1mb options?

KdjaCL

512/128 is just not enough anymore, looking to upgrade to 1mb.

IOL have 1mb, any use?
IBB ?

Anyone else have 1mb and with who?

kdjac

StRiKeR

2MB with esat, 512 really isn't enough, once you have more than one system on a home network, things will start to get noticably slow! I have 2 PC's and 3 Laptops on a home network, even tho only 3 of use the most using the net at the same time, since 1 PC and 2 Laptops belongs to me, if one is browsing a graphical web site, one playing online games and another downloading, things will start to get very very slow!

KdjaCL

I have one pc , bought PCI modem no intention of ever having a network, im just greedy really.

kdjac

Terminator

I have 512 24:1 connection with netsource. If I go for the 1MB option will it improve my ping in games?

Lenny

Wouldn't make any different at all to your ping

CivilServant

If you're not too interested in pings, then the digiweb 1mb option would be the way to go. Excellent service and zero downtime. Pings are better with Esat but you get tied into a 2 year contract with them and better things should be coming download the line soon.

elexes

CivilServant wrote:

If you're not too interested in pings, then the digiweb 1mb option would be the way to go. Excellent service and zero downtime. Pings are better with Esat but you get tied into a 2 year contract with them and better things should be coming download the line soon.

hmmm er no id stay away from them tho they do have a good customer service they aint that good overall . as gf has net1 and her uncle has digi but has had nothing but trouble from them since day 1 .

CivilServant

Well my experiences since it was installed in June have been very good. Customer service is ok, but if you know your way around a computer, you'll be fine. For internet junkies, it's great. Gaming wise not so much. No good for fps, but you can still play chess

Boro

NTL if you can get it.

Like most of the people here who have the NTL 1.5mb connection, im delighted with it. Very little or no downtime, good pings, the non-existant cap - all these combine to make it a superior service. Shame the availability is so limited.

Optikus

The 2Mb line from Esat is pretty cool it has unliminted download, but is for bussiness only so you might find it hard to obtain.. we're currently in the process of getting it where i live, but they now want use to pay for 12 months in advance which is pretty cheeky considering we been on 512k for the last 18 months and have being paying ontime.

Optikus

Lenny wrote:

Wouldn't make any different at all to your ping

Yes it will you will get a ping of around 20 playing Counter-Strike as apposed to 40-60 on 512k.

zynaps

Irish Broadband have recently introduced a 1mbit wireless package with 24:1 contention (I think) and no cap, for just short of 50 quid a month.
I'd only gotten their 512kbit 8:1 (for the same price... bah) installed about 2 months before I noticed the 1mbit was up on their site.

Waiting on the install list again now.

About ntl, have anyone heard any word of them continuing their rollout after stopping in 1998 or whenever it was they did the test runs?

Moriarty

Optikus wrote:

Yes it will you will get a ping of around 20 playing Counter-Strike as apposed to 40-60 on 512k.

Bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with ping times. Latency is dependant on the technology used and the quality of the connection.

eoin_f

arent NTL going to bring in new packages this side of christmas anyways so wait for that

Optikus

Moriarty wrote:

Bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with ping times. Latency is dependant on the technology used and the quality of the connection.

So explain to me why you get a lower ping on a faster connection when using the same hardware as you would on on the slower connection, surley its the double bandwith doing this.

CivilServant

Optikus wrote:

So explain to me why you get a lower ping on a faster connection when using the same hardware as you would on on the slower connection, surley its the double bandwith doing this.

Ping isn't bandwidth related as Moriaty said. Ping depends on how fast you can send packets of info from one server to another. By performing a "tracert" command you can how data gets sent to you.

A list of all the servers, and the speeds to which you reach them are shown. Thus you can see what servers are slowing you down.

Esat business are the fastest because they've a good tracert and switch interleaving off. Something that digiweb doesn't do.

Mutant_Fruit

Optikus wrote:

So explain to me why you get a lower ping on a faster connection when using the same hardware as you would on on the slower connection, surley its the double bandwith doing this.

Thing is, i noticed ZERO improvement in ping times when i switched from 512/512 to 1024/1024.

I believe the difference in ping times between the two packages could be due to "interleaving" settings, but i don't know much about that. A 1meg package can send MORE packets per second, but it doesn't send the packets faster.

MickFarr

Boro wrote:

NTL if you can get it.

Like most of the people here who have the NTL 1.5mb connection, im delighted with it. Very little or no downtime, good pings, the non-existant cap - all these combine to make it a superior service. Shame the availability is so limited.

Not good at the moment. Pings are sky high and the internet is slow!

MickFarr

Optikus wrote:

So explain to me why you get a lower ping on a faster connection when using the same hardware as you would on on the slower connection, surley its the double bandwith doing this.

You don't get a lower ping on a faster broadband connection.

NTL 600kbs -> 750kbs -> 1024 -> 1500 = same ping

zynaps

Optikus wrote:

So explain to me why you get a lower ping on a faster connection when using the same hardware as you would on on the slower connection, surley its the double bandwith doing this.

No - I don't know what specific example you're thinking of where this happened, but if so it's a coincidence.

Ping packets are generally very small (ie, they should be sent in one frame of data or whatever and will be less than 64k in size - usually only 1500 bytes or so, your MTU value) and would not benefit from extra bandwidth, unless you're using the network for other things heavily and available bandwidth for pinging drops below the MTU.

I think there have been a fair number of (old) stories of people going back to dialup from eircom's DSL because ping times for gaming was faster.

zynaps