|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dan
I'm still using MS 4.5 DOS as well but for other reasons than you. I
haven't looked at Y2K compliance because I just assumed it wouldn't be. Did
you generate your own test set? I'd be interested in hearing about what you
did and your results, even off line.
BTW, I know my ISP is SLOW. With my 56kbs modem, the most I've seen in
speed is 30-31.5kbs. That's why I just installed a 768kbs ADSL service, if
I ever get it running <G>.
Regards
Guy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of D.Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 7:53 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Results Re:Volunteers Tests 1&2
>
>
> List; (and Equis support)
>
> The results of my download tests (as seen thru my eyes) are:
>
> 1) The theoretical (and not attainable) download speed for the
> first file is:
> 10.55975758 seconds = 43,559 bytes * 8 bits per byte / 33,000 (33 Kbps)
>
> 2) More realistic (should be attainable) is to double the above number. I
> expected a 21 second download time and G.G. managed it in 20 seconds. (Guy
> your ISP is transmitting a little slow!)
>
> That is: 5700+ tickers in 20-30 seconds using a 33 Kbps modem! This is
> MAXIMUM! Therefore, if you have a slower or faster modem/ISP adjust the
> figures accordingly. Also, Jim G. with his 12,000 tickers should
> be able to
> handle that amount of data in 40-60 seconds, and again this is
> MAXIMUM using
> a 33 Kbps modem.
>
> OKAY, so what really happened? 2 weeks ago I was in central Africa. Now I
> am in South America, 100 miles past the last bastion of
> civilization if you
> call the last clutch of huts we past (without running water,
> electricity, or
> telephone), civilized. Due to some kinky USA law (I am not a US citizen)
> about the import/export of high technology to/into "unfriendly"
> governments
> (but friendly
> enough for the Americans to buy their Oil to run in their cars),
> I can only
> have a AT - yes an AT-286 class laptop in the field. My real
> computer (not a
> PC) is in a closet in a North American city, of which I have not
> physically
> seen in over 2 years. And, from the farthest reaches of the planet I
> convinced a "news-bot" to fetch the data, an OS to convert it into MS
> format, and a "mail-bot" to send/mail it out. That is, I (with the help of
> G.G and Guy T.) put 5700+ tickers on G.G computer (in Italy) in
> 20 seconds,
> and the same number of tickers on Guy T. computer (in Los Angeles) in 30
> seconds, from the middle of absolutely no where!
>
> Equis, your programmers at the air-conditioned ivory tower in
> Salt Lake City
> can't do this??
>
> Do tell: JUST, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE????
>
> Now, before you post your lame, (but politically correct) response, let me
> say I know exactly why YOU can't figure this out! Also, I am not
> afraid to
> post those reasons on this list! Your response please......
>
> BTW: Equis, you want to fiddle with the System Tester and maybe the
> Explorer (which do need improvements), but maybe, just maybe, you should
> start with the Downloader! Fix and perfect the data transmission system
> FIRST and BEFORE you start other improvement projects!
>
> Before anyone complains that 2 small test datasets justifies my position,
> think of this: Just how many GIF files are transmitted over this
> list error
> free? Binary data, or packed ASCII data after all is just data! And, the
> reason I am in the most distant places on this planet is due to
> Crude Oil. I
> am a Black Oil Reservoir Simulation Engineer, (Black Oil=Crude
> still in the
> ground), and why the makers of this planet couldn't place Black Oil
> Reservoirs closer to civilization is still a complete mystery to me!! <G>
> BOR databases are huge and pack down to a very small 20-25 megs which we
> routinely beam around the planet twice (maybe three, rarely four) times a
> day, fully secured!
>
> Listees, DEMAND BETTER! There isn't any reason on earth to see ID=800
> errors! (Or packet time-out errors, or any other transmission errors for
> that matter!)
>
> Dan H.
>
> PS: To add a little salt to this wound: Due to the old computer I am
> "forced" to use, I don't have a reason to upgrade my old MS for
> DOS version
> 4.0, which BTW, just happens to be Y2K compliant! Anyone want
> a/my Y2K test
> data set?
>
|