The problem with online games...

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Is that if you want to download some stuff using Bittorrent streams, you
can't really play the games at the same time. How long before the average
home has multiple connections to the Internet? :)

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
11 answers Last reply
More about problem online games
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    "Polychromic" <macecil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:5ujsi0lna234bu55c94ml8e6moodslqmn2@4ax.com...
    > Is that if you want to download some stuff using Bittorrent streams, you
    > can't really play the games at the same time. How long before the average
    > home has multiple connections to the Internet? :)
    >

    What transfer rate is that then? Sounds like it must be quite high bandwidth
    to squeeze out UO. I'm not familiar with the name, but I have run p2p
    software with UO quite happily on a 512k dsl connection.

    What will be the average max d/l speed in 5 years time I wonder?

    Archeon
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:52:46 +0100, "Archeon" <archeon@ukgateway.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Polychromic" <macecil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:5ujsi0lna234bu55c94ml8e6moodslqmn2@4ax.com...
    >> Is that if you want to download some stuff using Bittorrent streams, you
    >> can't really play the games at the same time. How long before the average
    >> home has multiple connections to the Internet? :)
    >>
    >
    >What transfer rate is that then? Sounds like it must be quite high bandwidth
    >to squeeze out UO. I'm not familiar with the name, but I have run p2p
    >software with UO quite happily on a 512k dsl connection.

    Yeah, trying running Shareaza with 5-6 bittorrent streams downloading.
    Any one of them would dl at 2 Mbps if I paused the others so they're all
    fighting for the bandwidth I have. However, the real killer isn't the dl
    speed but the number of connections each dl makes. When you've got a bt
    stream with 2K connections it pretty much kills your connection. It's
    like a do-it-yourself-to-yourself DOS attack. 8)

    >What will be the average max d/l speed in 5 years time I wonder?

    Probably the same as now. It's taken 10+ years to go from 28.8 dialup to
    1.5Mbps broadband.

    --
    Michael Cecil
    http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:03:06 GMT, Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >Is that if you want to download some stuff using Bittorrent streams, you
    >can't really play the games at the same time. How long before the average
    >home has multiple connections to the Internet? :)

    YOu mean they don't ALL have multiple connections already?
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:52:46 +0100, "Archeon" <archeon@ukgateway.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Polychromic" <macecil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:5ujsi0lna234bu55c94ml8e6moodslqmn2@4ax.com...
    >> Is that if you want to download some stuff using Bittorrent streams, you
    >> can't really play the games at the same time. How long before the average
    >> home has multiple connections to the Internet? :)
    >>
    >
    >What transfer rate is that then? Sounds like it must be quite high bandwidth
    >to squeeze out UO. I'm not familiar with the name, but I have run p2p
    >software with UO quite happily on a 512k dsl connection.
    >
    >What will be the average max d/l speed in 5 years time I wonder?
    >
    >Archeon
    >

    I had hopes of everybody being on a fiber optic connection by the end
    of the decade..... but that doesn't look too promising at the moment.
    :)
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    "Alminair" <Alminair@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >That will not necessarily be the case in the future though. As fiber becomes
    >more cost-effective the bandwidth cap goes higher.

    The problem isn't the cost-effectiveness of fiber, it's the Last Mile
    problem.

    D.
    --
    Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    "Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:412ec72a.3048206@supernews.seanet.com...
    > "Alminair" <Alminair@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >That will not necessarily be the case in the future though. As fiber
    becomes
    > >more cost-effective the bandwidth cap goes higher.
    >
    > The problem isn't the cost-effectiveness of fiber, it's the Last Mile
    > problem.

    IMO the biggest thing that's going to drive this in the next 10 years is the
    customer. People are already getting a tast of broadband and it creates a
    desire for even faster speeds. Sooner or later (Hopefully sooner, most
    likely later) telco's will upgrade that last mile as a competitive edge.
    Once that happens every other will have to follow suit or die. Plus as it
    gets cheaper to make fiber it gets cheaper to install. The less that last
    mile costs the closer we are to getting it. One last thing to keep in
    mind... Modem to broadband took a long time... So did 286 to 386 PC's (8
    years if I remember correctly... now its a new processer every 6 months).
    Look at 'em now. The technology IS there the delay is cost. And fiber is
    getting cheaper every year. Also the other transmission meathods get better
    as well. In 10 years we might have OC-12 to the telco office, and wireless
    at the same speed to the home. Lovely thing about tech is it changes so fast
    you never really know what we can do until it is done. Hell people used to
    think (Before trains) that the human body traviling more than 25 miles per
    hour would cause death from moving to fast. :P
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    Skinner1@hotmail.com wrote:

    >
    > I had hopes of everybody being on a fiber optic connection by the end
    > of the decade..... but that doesn't look too promising at the moment.
    > :)
    >
    >

    Which decade??
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    "Alminair" <Alminair@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Sooner or later (Hopefully sooner, most likely later) telco's will upgrade
    >that last mile as a competitive edge.

    There is little incentive for them to do so, there isn't much
    competition in the land line business. (I.E. a single physical adress
    is served by a single telco, always.)

    >Once that happens every other will have to follow suit or die. Plus as it
    >gets cheaper to make fiber it gets cheaper to install.

    No. Labor costs are in no way related to the costs of the fiber. (A
    friend of mine is currently supervising the installation of a large
    county wide fiber plant... And labor accounts for over half his
    budget. The raw fiber less than 10%.)

    >The less that last mile costs the closer we are to getting it. One last thing to keep in
    >mind... Modem to broadband took a long time...

    DSL/broadband came on *very fast* when online living shifted from
    being the province of a few geeks to being a major part of peoples
    lives. (And what's available depends greatly on where you live.)

    >So did 286 to 386 PC's (8 years if I remember correctly... now its a new processer
    >every 6 months).

    You confuse the marketing driven 'updates' to a processor with a 'new'
    processor. You also seem to not realize that the later 286's were
    considerably faster than the early ones, they were no more static than
    any modern processor. (That non-staticness was hidden because few
    folks got E-rections over their machines, and because replacing the
    mobo/CPU combination was far more expensive than simply swapping out a
    new CPU as is frequently done today.)

    D.
    --
    Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    "Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:4131817c.5531007@supernews.seanet.com...
    > "Alminair" <Alminair@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >Sooner or later (Hopefully sooner, most likely later) telco's will
    upgrade
    > >that last mile as a competitive edge.
    >
    > There is little incentive for them to do so, there isn't much
    > competition in the land line business. (I.E. a single physical adress
    > is served by a single telco, always.)

    True in and of itself, however as other options such as wireless and
    satalite improve and take over the market share simple greed will prompt
    telcos to improve. After all that will be money they could be makeing.

    >
    > >Once that happens every other will have to follow suit or die. Plus as it
    > >gets cheaper to make fiber it gets cheaper to install.
    >
    > No. Labor costs are in no way related to the costs of the fiber. (A
    > friend of mine is currently supervising the installation of a large
    > county wide fiber plant... And labor accounts for over half his
    > budget. The raw fiber less than 10%.)

    Advances to fiber also covers installation. The longer a tech is in use the
    more ways are found to simplfy installation as well. 10 years ago the same
    project you mention would have cost multitudes more money both from the
    fiber cost AND the installation labor cost. All things improve over time.

    >
    > >The less that last mile costs the closer we are to getting it. One last
    thing to keep in
    > >mind... Modem to broadband took a long time...
    >
    > DSL/broadband came on *very fast* when online living shifted from
    > being the province of a few geeks to being a major part of peoples
    > lives. (And what's available depends greatly on where you live.)

    My point still stands that customer desire is what pushes this.Desire will
    only push the tech towards more bandwidth to the home. How fast? Who knows.
    It will have an effect though.

    >
    > >So did 286 to 386 PC's (8 years if I remember correctly... now its a new
    processer
    > >every 6 months).
    >
    > You confuse the marketing driven 'updates' to a processor with a 'new'
    > processor. You also seem to not realize that the later 286's were
    > considerably faster than the early ones, they were no more static than
    > any modern processor. (That non-staticness was hidden because few
    > folks got E-rections over their machines, and because replacing the
    > mobo/CPU combination was far more expensive than simply swapping out a
    > new CPU as is frequently done today.)

    *To correct myself: 286-Introduced Feb '82, 386SX-June '88, 386SL- Oct '90*
    No, I do not. The 286 was a 16 bit processor. The 386 is a 32 bit processor.
    That was a jump to a whole new level of processor. There was not even a
    mainstream operating system to USE the 32 bit processor until 10 years later
    whem MS brought out Win95. (I realsise that NT, Unix, and OS/2 did but they
    arguably were never mainstream.) Even in processors today are still getting
    better. Not huge jumps, and they are sitting on 'old' architecture, but the
    increases are there even with the 'marketing' issues asside. Just as an
    example using the iCOMP 2.0 as a measure the P74 scored 67 and the PII400
    scored 440. However this is way OT so if you don't agree with my point we
    can agree to disagree.

    >
    > D.
    > --
    > Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:04:07 -0500, "WindsorFox[SS]"
    <windsorfoxNO@SPAMcox.net> wrote:

    >Skinner1@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I had hopes of everybody being on a fiber optic connection by the end
    >> of the decade..... but that doesn't look too promising at the moment.
    >> :)
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Which decade??

    I don't know......

    There have been so many. :)
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

    Polychromic wrote:
    > Is that if you want to download some stuff using Bittorrent streams, you
    > can't really play the games at the same time. How long before the average
    > home has multiple connections to the Internet? :)
    >
    Your problem is not an "Online game problem", it's a bittorrent problem :-)
    The problem with bittorerent is that you allow others to use your
    bandwith as well. I have forbidden my kids to use it because when they
    start downloading stuff via bittorreent my upload stream goes 100%
    utilized, which effectively kills mine and the girlfriends attempt to
    play anything.

    /ZW
Ask a new question

Read More

Download Computers Games Torrent Video Games