..

I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference (about 8
times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps over a
phoneline).

I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
internet?

thanks  :-)

..

Troy.Heagy@gmail.com wrote:

> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
> internet?

DSL should be fast enough to display an image before a compressor could
even compress the image much less display it. 

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
)
) Troy.Heagy@gmail.com wrote:
)
)> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
)> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
)> internet?
)
) DSL should be fast enough to display an image before a compressor could
) even compress the image much less display it. 

Not quite.  Compression could benefit network connections of any bandwidth,
it's just that you need more processing power for more bandwidth.

However, there is a catch:
The fundamental difference between low-speed and high-speed connections
is the type of data that is transferred across it.  More specifically, on
low-speed, more of the data is of a compressible nature (such as text), and
on high-speed, more of it is already compressed (like jpg images or video).


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

Troy.Heagy@gmail.com "unimpressively" said:

> .
> 
> I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
> connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
> sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference (about 8
> times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps over a
> phoneline).
> 
> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
> internet?
> 
> thanks  :-)
> 
> .

Uh, all of those web acceleratore things are pointless. They don't
speed up surfing at all, and don't speed up downloads either. If you
want shitty compressed images just set your display to 256 colors. LOL.


Get Firefox, install Firetune, uninstall the QOSPacket Scheduler, then
make sure you have your connection setup properly. (You need to
determine which settings to use, either hardware compression or
software compression.

I use software compression and set my maximum bps at 240,000 which
allows for slightly high throughput from the computer port.



-- 

Troy.Heagy@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
> internet?
>
> thanks  :-)

yes, google produced a product that they say accelerates a broadband
connection.  i've never used it, so i can't give you an opinion.

here's the link:

http://webaccelerator.google.com/

<Troy.Heagy@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1153917357.464703.115840@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> .
>
> I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
> connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
> sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference (about 8
> times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps over a
> phoneline).
>
> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
> internet?
>
> thanks  :-)
>

I think google has an excellerator. 

Mr. Impressive wrote:
> Troy.Heagy@gmail.com "unimpressively" said:
>
> > I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
> > connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
> > sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference (about 8
> > times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps phoneline).
> >
> > .
>
> Uh, all of those web acceleratore things are pointless. They don't
> speed up surfing at all, and don't speed up downloads either.....

..

Sorry bud, but the Netscape Accelerator DOES make a difference.  It
squeezes 100 kilobyte images to 20 kilobytes, which I'm sure you know
well, will take less time to send over the wire.  (And most of those
images are ads. so I don't care how bad they look.)

It also compresses flash video and text.  From a recent session:
3700 kb of text
compressed to only 350 kb.

Again, it will take a LOT less time to send this information across the
wire.  So NO the accelerator/compressor is NOT pointless.

..

Jordan wrote:
) Troy.He...@gmail.com wrote:
)> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
)> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
)> internet?
)
) DSL should be fast enough to display an image before a compressor
could
) even compress the image much less display it.

..
His connection is only 128kbps... barely twice as fast as my 56kbps
dialup.  So, it WILL be beneficial to squash the images before they are
sent across that slow DSL connection.

(more below)


akjack@excite.com wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:22:38 +0000 (UTC), Willem <willem@stack.nl>
>
> >low-speed, more of the data is of a compressible nature (such as text), and
> >on high-speed, more of it is already compressed (like jpg images or video).
>
> An interesting theory that isn't credible.  A data connection isn't
> able to distinguish between text and jpg images or video.

..

Right.  Whether I am looking at NBC.com with a dialup or a dsl/cable
connection, it's still the SAME content; still the same ratio of text
and images.  (I wonder what Willem was smoking?)

Also both jpeg and flash videos are compressible.  True, they look like
crap after the process if finished, but I'd rather have speed than a
bunch of pretty images which are mostly just stupid ads.  (And if I
want quality, like say a nude beach site, I always have the option to
turn it off.)  ;-)

..

<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1153962040.294296.123320@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>> Uh, all of those web acceleratore things are pointless. They don't
>> speed up surfing at all, and don't speed up downloads either.....
>
> Sorry bud, but the Netscape Accelerator DOES make a difference.  It
> squeezes 100 kilobyte images to 20 kilobytes, which I'm sure you know
> well, will take less time to send over the wire.  (And most of those
> images are ads. so I don't care how bad they look.)

I agree.  I tested Dialup Accelerator and it definitely loaded web pages
much faster for me.  http://www.miliki.net/miliki/products/dialup.php

I was so impressed that I even started asking on the Firefox forums as
to whether there was an equivalent FF extension, but there doesn't
seem to be.  Maybe one day?

John wrote:
> "Mr. Impressive" <10inches@Home.com> wrote in message
> > Uh, all of those web acceleratore things are pointless. They don't
> > speed up surfing at all
>
> Wrong.  They do work, according to my own tests with a stopwatch
..

No need for a stopwatch.  When my Netscape Accelerator/compressor loses
the connection, the slowdown is immediate.  Like molasses.  The
difference is easily seen.


John wrote:
> <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Sorry bud, but the Netscape Accelerator DOES make a difference.  It
> > squeezes 100 kilobyte images to 20 kilobytes, which I'm sure you know
> > well, will take less time to send over the wire.  (And most of those
> > images are ads. so I don't care how bad they look.)
>
> I agree.  I tested Dialup Accelerator and it definitely loaded web pages
> much faster for me.  http://www.miliki.net/miliki/products/dialup.php
> I was so impressed that I even started asking on the Firefox forums as
> to whether there was an equivalent FF extension, but there doesn't
> seem to be.  Maybe one day?

..

Yeah I discovered Netscape Accelerator does not work with firefox while
using my Netscape browser.  I wondered why some pages were slow &
others fast, and then I noticed that the slow pages were
firefox-enabled.  Once I changed them to IE-formated, they immediately
sped up.

I wonder how that Miliki product works?  NA works because my ISP,
netscape, pre-compresses all the images/text before sending it over the
wire.

..

videonovels@yahoo.com "unimpressively" said:

> Mr. Impressive wrote:
> > Troy.Heagy@gmail.com "unimpressively" said:
> > 
> > > I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
> > > connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
> > > sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference
> > > (about 8 times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps
> > > phoneline).
> > > 
> > > .
> > 
> > Uh, all of those web acceleratore things are pointless. They don't
> > speed up surfing at all, and don't speed up downloads either.....
> 
> .
> 
> Sorry bud, but the Netscape Accelerator DOES make a difference.  It
> squeezes 100 kilobyte images to 20 kilobytes, which I'm sure you know
> well, will take less time to send over the wire.  (And most of those
> images are ads. so I don't care how bad they look.)
> 
> It also compresses flash video and text.  From a recent session:
> 3700 kb of text
> compressed to only 350 kb.
> 
> Again, it will take a LOT less time to send this information across
> the wire.  So NO the accelerator/compressor is NOT pointless.
> 
> .

You still don't get it do you.

Those images have to run through a server to be compressed,(they now
have to make more hops to reach the destination) slowing down the time
it takes for them to reach your computer. And how exactly is it faster?
Your browser is only loading the compressed images now, not the
original. That means you are NOT seeing the full sized image only a
compressed version of it. It's like saying I can download desktop
wallpaper faster by compressing it, only problem is that now it looks
like total shit. You aren't downloading the image, only a compressed
version of it.

If you don't want ads why not use Firefox? 

If you don't care how the images look why not simply turn them off?

Same with the text, which even uncompressed I can download at 40Kbps on
dialup anyway.

POINTLESS!!!

Your downloads are still slow.

How about a race?
I connect at 44K and can load this page http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
in just under 21 seconds, with full images. With images turned off it
loads in 5 seconds.

Can you load it in 5 seconds with your Netscape Accelerator?

-- 

Brenden D. Chase "unimpressively" said:

> 
> <Troy.Heagy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153917357.464703.115840@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > .
> > 
> > I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
> > connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
> > sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference (about 8
> > times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps over a
> > phoneline).
> > 
> > I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
> > brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
> > internet?
> > 
> > thanks  :-)
> > 
> 
> I think google has an excellerator.

Yeah, I've used it. I think all it does is try to cache certian
websites. My pages loaded slower with it, even when I set it to dialup.
The few times it did seem faster the little tab would read something
like .1 seconds saved or something. LOL.

Junk.

-- 

Troy.Heagy@gmail.com wrote:
> .
>
> I use a program called "Netscape Accelerator" for my 56K dialup
> connection.  This program / compressor squashes the images before
> sending them over the wires, and it makes a HUGE difference (about 8
> times faster for an effective throughput of ~400 kbps over a
> phoneline).
>
> I'd like to see if I can get something like that to speed-up my
> brother's DSL connection.  Does such a thing exist for hi-speed
> internet?

Possible, just  need a host with a lot of bandwidth.  Then use
something like squid proxy which talks to a proxy on the other end
[your host] and compresses data inbetween.

Good luck finding an ISP over DSL that runs that setup...

Tom

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Mr. Impressive <10inches@home.com> wrote:

> You still don't get it do you.

> Those images have to run through a server to be compressed,(they now
> have to make more hops to reach the destination) slowing down the time
> it takes for them to reach your computer. And how exactly is it faster?
> Your browser is only loading the compressed images now, not the
> original. That means you are NOT seeing the full sized image only a
> compressed version of it. It's like saying I can download desktop
> wallpaper faster by compressing it, only problem is that now it looks
> like total shit. You aren't downloading the image, only a compressed
> version of it.

I actually used to test one of the web accelerator programs.  It didn't 
compress images, but would convert .jpgs into .gifs and reduce their 
colormaps.  The result would be a smaller file size, but a fuzzier image.  
You could still request the original after the page finished loading.

The accelerator also compressed text - but then again, many web browsers 
AND web servers support compressed HTML, so you don't need  an 
accelerator for that.  Also, all modern browsers and web servers support 
multiple connections, meaning that if a page contains 5 images and some 
text, each of these elements would download simultaneously.  So over a 
broadband connection, there's not much you can do speed this up.  After 
all, most webpage elements aren't even 100K in size and even then, the 
bottleneck is usually at the remote server, or the internet itself - not 
your actual connection. 

The accelerator had some other tricks as well, but most of it boiled down 
to caching.  Essentially, the accelerator client would cache not just 
images, but chunks of text from websites.  The server end of the 
accelerator would fetch the page, and determine what pieces you already 
had on your local drive.  Therefore you only downloaded what you were 
missing - but only from the accelerator server.  The accelerator server 
still needed to request and download the webpage(s) in question.

> If you don't want ads why not use Firefox? 

Promoxitron - a kick butt proxy server for your PC that can be used to 
dynamically rewrite incoming HTML pages.  Main uses are to strip out 
things like banner ads, popups, pop unders, etc.

> If you don't care how the images look why not simply turn them off?

Unfortunatly a lot of sites are now using Flash for ads - which I find 
really annoying.  Larger sized files, annoying animations you can't turn 
off, and all for junk I don't want/care.  Ahh...Promoxitron.

> How about a race?
> I connect at 44K and can load this page http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
> in just under 21 seconds, with full images. With images turned off it
> loads in 5 seconds.

> Can you load it in 5 seconds with your Netscape Accelerator?

Be sure to clear all the caches on your browser and accelerator.  
Remember, accelerators only work because you tend to view the same 
sites/pages over and over again, allowing your browser and accelerator 
client to cache a significant  amount of content on these pages.  And 
using a (mostly) static page won't give you good results at all, since 
after one view, it'll be completely cached.  Then it won't matter what 
your connection speed is - you won't need the internet at all.

>  Mr. Impressive <10inches@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>> videonovels wrote:
>
>>> Sorry bud, but the Netscape Accelerator DOES make a difference.
>>> It also compresses flash video and text.  From a recent session:
>>> 3700 kb of text  compressed to only 350 kb.
>
>
> > You still don't get it do you.  And how exactly is it faster?
> > Your browser is only loading the compressed images now, not the
> > original. That means you are NOT seeing the full sized image only a
> > compressed version of it. ...........

..

No shit sherlock (way to state the obvious genius).  That's the whole
point..... I see a page of compressed images that only takes 10 seconds
to load, instead of a full minute.  and that's why I LIKE netscape's
accelerator/compressor.

> > If you don't care how the images look why not simply turn them off?

I did that back in 1995, but it's not a fun way to surf.  And now in
2006, it's nearly impossible.  Many menus are only available in
image-format, so if you don't load the images, you can not access the
menus!

Plus, I do like to have SOME pictures, even if they are just blurry
representations of the real article.

..



Doug Jacobs wrote:
> I actually used to test one of the web accelerator programs.  It didn't
> compress images, but would convert .jpgs into .gifs and reduce their
> colormaps.  The result would be a smaller file size, but a fuzzier image.
> You could still request the original after the page finished loading.

Exactly.  Although Netscape does continue using .jpgs, but they are
re-encoded to "very poor" quality in order to make them as small as
possible.  Animated Gifs are stripped to a single nom-moving frame.



> The accelerator also compressed text - but then again, many web browsers
> support compressed HTML, so you don't need an accelerator for that.  ........

Not in my experience.  I can see a definite difference while reading a
"text-only" site like Googlegroups usenet website.  Turning off the
compressor slows things down.  Turning it back on, speeds things up
again & that really helps with a slow 50kbps connection.

..






> > If you don't care how the images look why not simply turn them off?
>
> Unfortunatly a lot of sites are now using Flash for ads - which I find
> really annoying.  Larger sized files, nimations you can't turn off


That's another thing that Netscape compresses.  Flash animations become
smaller and less bandwidth-stealing, although the resulting image is
blurry.  But as you said, those are ads and you don't want to see them,
so who cares how bad it looks.

..