"Ambrose Nankivell" <
[email protected]> writes:
>In news:[email protected],
>Andy Leighton <[email protected]> typed:
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:57:12 +0100, DG <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Been through it all -
>>> 9.6 Kb/s modem - very, very, very sloooooooooow, but got there -
>>> eventually 28 Kb/s modem - very slooooow
>>> Upgraded to 33 Kb/s modem - sloooow
>> Where is the 1200/75 modem for Prestel et al?
>> Where is the 300 baud modem?
>> 9.6 Kb/sec was sheer luxury - but you try and tell the young people
>> today that ...
>Do you know how long this 328MB download's going to take at 20KB/s? 4 hours,
>I tell you.
>We did have Prestel when I were a lad, though. We used it for online
>shopping about 4 or 5 times. Quite exciting.
>I had a 9.6K modem with AOL 2.5. It was by far the cheapest way to get
>internet connectivity at home back in 1996 at #4 a month plus per minute
>charges plus phone call.
>Those were the days...
It's like roads. Built more of them and more people spend more time
faffing about on them. Why do we need so much computer comms speed?
Largely to carry spam, ****, advertising animations, absurdly otiose
text graphics because the maketing dept didn't think the available
fonts quite carried the commercial message with enough oomph, viruses,
trojans, spambots, and Microsh**t software "updates".
According to my local cable engineer, almost all the bandwidth on my
own local cable connection consists of viruses vainly hammering on the
doors of my firewall. He says the biggest speed improvement broadband
has brought is that your computer can now become infected in several
seconds, e.g., the several seconds between your rebooted computer
connecting to the cable modem, and your security programs loading up
and closing the doors.
--
Chris Malcolm
[email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]