I have noticed that

R

Romeo26222

Guest
I have winxp pro edition...and i niticed that when Iam browsing the internet and start to download any file i found that the browsing speed becomes too low and it becomes fast and normal when finishing the download progress:eek:
I tried all the D/L program like getright,D/L accelerator and flashget but i got the same problem
when tring that on win98 i found it good no such problem in browsing and D/L in the same time
any comment please
thanx
 
Xp's probably allocating all the band width to your download. ( this you already know :) ) I cant speak for getright, but flashget allows you restrict the bandwidth allowed for the download. Theres a button that looks like three dots above an arrow, click this and you throttle the download to whatever you choose.
 
This is due to QoS (Quality of Service), it alters the allocation of bandwidth so that things that need more consistant bandwidth get it due to a higher priority.
This is best for Streaming movies, but it will allocate more bandwidth to a download over the browser needs. I would not recommend disabling though.

The reason that you dont have this problem in 9x/ME is because it is not included in ME, it is mainly for the newer features of the internet such as Messenger Video, and other video conferencing but still allows you to browse the internet as well.
 
I'm pretty sure you are wrong there gtgarside. Those downloading programs don't support QoS (unless they have all implemented it recently, which I doubt). Besides QoS only allocates up to 20% maximum, and that should not have such inpact.
 
I read something somewhere about 2 months ago, and it said that the QoS can have that kind of effect on internet browsing. It said something like QoS can when used with Download Utils, allocate bandwidth which is then not used by the Utility, as QoS only detects that the util is running and download activity is attributed to it, it doesnt free up that bandwidth until either the program stops using the bandwidth(download finishes) or the program is terminated (closed). That is basically what I can remember.

So from the information you have given QoS allocates say 20% to a download which then uses 20% of the bandwidth to download. As the QoS allocation is not used then you are then down to only 60% of your bandwidth remaining. Say you are downloading tow things each using 20%, you are then down to 40% per download which is 80% of your bandwidth leaving you with 20% of your bandwidth to browse with. On a Dialup even 60% is not much of the usual transfer rate. so 20% will be crawling.
 
I think you lost me in thos calculations... You mean QoS will reserve 20% for the util and the util would use some other 20% to download?

It said something like QoS can when used with Download Utils, allocate bandwidth which is then not used by the Utility, as QoS only detects that the util is running and download activity is attributed to it, it doesnt free up that bandwidth until either the program stops using the bandwidth(download finishes) or the program is terminated (closed).
That's plain stupid! (I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's plain stupid.) The util in question would have to implement QoS and if it does, why would it not use it? My guess is that QoS is a packet prioritizer rather than a bandwith limiter. That means that it won't steal any bandwidth unless there are packet who want to steal it. A QoS prioritized packet would be sent before other packets if there is a queue. But the other packets won't get stopped if there is room.

I'd like to see that article if you have an URL maybe?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back