Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 43054 2004-03-02 02:16:00 Woosh is slow ..... 59kbps to sites in the US KiwiTT (4082) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
219442 2004-03-02 02:16:00 I went into DSE the other day and had them demo a Speed test (www.numion.com/yourspeed/index.html) and I only got 59kbps (only 3kbps faster than dialup) while testing USA sites.

I suspect there is some bandwidth throttle for "International Sites". This is way off the 6 x Dialup advertised.

However, if you want portablility it would be fine, but not as a "broadband" alternative, which it obviously is not (yet).
KiwiTT (4082)
219443 2004-03-02 02:19:00 Site should be this (www.numion.com) KiwiTT (4082)
219444 2004-03-02 05:48:00 Interseting site:D

Jetstart

Mozilla Firebird to the USA - 41 frames
Throughput
12782 Bps
bytes per second

Throughput
102 kbps
kilobits per second

Mozilla Firebird to the World - 41 frames
Throughput (2)
12592 Bps
bytes per second

Throughput
101 kbps
kilobits per second


IE6 to the USA - 41 frames
Throughput (2)
14710 Bps
bytes per second

Throughput
118 kbps
kilobits per second

IE6 to the World - 41 frames
Throughput (2)
13216 Bps
bytes per second

Throughput
106 kbps
kilobits per second

I have been using Firebird for a few weeks now, thought it seemed faster ... according to this IE is :|

J
:D
Jester (13)
219445 2004-03-02 10:05:00 I'm using woosh in Invercargill and to NZDSL speedtest (www.nzdsl.co.nz) I used to get 280k download, now for some reason I'm only getting 16k at max. They have stuffed something up for sure. This just happend since Sunday. I've rung helpdesk and they investigated, but nothing yet. Woosh even use that site for bandwidth testing. Might be rigged or something to give off better speed?

I made this thread (pressf1.pcworld.co.nz) the other day about how unhappy I was :p
PoWa (203)
219446 2004-03-02 10:12:00 Whoops I used to get 280k/s = 34kBytes/sec
But now I'm only getting 111.4k/s = 13.7 kBytes/sec.

So basically half the speed. The helpdesk guy said if it wasn't fixed by tomorrow, then they would refund me some $$. Woosh 30day trial is up in 7days time, seriously considering getting rid of it at this stage. Would be a shame though.

The technology just isn't quite there yet. They invented this shamble of a device for attaching the boost antenna to the modem. Even my Dad said it was the most flimsy thing he's ever seen as he tried to attach it to the modem.

I feel like taking photos of it :^O
PoWa (203)
219447 2004-03-02 10:43:00 I feel like taking photos of it

go on then!
Jester (13)
219448 2004-03-04 07:24:00 Ok picture 1 (sal.neoburn.net), the booster antenna is attached. Look closely at the green clip thing.

Thats the D-Link DI-704P router that works with woosh. Quite averagely I say too.

Picture 2 (sal.neoburn.net) you can see the flimsy green clip is off. Exposed is a black thing which basically does nothing, its just a very loosely fitted cover.

Picture 3 (sal.neoburn.net) you can see that the green clip has fallen off completely and the black bit is nothing more than a cover. The white cord is held into the modem by nothing now, in fact its a random anomoly that its staying in there at all.

Picture 4 (sal.neoburn.net) the modem is side on and the white cord has jumped out of the side of the modem.

Now if you are attempting to put this contraption together you will swear at least 2 times. I rate it 1/10 for design and inventiveness. They could have invented something like a rj45 connector for it, but no.

Comments..
PoWa (203)
219449 2004-03-04 07:27:00 Oh btw that was a 2MP camera. Sorry Metla, 2MP is horrible quality :p PoWa (203)
219450 2004-03-04 09:06:00 That does look pretty flimsy though from what I can see. Hardly a long term solution!

There's not a macro button on the camera? I just tried a pic of the back of my router in my low lit office without a flash, but with the pic of a flower in the display. I guess that's the macro function. It's a Canon 2IXUS cam with 2 MP.

sal.neoburn.net

The flash would have washed it out too much and if I had more light in here it would have been better. I reduced it in quality from 200 to about 70 kb for loading time, I don't think it's too bad though.

Drifting off topic here a bit lol.
Jester (13)
219451 2004-03-04 09:23:00 My eyes,my eyes.....


Fair call,the quality of those shots are terrible,what brand of camera is it?

Can't say ive taken any close up shots with mine,but i think i might just to see how they turn out.
metla (154)
1 2 3