[Folker]

I guess no question is stupid, but still...

A lot of attention is given to computer speed. I have two Macs, this G3 350 iMac and I was recently given a G4 400. I have a gazillion questions regarding both (many of which are answered by this great forum, thanks), but my biggest question is related to surfing speed. Does upgrading the CPU on a machine or increasing memory quicken internet speed? Things like Ebay are woefully slow for me to navigate. I have TimeWarner DSL. Before I consider any upgrades, is the speed of the internet determined by servers more than what's in your computer? In other words, if I had a brand new machine, would the speed I experience at home be any quicker?

Thanks in advance,
Steve

[ghporter]

Most old machines are faster than the potential broadband speed that consumers can get-even Optimum Online customers that can get up to THIRTY Mbps! It hasn't been a question of computer speed for a long time.

However, with a faster, newer machine you CAN make use of a lot of newer technologies on the customer end, like viewing streaming video and movie trailers full screen. This is about your video system, not the processor speed.

And now a question: Where does TimeWarner (a cable carrier where I am) serve up DSL? DSL and cable internet are two very different things.

To find out what your real speed is, use one of the numerous speed checking sites. I like SpeedTest.net myself. This will tell you how fast your connection to the Internet REALLY is. Give it a shot. I use AT&T's DSL service, with the "Pro" package, rated at "up to" 6Mbps downloads with "up to" 600kbps uploads, and SpeetTest shows my download speed at just over 5Mbps and my upload speed at well over 600kbps. Nice to know.

[mduell]

Normally this is one of those questions that is so silly they would be laughed at. The speed of your internet connection is all about the connection itself and not the computer you're using.

But your computers are so old and slow that the features of modern web browsers and complexity of modern web pages may be enough to bring them to their knees.

Try one of the bandwidth tests (like dslreports.com) to see how your bandwidth is. If it's fast (>1Mbps) then upgrading your CPU/RAM may help. If it's slow (50kbps) then there's something wrong with your internet connection.

[Folker]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Normally this is one of those questions that is so silly they would be laughed at. The speed of your internet connection is all about the connection itself and not the computer you're using.

But your computers are so old and slow that the features of modern web browsers and complexity of modern web pages may be enough to bring them to their knees.

Try one of the bandwidth tests (like dslreports.com) to see how your bandwidth is. If it's fast (>1Mbps) then upgrading your CPU/RAM may help. If it's slow (50kbps) then there's something wrong with your internet connection.

I appreciate your not laughing at me for my silly question, I forewarned a dumb question was about to follow...

I really didn't know what impact one had on the other. A speed test revealed 1.3Mbps which was rated as "Good." I also realize that I have broadband and not DSL. Most sites are painfully slow to browse.

Thanks for the suggestions/help, appreciate it.

[ghporter]

If you're getting 1.3Mbps and sites are still "painfully slow," then something is wrong. You're on the "edge" of needing faster hardware with speeds like this-though as mduell says, current browsers place some pretty high demands on the hardware (which I failed to consider in my earlier post). At this speed, it shouldn't be "painful," though some slowness is probably unavoidable with your current hardware. I'd say that the odds are that there is something else slowing you down beside your aging hardware. What sort of network hardware do you have? (That would be a modem and maybe a router...)

[mduell]

Do you have any friends with a newer (>1.5Ghz) laptop or Mac mini? Have them bring it over and see how the internet performance compares.

[Big Mac]

Browsing in general should not be painfully slow on a G4 400. The Internet is still useable on my iBook 466, which is slower than your G4.

[Folker]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If you're getting 1.3Mbps and sites are still "painfully slow," then something is wrong. You're on the "edge" of needing faster hardware with speeds like this-though as mduell says, current browsers place some pretty high demands on the hardware (which I failed to consider in my earlier post). At this speed, it shouldn't be "painful," though some slowness is probably unavoidable with your current hardware. I'd say that the odds are that there is something else slowing you down beside your aging hardware. What sort of network hardware do you have? (That would be a modem and maybe a router...)

Thanks for the help, all.

The modem is a SMC 8013WG that has wireless capability for wife's business laptop. The iMac (350 Mhz) is hardwired. Company policy tells her that she can't surf the web so I can't compare using that. I haven't set up the G4, that's another whole host of issues. It's right next to me up and running, but it was previously set up on a school network and I'm unsure about setting up IP routing numbers and all the other stuff that I know very little about. I know the G4 is not for this thread, but i'm very anxious to see how it works in comparison. I'm of the belief that current websites' technologies are taxing my computer's ability to handle them. I'm running 9.0.4 with no change in sight. At least with the G4 it seems like there is some potential for some modernizing.

[Will C]

Do you have sufficient RAM on your two machines? I have a 1.25GHz eMac with 1.25GB of RAM which is great for surfing and one of the first 500MHz iBooks with only 320MB* which is a bit sluggish. The iBook has to do a lot of caching to and from the HD while browsing. It is compounded of course by the 500MHz CPU, 66Mhz bus and my HD is a bit full - people suggest leaving 10-15% free for OS X.

The iBook also has the original airport which although it is up to 11Mbps (faster than my ISP), the speed reduces as the wireless connection becomes poorer.

*Yes I know I should increase it but PC100/133 SO-DIMM prices were a bit high compared to newer stuff and it is an old machine and it works well enough for me, the FW port is dead, it only has a 10GB HD and I would prefer to get a new machine soon as I don't use it that much etc etc.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Folker 

I'm running 9.0.4 with no change in sight.

I was about to ask you what OS you are running, but you answered that alone. "Classic" Mac OS (OS 9 and below) is very bad at handling fast internet connections. I have on the same old Powerbook G3 Mac OS 9.2 and Mac OS X 10.1. When booted in OS 9, the speed of my internet connection (6 Mbps) appears as seriously cut down (I don't remember the exact figure, but around half of its potential in the best case). On the same machine, OS X just handle it fine.

Keep however in mind that such an old machine (like yours or my old Powerboook) cannot guarantee a pleasant web experience since the web content today is too heavy for the really old processors found in these machines. So while OS X will let your computer(s) to take advantage of a high speed internet connection as expected, it may bring an old computer to its knees even when you are just browsing the internet. Sorry if I am not too encouraging but this how things work.

[Z's Mac]

And now a question: Where does TimeWarner (a cable carrier where I am) serve up DSL? DSL and cable internet are two very different things.

TimeWarner is the parent of AOL which does do DSL. Maybe that's the confusion.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Z's Mac 

TimeWarner is the parent of AOL which does do DSL. Maybe that's the confusion.

I thought about that, but they make a Big Deal about AOL's DSL being "AOL" and call their cable business "TimeWarner." Around here, you CANNOT get DSL without at least some input from AT&T (note that their headquarters is in good old San Antonio) because it's on telephone lines. It's just puzzling to me that a customer would not know what kind of broadband connection they have.

[Folker]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's just puzzling to me that a customer would not know what kind of broadband connection they have.

well, it puzzles me that people would drive their car without oil in the engine, too.

i know i don't have dial-up, and the differences between DSL and cable seem pretty moot. i happen to have cable, but not until about an hour ago did i know anything about the differences. this link was pretty useful for a rookie like me:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6536-72...tml?tag=subdir



bottom line is that i have a slow machine and there's not much hope on the way. thanks for all of the information, I appreciate the time you've given.

[ghporter]

Ah. I see your point. I'm sorry if my post sounded belittling, but your statements about your connection were very confusing to me.

And to me, the differences between cable and DSL are fairly important though not critical. Further, TimeWarner, tends to emphasize that they provide their service "with the same cable your TV comes in on" while DSL is often strongly identified as such. And I frankly could not provide a good explanation of what puzzled me until I figured out (or had explained, as you just did) what exactly you meant.

Again, I'm sorry if I came off rude.

So what's the status of your surfing speed issues? Considering the age of your computers, I'd say that the G3 is a prime candidate for honorable retirement, at least from surfing. Newer machines are able to do so much more for you that upgrading would be very rewarding, as long as you can afford it.

[Folker]

i've increased my memory in IE and that seems to have helped some-at least i'm not getting the Shockwave memory issues alert. i can live with it, but it's just a matter of time before it will be obsolete.

no sweat about the broadband question, many of you take this stuff for granted because of your extensive knowledge. some of us are newbies, but with a resource like this, we can learn. thanks.

practical upgrades for surfing on my G4 400 will be my next topic, but that's for another thread.

[gooser]

internet explorer? that's half of your problem right there.

[Folker]

i have no choice do i? i'm running 9.0.4, what are my other options?

[gooser]

upgrade to 9.1 and run mozilla. some like icab. some like opera.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by gooser 

upgrade to 9.1 and run mozilla. some like icab. some like opera.

Whatever version of OS 9 you use, is not going to do much good.

On the browser side though, the last OS 9 version of Mozilla (1.2.1) is one of the best classic browsers. The Mozilla organisation does not recommend using such an old piece of software for security reasons, however here is the link.

Also, iCab and Opera.

[P]

Originally Posted by Pierre B. 

Whatever version of OS 9 you use, is not going to do much good.

Updating to OS 9.1 actually helps speed a lot under certain circumstances, and it never hurts. Some code, including that related to task switching, was only optimized for PPC with OS 9.1. OS 9.2.1 brings a newer version of Open Transport, which might help you, but it is also the beginning of moving OS 9 into the purely Classic phase.

Which browser to use is trickier. IE isn't such a bad choice. Personally, I'd probably use iCab, but Mozilla isn't that bad either. Never tried Opera.

Surfing is perceived as faster on newer computers or faster browsers, as the rendering is snappier, but the actual speed mainly depends on the network connection.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by P 

Surfing is perceived as faster on newer computers or faster browsers, as the rendering is snappier, but the actual speed mainly depends on the network connection.

Yes, this is correct, but I am talking about actual downloading speed. I never saw my OS 9.2 or 8.5 installation approaching the full potential of the cable connection at home in big downloads, no matter what. In OS X though (even 10.1), while downloading the same file as before I always see the downloading speed I would expect for the line specifications. That's why I believe that Mac OS 9 and below is a bottleneck in internet traffic. Now, how much this would affect the surfing experience I cannot really tell, since OS 9 is usually found on old machines that are a processing bottleneck on their own.

[P]

Most browsers on OS 9 are slow - that is one factor, and probably the main one. The lack of preemptive multitasking also hurts network performance, espcially if the connection is highly asymmetric, as home cable and DSL usually is. General network performance in OS 8.5 and above is actually very good. It absolutely kills Win95/98 and is usually on par with Windows NT/2000 (never saw a comparison with XP, since XP was launched after OS X). Try using Anarchie as an FTP-client to download - you can saturate a 1 Mbit connection at least (the fastest I had while using OS 9).

And for fast browsing - Maclynx. Somewhat lacking in newer features, though - such as images...

[Folker]

i changed the iMac browser to Mozilla 1.3 and it does seem faster. i can honestly say that ebay is much easier to deal with-images load much faster. i tried iCab but i think i like the Mozilla better. i'll have to check the above security link above to see what that is all about. there's some kind soul out there who is working to work out the bugs in Mozilla and he has a site where you can download various versions of this program. his pages are set up in a way that i've never seen: a list of some sort that offers the capability to download different 'pieces" of the program. there are two different types of zip files-which one is for my iMac? does anyone know what i am talking about? this person has stated, as of 2004, that he thinks Mozilla 1.4 is the best version, i.e., bug free. do i choose the zip format and then download all of the different components?

thanks in advance-