playing doom2 online

Hirogen2 · Post by **Hirogen2** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:51 pm

Hah, if T-Online supported 56k's like you said they'd function perfectly.
Unfortunately T-Offline does not, it randomly pushes 56k'ers onto the end of
the packet transferring chain. So if your ISP is bitchy, it can really ruin the
day

Post by **randi** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 5:39 pm

[quote="Biff]First off, you need a "controller" modem, not a "Winmodem".[/quote]
With processors as fast as they are now, I don't think this advice is applicable anymore. The performance hit from a WinModem could be significant on an old Pentium, but it's very minimal now. In my experience, WinModems work better. Example: Pulled a hardware modem that would never connect above 44 kbps from a machine and replaced it with a WinModem, and the machine now consistantly connects at 50.6 kbps. The ping to the ISP is "only" 143 ms.

Of course, modems are still slow, whether they're hardware or software based.

Biff · Post by **Biff** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:23 pm

There must be something else going on regarding modem types. When I got a 1 Ghz machine a few years back, it had a very cheap modem which used extra drivers vs. on-card hardware. My usual 150 ping to csdoom or zdaemon servers was 250 at best. Went out and got a USR (3Com?) internal modem and 150 ping was restored.

Connect rate - the modem sometimes would connect as high as 48,000, usually 45,333 but the connection didn't seem as stable. When I capped the rate at 44,000 the ping seemed to vary less. Also, I never got as low a ping with v90 protocol as I did with X2 and the USR modem (and ISP) would go either way, depending on the init string.

Post by **Xaser** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:57 pm

randy wrote:[quote="Biff]First off, you need a "controller" modem, not a "Winmodem".

[/quote]

Good lord! I must be seeing things! Did randy just mess up on a quote, or are my glasses on wrong???

Zell · Post by **Zell** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:22 pm

Xaser wrote:
randy wrote:[quote="Biff]First off, you need a "controller" modem, not a "Winmodem".
Good lord! I must be seeing things! Did randy just mess up on a quote, or are my glasses on wrong???

good lord! i must beeing seeing things? Did you just screw another quote?

just kidding

HotWax · Post by **HotWax** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:55 pm

Randy is a programmer. Therefore if a mistake is made it will naturally be a single missing quotation mark character that proceeds to fuck everything up. Ordinarily, however, it would be buried in 2,000 lines of code . . .

Eevee · Post by **Eevee** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:48 pm

Or a missing semicolon in the most obscure non-semicolon-looking place possible, can't forget that... and then the compiler only notices an error several hundred lines of code later...

Post by **Chris** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:52 pm

Randy wrote:
Biff wrote:First off, you need a "controller" modem, not a "Winmodem".
With processors as fast as they are now, I don't think this advice is applicable anymore.

In my experience, it's not so much internal vs. external, it's the brand of modem. I had a Motorola SM56 internal modem, and it would connect at speeds in excess of 54666bps. However, I suffered frequent disconnects, and if I got a 5kb/s download, I was lucky. I switched it for an external 28.8 Zoom modem, and even though it wouldn't connect any faster than 28800bps, I was pulling at least 4kb/s, and at times hitting 6 or even 8kb/s!

Of course I've since moved to cable so it's not so much of a concern for me now.