Re: Total Conversion.... - XCC Forum | Register | Login | Search History | Home | Messages |
Total Conversion.... | Namretti | 19:53 23-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Gotrek | 07:18 25-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Slow Poke | 14:16 25-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Gotrek | 08:09 26-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | ViPr | 10:01 26-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Blade | 16:15 26-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Gotrek | 08:05 27-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Blade | 15:11 27-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | will | 20:17 27-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Olaf van der Spek | 20:58 27-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | will | 21:01 27-11-2001 |
> > remember, the max capacity of these systems is actually the lowest capacity of any link in the chain between you and the server, so a big pipe out is often surplus
> That's wrong. That's the max speed of a link. But the max speed of your own connection is the sum of all link speeds.
meant that if you want download something from a server out on the web, and that server is on the end of a T3 or something or is busy, then you might not get the benefit of your own cable 'capacity' etc. Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I work with the next-gen stuff.
> > any fixed connection is great, even if it is only 245k or something. Actually, much faster is not very noticeable unless you are a divx freak..
> Is that kbit or kbyte?
Re: Total Conversion.... | Olaf van der Spek | 00:15 28-11-2001 | 3 | |
Re: Total Conversion.... | will | 00:39 28-11-2001 | ||
Re: Total Conversion.... | Koen van de Sande | 05:37 28-11-2001 |
Home | Post | Users | Messages |