Messages

286

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: December 03, 2007, 11:32:39 am »

It's just understanding kB - kb and recognizing the upper\lower case b and in some instances where the b is always lower case the upper and lower case k...Kb\KB. Anyhoo there's a simple conversion calculator you can use to identify what you may be getting for what your paying for:

Click there---> http://www.testmy.net/tools/convert.php

And here would be my Kb\KB or kb\KB: 15Mbps\2Mbps (15,000,000\2,000,000) = 1831.05MB\244.14MB

TheHalf™

Somehow I don't think 15Mbps = 1831.05 MBps 

Oh that's an oversight on Quantums part. I did not type 15Mbps = 1831.05MBps; here's what I did type - "15Mbps\2Mbps (15,000,000\2,000,000) = 1831.05MB\244.14MB" although I should have stated bits back there in parenthesis 

TheHalf™

  it still doesn't seem to make any kind of sense, there's no way that 15'000'000 bits = 1831.05MBs

287

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: December 03, 2007, 05:00:44 am »

I thought you were aweing at the 15Mbps, yeah TheHalf definitely made some calculation errors.

He said "15000 Mbps  ::: 1831.05 MB/sec" which I think he meant he has 15000Kbps or 15Mbps, which would be about 1.8 MB/sec.

What's the average connection in England, and what do you have?

Average connection in the U.K at the moment seems to be 8/0.5, which I'm on at the moment, last year I was on 16/1 though. You can get up to 24 or 25 I believe though.

288

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: November 30, 2007, 12:34:01 pm »

uhhh what?

I said you couldn't get speeds like that unless you were part of the backbone, TheHalf I quoted you on speeds 100x faster than what you have.

And I don't mean connected to some ISP which runs the backbone (as almost everyone in this country is) I mean quite literally sitting on a server which is connected to backbone wiring.

20/20 is a long way off 1831/244

289

Computers - Technology / Re: CPU mistake

« on: November 29, 2007, 04:37:21 pm »

According to wiki there should essentially be the same CPU you have but clocked at 1.4 GHz, but that's it really in terms of how powerful that socket gets.

^_^, I'm often dealing with computers with 256MB of Ram, GeForce 2 and an Athlon CPU. I usually help people turn them in to a silent media centre 

290

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: November 28, 2007, 11:44:16 am »

Perhaps I made a typo (hope not):

15000000 Kbps

15000000 Kbps is 1831054.69 kB/s
Or 15000 Mbps  ::: 1831.05 MB/sec

TheHalf™

Well that sort of makes sense using your silly American system, but nobody other than people who access to the backbone structure of the internet has speeds that fast.

291

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: November 28, 2007, 11:21:31 am »

It's just understanding kB - kb and recognizing the upper\lower case b and in some instances where the b is always lower case the upper and lower case k...Kb\KB. Anyhoo there's a simple conversion calculator you can use to identify what you may be getting for what your paying for:

Click there---> http://www.testmy.net/tools/convert.php

And here would be my Kb\KB or kb\KB: 15Mbps\2Mbps (15,000,000\2,000,000) = 1831.05MB\244.14MB

TheHalf™

Somehow I don't think 15Mbps = 1831.05 MBps 

292

Computers - Technology / Re: 8800GT - The only graphics card that matters

« on: November 28, 2007, 11:19:46 am »

I've had an Nvidia card my whole life.
Geforce 256, Geforce 2, Geforce 3 Ti300, Geforce 4600Ti, Geforce 5950 Ultra, Geforce 7800GT, Geforce 8800GTX

Only generation I skipped was 6..damn

My first card (non-family computer) was a Geforce 6600, amazing price / performance when I bought, it was some time before upgrades were seriously worth while.

293

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: November 28, 2007, 06:01:32 am »

I take back what I said in the last part. I understand why you guys use 1024 bytes in a kilobyte now, since the REAL SI prefix kilo is for 1000. (kibi is for 1024)

wow we have a messed up system in the US..

at least we don't refer to weight as stones though

Haha, technically speaking we've moved to metric for everything other than measurement of distance (all our road signs and speedometres are still in miles). But yeah, just through habit most people refer to weight of a person in stones. But measurement of most weight is now metric like we can go and get 2 kgs of Potatoes, with notable exceptions of old street markets and milk which is still mainly measured in pints , although often the bottles say 0.568 litres lol.

It's ofcourse worth mentioning that at this point, our pints are bigger than yours, 1 of our pints is about 1.2 of your pints 

And yeah, I was about to make a post on SI units and stuff and how it's very important in maths and science to have no ambiguity, so we don't end up in a mess  . But the forum pointed out a new post had been made.

294

General Discussion / Re: Download Speeds

« on: November 28, 2007, 05:36:47 am »

Well no, technically

1000 bits = 1 kilobit
1000 bytes = 1 kilobyte

1024 bits = 1 kibibit
1024 bytes = 1 kibibyte


But that's not important, how the ISPs measure it is important. In the U.K when they say 8 mbps connection they mean 8*1024*1024 bits per second, they may scam you even more in the U.S than they do in the U.K though.

295

Bugs & Feature Requests / Re: search help?

« on: November 27, 2007, 07:07:39 am »

Okey, if i have a long name do I use " " ?

Bit Che just sends your search to the torrent search engine, removes results which don't contain the words in your search, removes results which contain words you request it to remove and then displays the remaining results. For example:

freeware browser -firefox

'freeware browser' is sent to every selected torrent search engine
Results come back to Bit Che
Results without "freeware" and "browser" are removed unless you have ticked "Include descriptive results"
Results with the word "firefox" are removed
All remaining results are displayed.

296

Computers - Technology / Re: CPU mistake

« on: November 27, 2007, 06:56:44 am »

Yeah, I've just been browsing through wikipedia, these 2 distributions both seem good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_Small_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather_Linux

Here's a larger over view of Linux distributions with the goals of running as being serious OS' running at tiny system requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Linux

297

Computers - Technology / Re: CPU mistake

« on: November 27, 2007, 06:42:28 am »

So the one you have now is 100Mhz FSB and the one you ordered was 133Mhz?

I don't think that could make up for the fact that it's half the clock speed. (667 vs. 1300)

  feel like a proper plonker. But still, I can always resurrect the old Win98(somewhere in the attic) 4MB hd,lol.
Install a very cheap Mobo and PSU. Cut a bigger hole in the case for better ventilation and install the CPU.Might do for letter writing.
cheers

If it was me, I'd look at installing an extremely light version of Linux, see if I can't put together something that has a pretty good response time for just e-mails / letter writing and stuff. But for me that'd be a really fun project ^_^.

298

Music - Movies - TV / Re: [movie] Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem

« on: November 27, 2007, 04:44:29 am »

I think I'm going to like this one. The trailers make it look even better than the first one.

Which presumably is about as hard as walking upright for 1/2 a second (oh dear the 1st one was awful  )

299

Bugs & Feature Requests / Re: search help?

« on: November 27, 2007, 03:11:55 am »

Say you were searching for Linux, but didn't want any results with the word ubuntu in it you'd type:

Linux -ubuntu

In to the search box.

300

Computers - Technology / Re: CPU mistake

« on: November 25, 2007, 07:06:55 am »

Well assuming no motherboard incompatibilities, it should certainly fit in the computer. But I doubt it'll be worth it, I've been checking various wikipedia reference tables and putting the data in to Intel's database and I've found this about the CPUs:

Your current one:
Release Date: January 3, 2002
Manufacturing Technology:  0.13 micron (lower is better)
L2 Cache Speed:  1.3GHz

The one you've ordered:
Release Date: October 25, 1999
Manufacturing Technology:  0.18 micron (lower is better)
L2 Cache Speed:  667MHz (guess it has 1:1 ratio with clock speed)

So by all accounts, your current one should be better.

Links I used:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL3XW
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL5VR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microprocessors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_microprocessors#Pentium_III