| |
Loco.M
Noogle
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
349.10 GC$
Items
|
 Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
when i type
gpedit.msc
in the run command, it doesn't work ?
_________________
Bluegrass Forums - Loco Macheen & Dewayn Bro's
Acrylic on Plexiglass - Abstract Painting on plexiglass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IamTheKing9
Google God
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Location: Mumbai, India
76977.45 GC$
Items
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Er... did you press the Enter key after typing gpedit.msc?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loco.M
Noogle
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
349.10 GC$
Items
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| IamTheKing9 wrote: | | Er... did you press the Enter key after typing gpedit.msc? |
yup. it says window can not find gpedit.msc, make sure you typed OMG! this rich text popup is ANNOYING AS F%%K !!! anyways, i searched, but it says no file.. thank you
_________________
Bluegrass Forums - Loco Macheen & Dewayn Bro's
Acrylic on Plexiglass - Abstract Painting on plexiglass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LC Trucido
Googler
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Location: Maine
2878.65 GC$
Items
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
He said it only works on XP Pro, and 2000. My guess is you're running Home?
_________________
Mary had a little lamb, she tied it to a pylon. Ten-thousand volts went up its bum, and turned its wool to nylon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loco.M
Noogle
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
349.10 GC$
Items
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
ah, yup,, xp home.. thx anyways 
_________________
Bluegrass Forums - Loco Macheen & Dewayn Bro's
Acrylic on Plexiglass - Abstract Painting on plexiglass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
google berry
Noogle
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
421.70 GC$
Items
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. This is almost as bad as the myth about cleaning your prefetch folder. One person is excited that their download rate went from 1.2 KB/s to 1.5 KB/s (do I understand that right?) It couldn't have just been that the routes to various places on the internet actually fluctuate in speeds on their own, no, it would have to be that you gained "20%" of your bandwidth that XP is supposedly witholding from you at all times. Did anyone actually read the MSKB article posted earlier in the thread?
Does the math between 1.2 KB/s and 1.5 KB/s make any sense? Does anyone know what Quality of Service actually does? Didn't think so. Wouldn't you think 1.2 KB/s + 20% would be about 2.4 KB/s? This is a dubious myth and everyone needs to stop listening to it before they further harm themselves with placebo evidence.
From http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q316666 ---
If the receiving client is running on a relatively
fast network, such as a 100 megabytes per second Ethernet network, behind a
computer that is running Windows XP with the Internet Connection Sharing
service, and the server that this receiver is communicating with is behind a
remote access on a fast network, the mismatch exists. In this scenario, the
receiver's receive window is set to a large value that is based on the speed of
the link the receiver is connected to. The sender starts out by sending at a
slow rate, but if packets are not lost, the sender eventually sends almost a
full window size of packets.
This scenario can affect the performance
of other TCP connections that traverse the same network. Packets sit in a
potentially large queue and wait to be transmitted over the slow network. If
packet loss occurs, data has to be retransmitted, and this also congests the
link.
The solution to this issue is to have the computer that is
running Internet Connection Sharing on the edge of the network automatically
set the receive window to a smaller size that is appropriate to the slow link.
This setting overrides the receiver's specification. This setting will not
adversely affect traffic, because the window size is being set as if the
receiver were connected directly to the slow link. The QoS Packet Scheduler
component that is running on the Internet Connection Sharing computer makes
this window adjustment.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ro2nie
Noogle
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
144.00 GC$
Items
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| google berry wrote: | This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. This is almost as bad as the myth about cleaning your prefetch folder. One person is excited that their download rate went from 1.2 KB/s to 1.5 KB/s (do I understand that right?) It couldn't have just been that the routes to various places on the internet actually fluctuate in speeds on their own, no, it would have to be that you gained "20%" of your bandwidth that XP is supposedly witholding from you at all times. Did anyone actually read the MSKB article posted earlier in the thread?
Does the math between 1.2 KB/s and 1.5 KB/s make any sense? Does anyone know what Quality of Service actually does? Didn't think so. Wouldn't you think 1.2 KB/s + 20% would be about 2.4 KB/s? This is a dubious myth and everyone needs to stop listening to it before they further harm themselves with placebo evidence.
From <span class="postbody"><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q316666" target="_blank" class="postlink">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q316666</a> ---
</span> If the receiving client is running on a relatively
fast network, such as a 100 megabytes per second Ethernet network, behind a
computer that is running Windows XP with the Internet Connection Sharing
service, and the server that this receiver is communicating with is behind a
remote access on a fast network, the mismatch exists. In this scenario, the
receiver's receive window is set to a large value that is based on the speed of
the link the receiver is connected to. The sender starts out by sending at a
slow rate, but if packets are not lost, the sender eventually sends almost a
full window size of packets.
This scenario can affect the performance
of other TCP connections that traverse the same network. Packets sit in a
potentially large queue and wait to be transmitted over the slow network. If
packet loss occurs, data has to be retransmitted, and this also congests the
link.
The solution to this issue is to have the computer that is
running Internet Connection Sharing on the edge of the network automatically
set the receive window to a smaller size that is appropriate to the slow link.
This setting overrides the receiver's specification. This setting will not
adversely affect traffic, because the window size is being set as if the
receiver were connected directly to the slow link. The QoS Packet Scheduler
component that is running on the Internet Connection Sharing computer makes
this window adjustment.
|
You are right... There is not much difference between 1.2 and 1.5 Kb/s (which is 1.2Kb/s + 20%), but there is a lot of difference between say 350Kb/s and 420Kb/s (which is 350Kb/s + 20%)  
This tweak has improved a lot my internet speed... another tip is to download the TCP optimizer which will improve the way your OS manages TCP/IP by tweaking some things in the registry...
TCP optimizer
http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php
_________________
Rø2λ¡∑ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
| Posted: 12 Oct 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Host your free forums with Invision Plus.net forum web hosting with your own subdomain.
alexisBlue v1.2 // Theme Created By: Andrew Charron // Icons in Part By: Travis Carden |
|
|
|
|
