is this true?

is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the full
speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.
thanx

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100 and in article <bfjvrn$4jc$1
@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) said...
> is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
> of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the full
> speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.

It's total and utter rubbish.

--
CB

Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) wrote...

>is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
>of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the full
>speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.

No.

>thanx

Ok.

--
Mike

In article <bfjvrn$4jc$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Kolicha \(vinnieza &
gio\)" <(E-Mail Removed)> says...

> is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
> of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you wont get the full
> speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.


name the computer shop who told you that, I dare you.
they wanted you to upgrade.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:53:24 +0200, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>>you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
>>of broadband
>
>No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
>the network, not the CPU.
>
Unless its a USB modem, then there can be a large processor overhead
on a low powered PC.

Andrew.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100, "Kolicha \(vinnieza & gio\)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
>of broadband

No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
the network, not the CPU.

regards
Marcus

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:16 +0100, "Kolicha \(vinnieza & gio\)"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >you need a fast processor to get the full sped and capacity
> >of broadband
>
> No - the ADSL "modem" does the work of handling the conversion to/from
> the network, not the CPU.
>
> regards
> Marcus
>
If it's a USB or software based modem then the CPU is involved.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:16 GMT, Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) wrote

> is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and
> capacity of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you
> wont get the full speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.

Dunno about 1 MB service, but FWIW I'm on cable (NTL 600K service);
was connected on a 5-year-old 233 Pentium which frazzled itself; and
upgraded to an Athlon 2000.

My speed on surfing/downloading pages with the new box is HUGELY faster
-- way, way quicker rendering of pages. (They used to build on the
page; they now more-or-less blink into view).

I've looked at all sorts of reasons for this, but have the same OS;
the same programmes; the same connection via the same ethernet card;
and I've had to conclude that part of the explanation is that NTL was
sending packets down the line faster than my 233 box could process
them. (The rest is that I've gone to a bottom-of-the-range graphics
card rather than an on-board graphics chip, which obviously also
handles some of the rendering load.)

So, in my experience, definitely yes: processor speed is one of the
things that's made an extremely noticeable difference.

--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:50:59 UTC, Harvey Van Sickle
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My speed on surfing/downloading pages with the new box is HUGELY faster
> -- way, way quicker rendering of pages. (They used to build on the
> page; they now more-or-less blink into view).

That is of course CPU related; but has nothing to do with the speed of
the line per se. You would see the same effect if all the pages were
held locally on the hard disk.

> I've looked at all sorts of reasons for this, but have the same OS;
> the same programmes; the same connection via the same ethernet card;
> and I've had to conclude that part of the explanation is that NTL was
> sending packets down the line faster than my 233 box could process
> them.

Not at all. Given that under heavy load an ethernet card ught to be
handling about 4 mbit/sec, or even more if there isn't much other
traffic on the network, a measly 1mbit/sec ought to be fine.

> So, in my experience, definitely yes: processor speed is one of the
> things that's made an extremely noticeable difference.

But to browser rendering, nothing else.

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:50:59 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:16 GMT, Kolicha (vinnieza & gio) wrote
>
>> is it true that you need a fast processor to get the full sped and
>> capacity of broadband, and if you don't have a fast processor, you
>> wont get the full speed?e.g. you wont get 1mbps.
>
>Dunno about 1 MB service, but FWIW I'm on cable (NTL 600K service);
>was connected on a 5-year-old 233 Pentium which frazzled itself; and
>upgraded to an Athlon 2000.
>
>My speed on surfing/downloading pages with the new box is HUGELY faster
>-- way, way quicker rendering of pages. (They used to build on the
>page; they now more-or-less blink into view).
>
>I've looked at all sorts of reasons for this, but have the same OS;
>the same programmes; the same connection via the same ethernet card;
>and I've had to conclude that part of the explanation is that NTL was
>sending packets down the line faster than my 233 box could process
>them. (The rest is that I've gone to a bottom-of-the-range graphics
>card rather than an on-board graphics chip, which obviously also
>handles some of the rendering load.)
>
>So, in my experience, definitely yes: processor speed is one of the
>things that's made an extremely noticeable difference.

I bet if you had started an FTP sesssion and downloaded a large file
from a high speed site you would have seen a full 1Mb. Your machine
was just too slow to render web pages at a decent speed. I bet you had
more memory in it after upgrading to the Athlon as well ?
--
Andy Norman (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.norman.cx/