Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The problem with online games...

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 1:03:06 AM

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/

More about : problem online games

August 27, 2004 3:52:46 AM

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
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:55:12 AM

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/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:00:18 AM

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?
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:01:28 AM

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.
:) 
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 9:32:10 AM

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.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 9:32:11 AM

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 
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 10:04:07 PM

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??
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 10:54:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 10:54:13 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 3:14:24 AM

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. :) 
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 12:29:30 AM

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
!