Rapustin Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I know this may not be high priority but I was just wondering if the speed guide could be more refined with more options, or have a complete overhaul of options. For instance, for XXX/384k connections, it suggests 35k but when talking to Firon a while ago, he said 33k was a better option.So I'm wondering:1) Are the developers sure those settings really are the best ones to be used for each connection?2) Are there any more options that may be added to the speed guide, such as one for patched XP2 versions, let it change more options (such as the "advanced" options) that may be beneficial for certain connections?Basically, I want to see just how powerful this speed guide can become, and the more refined the connections get, it would help the network more, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 2) for the XP SP2 adding the advanced setting of "half open connections" that is currently the only hurting setting of SP2 would make nothing but hurt u more unless u had unpatched that limit in SP2 itself, so having it in the speedguide is a bad ideaeven if u had it unpatched XP reverting it to unpatched after almost every update wouldnt help either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapustin Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 That's true, I didnt realize that XP updates keep changing the sys file back. Even the IE7 beta changes it back. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 M$ is that stubborn, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yah because of their new stance on security... which is perfectly fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillerZero Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Ultima: Yes, crippling internet connectin for all applications is really GREAT idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Oh yeah, and allowing another Sasser and Blaster to spread is just as GREAT an idea! I'd gladly take this security measure than have another worm spread and bog down the ENTIRE INTERNET (not just your applications) just because of ignorant users opening emails promising "HOT NAKED LADIES RIGHT IN YOUR MAILBOX, FOR FREE!1!!!11!"And PLEASE, killing ALL internet-enabled applications? Get real. Not even a person who's "anti-M$" would make such a blind statement. Do you seriously believe that Microsoft would let such a change happen if it crippled internet-enabled applications for all users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 make a better idiot-proof tool, someone will make a better idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackspawn Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 No point in opening a new thread... can you add the setting for a XXX/416 Kbps connection?My current set up is:Upload Limit: 40 KB/sConnections (/torrent): 100Connections (global): 300Active torrents: 3Active Downloads: 2Upload slots: 4Is this ok? (for a 10Mbps/416Kbps connection) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 xxx/416kbps isnt a standard speed, most accurate would be xxx/448kbps, but even that isnt standard, anyway yes i think that should be added as difference between 384 and 512 is really big for so low, but then again other speeds should be added as well as 1mbit & 2 mbit have a lot of difference in between... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Just pick xx/384kbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Oh yeah, and allowing another Sasser and Blaster to spread is just as GREAT an idea! I'd gladly take this security measure than have another worm spread and bog down the ENTIRE INTERNET (not just your applications)Well, as someone pointed out in another thread...sometimes µTorrent was loading on startup before Win XP's firewall was.Or how there are innumerable ways windows allows all sorts of automated features to take over your computer without even mentioning global settings changes.Microsoft loves back doors probably more than companies like Sony...and the security-through-obscurity only works till virus makers discover those doors.I'd gladly take real security improvements over such dubious ones as Microsoft implimented with the 10 half-open near-unavoidable limit. It is understandable for a half-open limit to exist, but with that value set as low as 10 causes problems for more than just file-sharing programs.If more and more people are firewalled by a firewall program that works properly (read: slam on Zone Alarm and Norton), then worms like Sasser and Blaster will be more and more hard-pressed at finding computers to infect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 If more people weren't retards and opened every attachment, XP had better security from the get go, MS was faster at patching, and people weren't retarded and opened every attachment (yes I said it twice), it wouldn't be such a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.