In fact, it looks like Comcast finally figured it out, as just yesterday I started getting throttled back to 8 MBit/sec max in Vista. Damnit. Hmm, a few days after I post that I'm getting extra speed out of my Comcast connection...does someone at Comcast read slashdot?
Now, I generally will get a spike up to 12 MBit/sec and sometimes as high as 24 MBit/sec, but it quickly drops back to a solid 8 MBit/sec within 30 seconds. Oh well, the extra speed was nice while it lasted. And I'm not really complaining - Comcast has consistently provided me with exactly the amount of bandwidth they promised to me...which is unfortunately all too uncommon with ISPs.
So I'm in Knoppix now. Knoppix appears to have approximately the same maximum network bandwidth as Vista (on my computer.) Running a speed test at dslreports, I can get 19.83 Mbit/sec:
:) The way I read it, it's not that Vista is so great...it's the fact that XP's network stack is bad...or at least slow. But then we probably all knew that already. Which is why Microsoft rewrote it for Vista. So now it is as good as Linux's network stack...at least as far as: sustained download speeds from newsgroups using Comcast. Who knows if it's as good in any other way. Time will tell. My point in posting in the first place was to say: I was getting drastically better download speeds using Vista, so Microsoft definitely did at least one thing right - but YMMV. I think I'll keep Vista, it works for me.
:)
http://www.dslreports.com/im/22307322/3521.png
I'm big enough to admit I was wrong...sorta.
It seems like it's pretty obvious now that both Vista and Knoppix are exploiting Comcast's speed boost somehow. Because I don't pay for a 20 Mbit connection, I pay for 8 Mbit, and 8 Mbit is all I was getting in XP...with the occasional boost up to 12 Mbit. When I was doing sustained downloading in XP using NewsBin, I would get a constant 8 Mbit/sec. But in Vista, I can sustain 20-24 Mbit/sec, for days at a time, while downloading from newsgroups. Don't know if I would be able to do the same from Linux...maybe, maybe not. I can't really test it since I'm using a live cd, and I don't think NewsBin is compatible with Linux...although I understand it runs fine under Wine.
I'd still like to hear from any other Vista users. Anyone else's internet speeds dramatically increase while using Vista? Or is it just me? (And thanks to those that responded to my posts. It was educational.
1) So my XP is so horribly misconfigured that I was able (and still am able, my XP is still installed as dual boot) to download at the supposed maximum limit of my Comcast cable connection? That makes sense. ;)
I'm paying Comcast for a 8 MBit connection. Comcast does have some kind of turbo deal where it speeds up some downloads. I was occasionally able to get 12 MBit/sec in XP, but it always only lasted a minute or two at the most.
Ok, some data. I timed a newsgroup download with a stopwatch:
11 50.0 MB RAR files = 550 MB
3 min 32 sec
2.59 MB/sec = 20.75 Mbit/sec
You and one other poster suggested a Knoppix cd. Ok, I'm game, I'm on the Knoppix site now. I'll download a copy and try it out, and go to dslreports and get a speed rating from there...or do you have a better suggestion of a download site that should be able to max out a 20-24 MBit connection?
BTW, here's a dslreports url for a test I just did, in Vista:
http://www.dslreports.com/im/22303118/7336.png
Not sure if that url is persistent, but it's working right this second at least. The Atlanta, GA server seems to be the fastest. Not as fast right now as earlier at 3 am, when I was getting 23 Mbit/sec. Didn't save the png url like above though, sorry.
Ok, downloaded the 696 MB ISO in about 9 minutes. Off to burn this cd and go to dslreports from within Knoppix. I'll post back with my results.
I'm not a Microsoft programmer. Maybe you should ask one of them?
I have no way to prove to you my claims are true. You have no way to prove my claims are false. I gave several theories in my previous posts why this could be happening. Since I'm not a programmer, I can't tell you why this is happening.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that my claims are true. I'm simply asking my fellow geeks if they have any theories as to what could be causing this. Believe me or don't believe me, it's all the same to me.
It IS pretty unbelievable. Which is why *I* didn't believe it at first, but when my files continued to download at 24 Mbit/sec for weeks, I was forced to conclude it was real, and it was due to something in Vista. Boot back into XP, 8 Mbit/sec downloads using NewsBin or Firefox. Boot into Vista, 24 Mbit/sec downloads using NewsBin and Firefox. It's easily reproducible. If it's not Vista causing this speed difference, what is it? And if it is Vista, what exactly in the tcp/ip stack is it that's causing it? I'd really be interested in the answer to that, I've been highly curious ever since it started. I'm a pretty skeptical person, but I can't deny what's happening right before my eyes, on my computer.
:) Every new version of Windows has had some improvements (except Me...I "upgraded" to Me, then soon after downgraded back to 98SE) and some downfalls. Vista, in my experience, has vastly improved networking speed. Vista's version of file Explorer...not so great. Lots of changes for no apparent reason, except just to do things differently I guess. Takes a while to get used to. Vista's Explorer also refuses to move a directory that contains DVD-video files (VIDEO_TS, VTS_01_4.VOB, etc.)...it says I don't have permission, and there's no way to bypass it (I turned the UAC off after a few days and noticed Explorer was quite a bit peppier right away. I've had a total of one virus ever, which I was able to remove immediately, so the added "protection" of UAC for me was dubious.) You have to create a new destination directory, then copy the DVD-video files to the new directory, then delete the old directory after. Some kind of copy-protection/DRM related to DVDs, I'm sure.
And this is downloading compressed RAR files of already highly-compressed Xvid and DivX avi files, so it's not some data compression causing this. I realize there is no way I can prove my claims, and you have no reason to believe me. I just ask that you keep an open mind, and try it yourself before dismissing the OS as a huge pile of crap.
Sure, it's tempting to think something was wrong with my previous XP install, but I assure you (only my word, of course) it was a highly tuned lean install of XP with only the minimum programs running. I had installed XP fresh only a month or two previously (I do so at least twice a year.) Standard install of XP SP2. Using newest 4-in-1 chipset drivers from VIA, as well as the VIA IDE accelerator and SATA/RAID drivers.
I've been building my own PC computers since 1994 or so. (Before that, I had an AppleIIc.
I do understand that anecdotal experience does not connote a trend. Which is why, in my previous post, I asked for other Vista users' comments, to see if anyone else's networking has sped up since installing Vista. Maybe I just have some strange combination of hardware and software that exploits some Vista bug or Comcast configuration issue. I am running an XP driver for my USR gigabit ethernet card, since Vista drivers don't exist (and might not ever exist)...hmm...
Also...un-DRMed HD video, including 1080i & 1080p, plays just fine in many different video players in XP and Vista, and Linux and OS X as well. Including Zoom Player, VLC Media Player, and even Windows Media Player, as long as you have the correct codecs installed. No HDCP necessary. No DRM, no degradation. We're talking broadcast HD video captured from over the air, digital cable, or satellite, as unencrypted transport streams. Star Wars Ep 1-6, Serenity, 2001, Batman Begins, The Fly, etc., in 1080i and 1080p HD. *cough* usenet: alt.binaries.hdtv *cough*
I have Vista installed as my primary OS at home (dual-booting with my previous installation of XP SP2.) I was quite shocked when I first fired up my usenet newsreader and discovered that I could download at sustained speeds of *24 MBit/sec* over my *8 MBit/sec* Comcast cable modem connection.
After happily shouting "Holy crap! What the hell?" I verified this download speed on several speed test sites on the web. In addition, my wife's XP computer on the same network seems to be unaffected; she can surf the web with no slowdown, as if I'm not even downloading at all. When I used XP, my download speed would affect her download speed considerably, so that I had to throttle my downloads whenever she was at her computer. I tested my speed by booting back into XP, and my speeds top out at 8 Mbit/sec, as expected.
I have no explanation as to how Vista accomplishes this "magic" speed boost that exceeds the rated speeds of my cable modem line by three times. Something about IPv6? Does Comcast have a separate IPv6 network built for future use that I'm tapping into? I don't know enough about networking to know. I can download a GB of data in about 5 minutes, so I'm definitely not complaining.
Don't discount the new tcp/ip stack in Vista so quickly without trying it yourself. It's the best feature in the OS. I don't like everything about Vista, in fact there's a lot NOT to like about it, but the enhanced tcp/ip performance is reason enough for me to keep it. I do a lot of downloading that would probably not be condoned by the RIAA/MPAA, but so far Vista hasn't stopped me from playing anything, the way I want to play it...including HD video. I don't intend to use HD-DVD or Blu-Ray any time soon...neither my HD-resolution monitor nor my video card have HDCP anyway. But who needs that when you can download DRM-free HD video TODAY?
I'm just waiting for Comcast to discover this "bug" and throttle my connection, as soon as new Vista-preinstalled computers start to appear at the the end of the month, and Comcast sees their bandwidth usage triple. I've been downloading daily, almost 24/7, at 24 MBit/Sec, for over a month now, and have yet to receive a letter from Comcast informing me I'm using too much bandwidth. (However, since I download at 24 MBit/sec, I don't NEED to download 24/7, my downloads finish so quickly!) It might be the fact that I live in a fairly poor area of my community (the poor side of Hillsboro, OR), where the computer and broadband penetration is probably not that great...so I'm not likely impacting many others' cable performance with my downloads.
I'd like to hear from other Vista users, to see if I'm just an anomaly, or if others have experienced the same download speedups. I could find nothing on google to explain this, except the following link, an in-depth interview with the Microsoft team that wrote the new Vista network stack:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116
Quite a long video (40 minutes), but very interesting. They say at one point in the video that they were able to realize drastic speedups using a Vista computer on some of their data lines...with no change on the server side, the only change being using a Vista computer as a client.
Speaking of the QoS on Vista...while I was watching that video, Vista automatically throttled the bandwidth allotted to my newsreader, allowing that high-bandwidth streaming video to play without a hitch. As soon as the video completed, my newsreader's full data bandwidth was restored. No, I have no complaints about the new network stack in Vista.