there are some nice charts at the below link showing the quickness of
the new iphone... enjoy...
In loading a series of complex websites over Wi-Fi, AnandTech has found
that the 3G S is about 54 percent faster on average than the 3G and, in
a few cases, is about three times faster. But it's also about 11 percent
faster than the Palm Pre, which shares WebKit as a rendering engine, and
is only slower in two out of nine tests. That lead only grows wider with
the T-Mobile G1: as it's slower than the iPhone 3G, it's often twice as
fast or more.
Load times for commonly available apps were less dramatic between
iPhones but only exacerbated the gaps between the Pre and Apple's
hardware. A 3G S is between 13 percent and 42 percent faster at loading
these apps versus a 3G depending on conditions, but it starts these
roughly between two and four times faster than a Pre. Again, the sole
Android phone in the comparison is slower still in all but Google Maps.
Almost all of the speedup is attributed to the Samsung ARM Cortex A8
processor at the heart of the new iPhone. Its clock speed gain is
obvious, but it can also issue two instructions at once instead of the
original iPhone's one and has more than twice as much cache. Palm is
using an OMAP 3 chip from Texas Instruments that itself is considered
fast.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
news:apony-BC2307.22365719062009@news.qwest.net...
> there are some nice charts at the below link showing the quickness of
> the new iphone... enjoy...
>
> In loading a series of complex websites over Wi-Fi, AnandTech has found
> that the 3G S is about 54 percent faster on average than the 3G and, in
> a few cases, is about three times faster. But it's also about 11 percent
> faster than the Palm Pre, which shares WebKit as a rendering engine, and
> is only slower in two out of nine tests. That lead only grows wider with
> the T-Mobile G1: as it's slower than the iPhone 3G, it's often twice as
> fast or more.
>
> Load times for commonly available apps were less dramatic between
> iPhones but only exacerbated the gaps between the Pre and Apple's
> hardware. A 3G S is between 13 percent and 42 percent faster at loading
> these apps versus a 3G depending on conditions, but it starts these
> roughly between two and four times faster than a Pre. Again, the sole
> Android phone in the comparison is slower still in all but Google Maps.
>
> Almost all of the speedup is attributed to the Samsung ARM Cortex A8
> processor at the heart of the new iPhone. Its clock speed gain is
> obvious, but it can also issue two instructions at once instead of the
> original iPhone's one and has more than twice as much cache. Palm is
> using an OMAP 3 chip from Texas Instruments that itself is considered
> fast.
>
> more (and charts) here:
>
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...aster_than_pal
> m_pre_500k_sales_conservative.html
Does that mean that I can talk any faster? I always thought that phones
were primarily communication devices.
carlkeehn wrote:
> "Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
> news:apony-BC2307.22365719062009@news.qwest.net...
>> there are some nice charts at the below link showing the quickness of
>> the new iphone... enjoy...
>>
>> In loading a series of complex websites over Wi-Fi, AnandTech has found
>> that the 3G S is about 54 percent faster on average than the 3G and, in
>> a few cases, is about three times faster. But it's also about 11 percent
>> faster than the Palm Pre, which shares WebKit as a rendering engine, and
>> is only slower in two out of nine tests. That lead only grows wider with
>> the T-Mobile G1: as it's slower than the iPhone 3G, it's often twice as
>> fast or more.
>>
>> Load times for commonly available apps were less dramatic between
>> iPhones but only exacerbated the gaps between the Pre and Apple's
>> hardware. A 3G S is between 13 percent and 42 percent faster at loading
>> these apps versus a 3G depending on conditions, but it starts these
>> roughly between two and four times faster than a Pre. Again, the sole
>> Android phone in the comparison is slower still in all but Google Maps.
>>
>> Almost all of the speedup is attributed to the Samsung ARM Cortex A8
>> processor at the heart of the new iPhone. Its clock speed gain is
>> obvious, but it can also issue two instructions at once instead of the
>> original iPhone's one and has more than twice as much cache. Palm is
>> using an OMAP 3 chip from Texas Instruments that itself is considered
>> fast.
>>
>> more (and charts) here:
>>
>> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...aster_than_pal
>> m_pre_500k_sales_conservative.html
>
> Does that mean that I can talk any faster? I always thought that phones
> were primarily communication devices.
>
>
Nope!
And nope again!
Today's cell phone is more than a phone. Typically it's a PDA as well.
Sometimes it's a TV set or a web browser too.
It may still be possible to find a cell phone that's ONLY a phone but I
wouldn't count on it!
> > Almost all of the speedup is attributed to the Samsung ARM Cortex A8
> > processor at the heart of the new iPhone. Its clock speed gain is
> > obvious, but it can also issue two instructions at once instead of the
> > original iPhone's one and has more than twice as much cache. Palm is
> > using an OMAP 3 chip from Texas Instruments that itself is considered
> > fast.
> >
> > more (and charts) here:
> >
> > http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...aster_than_pal
> > m_pre_500k_sales_conservative.html
>
> Does that mean that I can talk any faster? I always thought that phones
> were primarily communication devices.
??? a phone is just one of about 20 aspects of a smartphone, sounds like
the 1970's is calling, you better pick up and say hello...
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:36:57 -0600, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in
<apony-BC2307.22365719062009@news.qwest.net>:
>[SNIP childish chest pounding]
As if anyone other than an iPhone fan cares. <yawn>
Shall we now compare it to (say) Chrome running on a state-of-the-art
laptop? I'm guessing you won't want to do that, since it would show the
iPhone 3G S to actually be pretty slow.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in news:apony-BC2307.22365719062009
@news.qwest.net:
> there are some nice charts at the below link showing the quickness of
> the new iphone... enjoy...
>
> In loading a series of complex websites over Wi-Fi, AnandTech has found
> that the 3G S is about 54 percent faster on average than the 3G and, in
> a few cases, is about three times faster. But it's also about 11 percent
> faster than the Palm Pre, which shares WebKit as a rendering engine, and
> is only slower in two out of nine tests. That lead only grows wider with
> the T-Mobile G1: as it's slower than the iPhone 3G, it's often twice as
> fast or more.
>
> Load times for commonly available apps were less dramatic between
> iPhones but only exacerbated the gaps between the Pre and Apple's
> hardware. A 3G S is between 13 percent and 42 percent faster at loading
> these apps versus a 3G depending on conditions, but it starts these
> roughly between two and four times faster than a Pre. Again, the sole
> Android phone in the comparison is slower still in all but Google Maps.
I'm not aware of any apps these phones share- care to enlighten me?
In message <Xns9C3060816D042blutofabercom@85.214.105.209> John Blutarsky
<bluto@faber.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in news:apony-BC2307.22365719062009
>@news.qwest.net:
>
>> there are some nice charts at the below link showing the quickness of
>> the new iphone... enjoy...
>>
>> In loading a series of complex websites over Wi-Fi, AnandTech has found
>> that the 3G S is about 54 percent faster on average than the 3G and, in
>> a few cases, is about three times faster. But it's also about 11 percent
>> faster than the Palm Pre, which shares WebKit as a rendering engine, and
>> is only slower in two out of nine tests. That lead only grows wider with
>> the T-Mobile G1: as it's slower than the iPhone 3G, it's often twice as
>> fast or more.
>>
>> Load times for commonly available apps were less dramatic between
>> iPhones but only exacerbated the gaps between the Pre and Apple's
>> hardware. A 3G S is between 13 percent and 42 percent faster at loading
>> these apps versus a 3G depending on conditions, but it starts these
>> roughly between two and four times faster than a Pre. Again, the sole
>> Android phone in the comparison is slower still in all but Google Maps.
>
>
>I'm not aware of any apps these phones share- care to enlighten me?
Google Maps, as an example, is available on nearly every mobile platform
in one fashion or another.
More significantly though, even if the bundled software isn't the same
software, you can measure the iPhone's webbrowser vs the G1's webbrowser
vs Windows Mobile's browser, sticking only with the primary built-in
browser as a lowest-common-denominator.
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:9bkt35pm4llbjtd2kk78sf4fo4i1t8n14h@4ax.com:
> In message <Xns9C3060816D042blutofabercom@85.214.105.209> John
> Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in news:apony-BC2307.22365719062009
>>@news.qwest.net:
>>
>>> there are some nice charts at the below link showing the quickness
>>> of the new iphone... enjoy...
>>>
>>> In loading a series of complex websites over Wi-Fi, AnandTech has
>>> found that the 3G S is about 54 percent faster on average than the
>>> 3G and, in a few cases, is about three times faster. But it's also
>>> about 11 percent faster than the Palm Pre, which shares WebKit as a
>>> rendering engine, and is only slower in two out of nine tests. That
>>> lead only grows wider with the T-Mobile G1: as it's slower than the
>>> iPhone 3G, it's often twice as fast or more.
>>>
>>> Load times for commonly available apps were less dramatic between
>>> iPhones but only exacerbated the gaps between the Pre and Apple's
>>> hardware. A 3G S is between 13 percent and 42 percent faster at
>>> loading these apps versus a 3G depending on conditions, but it
>>> starts these roughly between two and four times faster than a Pre.
>>> Again, the sole Android phone in the comparison is slower still in
>>> all but Google Maps.
>>
>>
>>I'm not aware of any apps these phones share- care to enlighten me?
>
> Google Maps, as an example, is available on nearly every mobile
> platform in one fashion or another.
>
> More significantly though, even if the bundled software isn't the same
> software, you can measure the iPhone's webbrowser vs the G1's
> webbrowser vs Windows Mobile's browser, sticking only with the primary
> built-in browser as a lowest-common-denominator.
>
I'm fine with the browser vs. browser aomcparison because it makes sense.
Saying that a comparison of apps was done is too much of a stretch.
In message <Xns9C31D0B6557C3blutofabercom@85.214.105.209> John Blutarsky
<bluto@faber.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>I'm fine with the browser vs. browser aomcparison because it makes sense.
>Saying that a comparison of apps was done is too much of a stretch.
How about searching a 2,000 entry contact list? Even loading 250
contacts at once was a bit much for one of the middle-road iPhone 2.x OS
releases, bring up the "Phone" app and touching Contacts would take
several seconds (For the record, 2.2.1 was much better)
Despite not running identical applications, I was easily able to compare
that the same contact list took the iPhone 3-5 seconds to load, and took
my Palm too-short-a-time-to-guestimate (read: instant) to load the exact
same list. Searching for a unique first name was another easy to
guestimate test, with the iPhone taking a noticeable amount of time, and
the Palm returning an instant result.
If you wanted to compare devices in the "instant" category to see which
is actually faster, you'd increase the number of contacts by an order of
magnitude and judge the results.
This type of benchmarking isn't particularly scientific, but nor are
users when they decide if a device is fast or slow, so the results are
still useful when one or more devices perform noticeably different.
The iPhone 3G S feels much faster. On a 3G running 2.2.1 the Mail app
would stall for 3-5 seconds very regularly, and sometimes as much as 30
seconds. Safari would lock up randomly for 5-10 seconds at a time. The
3G S doesn't suffer from these problems, likely from a combination of a
faster CPU and more RAM (with more RAM being the big difference) -- You
don't need a benchmark to judge the difference, just using the device is
enough.
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news1kv35h107m1rcl3s4lt8024lvm88rdbct@4ax.com:
> The iPhone 3G S feels much faster.
Horseshit! ANY little sellphone is a thousand times faster than the shit
data system it's hobbled up to dragging its ass along at 700Kbps, except
for 4AM when the phoners are mostly asleep.
Maybe the program opens up .08seconds faster, but woo woo woo, who cares.
The shitload of spam downloads at EXACTLY the same crappy sellphone data
download speed on the SAME crappy sellphone towers no matter what phone
you're holding in your grimy little hands.....
ATTWS didn't put up more towers.....
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
In message <Xns9C32AFAAEF208noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news1kv35h107m1rcl3s4lt8024lvm88rdbct@4ax.com :
>
>> The iPhone 3G S feels much faster.
>
>Horseshit!
If you included the context, you'd see that I'm talking about it feeling
much faster then the 3G running OS 2.2.1, not any other phone.
>ANY little sellphone is a thousand times faster than the shit
>data system it's hobbled up to dragging its ass along at 700Kbps, except
>for 4AM when the phoners are mostly asleep.
1250Kb/s down, 110Kb/s up, tested 6 times throughout the day today,
always in that ballpark, save for one test at 998kb/s.
>Maybe the program opens up .08seconds faster, but woo woo woo, who cares.
It's a couple orders of magnatude faster then that (which largely shows
off how slow the iPhone 3G 2.x was, but that's another story)
I'm also seeing speeds of up to 9Mb/s or so via WiFi, which is far
faster then anything the 3G was capable of doing.
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:53c04594te2irifaf7r233jbpl48vct8fr@4ax.com:
> 1250Kb/s down, 110Kb/s up, tested 6 times throughout the day today,
> always in that ballpark, save for one test at 998kb/s.
>
>
Gimme a URL for this speedtest you're using. It can't be one of the Flash
players iPhone doesn't support. How do they do the speedtest?
Please don't tell me they download a file over and over because the browser
would cache that, even Safari, making the test look like you were running
on a mainframe with frame relay service.
What URL was this running on? I wanna try it from the tablet to see what
it says on the remnants of Alltel EVDO.
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:53c04594te2irifaf7r233jbpl48vct8fr@4ax.com:
> I'm also seeing speeds of up to 9Mb/s or so via WiFi,
WOW! Who's wifi has a 9Mbps cap?! The most I've seen is 6Mbps but that's
because I installed it raw at a friend's pizza shop after the cable guys
left. 1.4Mbps is about normal DSL wifi at most any restaurant here, capped
so others can simulcast on it.
But, that wasn't what this was about. This thread was about the 3GS being
much faster than a Pre or old 3G iphone on a shit sellphone data link
plodding along in the middle of all that voice traffic.....Bullshit.
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
In message <Xns9C32E36A8A646noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news:53c04594te2irifaf7r233jbpl48vct8fr@4ax.com :
>
>> 1250Kb/s down, 110Kb/s up, tested 6 times throughout the day today,
>> always in that ballpark, save for one test at 998kb/s.
>
>Gimme a URL for this speedtest you're using. It can't be one of the Flash
>players iPhone doesn't support. How do they do the speedtest?
>
>Please don't tell me they download a file over and over because the browser
>would cache that, even Safari, making the test look like you were running
>on a mainframe with frame relay service.
>
>What URL was this running on? I wanna try it from the tablet to see what
>it says on the remnants of Alltel EVDO.
These tests were performed via Speedtest.net, which has a iPhone app
available in the App Store.
In message <Xns9C32E3E92A19Enoonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news:53c04594te2irifaf7r233jbpl48vct8fr@4ax.com :
>
>> I'm also seeing speeds of up to 9Mb/s or so via WiFi,
>
>WOW! Who's wifi has a 9Mbps cap?! The most I've seen is 6Mbps but that's
>because I installed it raw at a friend's pizza shop after the cable guys
>left. 1.4Mbps is about normal DSL wifi at most any restaurant here, capped
>so others can simulcast on it.
I can do about 70Mb/s sustained across my WiFi, speedtest.net from the
browser reports about 12Mb/s across the same WiFi, so 9Mb/s seems to be
the iPhone's independent limit.
I'm on a 15Mb/1.5Mb cable mode, although I traffic shape that to
12Mb/1.2Mb for most traffic to leave some breathing room for VoIP and
ensure latency stays reasonable.
The speeds are decent enough for a low power chipset, certainly faster
then my Windows Mobile device (AT&T Tilt) can manage to sustain in
browser-based download tests.
>But, that wasn't what this was about. This thread was about the 3GS being
>much faster than a Pre or old 3G iphone on a shit sellphone data link
>plodding along in the middle of all that voice traffic.....Bullshit.
I thought we were talking about comparing devices to other devices?
Obviously if the limiting factor is outside the device then such a
comparison is relatively meaningless unless said device has some
technique to address network slowness (Windows Mobile's Skyfire browser,
Opera Mini, etc)
Removing the mobile network from the equation helps to compare the
devices directly, and is still a fair test since 1) most modern
smartphone devices have wifi, 2) most smartphone owners (in my circle of
friends and business associates) have their devices on wifi at home, and
often at work.
At $DAYJOB we have multiple corporate wifi networks, one for company
owned equipment (laptops and blackberries) and one for everything else
(originally for visitors, since we hold conferences at our office, but
once the infrastructure was in place, we started encouraging employees
to use it for personal laptops and mobile devices)
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:40:02 -0700, DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net>
wrote in <53c04594te2irifaf7r233jbpl48vct8fr@4ax.com>:
>In message <Xns9C32AFAAEF208noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
><noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>ANY little sellphone is a thousand times faster than the shit
>>data system it's hobbled up to dragging its ass along at 700Kbps, except
>>for 4AM when the phoners are mostly asleep.
>
>1250Kb/s down, 110Kb/s up, tested 6 times throughout the day today,
>always in that ballpark, save for one test at 998kb/s.
Nice, but no better on downlink than the V3xx has been doing for a long
time, and still not anywhere near as fast as the V3xx on uplink.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
> It's a couple orders of magnatude faster then that (which largely shows
> off how slow the iPhone 3G 2.x was, but that's another story)
The iPhone 3G wasn't limited by the 3G network, it was limited by the
processor, so even on WiFi it wasn't all that fast. The browser didn't
help either.
The iPhone 3GS looks like a very good product. As I said at the start,
the 3rd generation is where companies, not just Apple, generally get the
feature set and performance up to an acceptable level for the discerning
buyer, and move beyond the early adopter market. But since many of the
new 3GS features have been available on other smart phones for many
years, it's kind of surprising that it's taken Apple three generations
of the iPhone to implement those features, but better late than never.
Alas, according to reviewers, even though some of those features have
finally arrived on the iPhone, they don't work very well. We may have to
wait for generation 4, or at least an OS update, for these features to
work at a level equal to competing smart phones. But at least Apple is
making solid progress, and we can applaud them for that.
In article <Rh60m.354$j84.334@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > It's a couple orders of magnatude faster then that (which largely shows
> > off how slow the iPhone 3G 2.x was, but that's another story)
>
> The iPhone 3G wasn't limited by the 3G network, it was limited by the
> processor, so even on WiFi it wasn't all that fast. The browser didn't
> help either.
except that they made existing devices faster so it wasn't the
processor.
> The iPhone 3GS looks like a very good product. As I said at the start,
> the 3rd generation is where companies, not just Apple, generally get the
> feature set and performance up to an acceptable level for the discerning
> buyer, and move beyond the early adopter market. But since many of the
> new 3GS features have been available on other smart phones for many
> years, it's kind of surprising that it's taken Apple three generations
> of the iPhone to implement those features, but better late than never.
except that it does things other phones don't.
> Alas, according to reviewers, even though some of those features have
> finally arrived on the iPhone, they don't work very well.
how amusing. you slam them for not having a feature then when they add
it you slam them for not doing a good job, completely ignoring the
things they do well.
and which reviewers say the new features don't work well? and which
features?
> We may have to
> wait for generation 4, or at least an OS update, for these features to
> work at a level equal to competing smart phones. But at least Apple is
> making solid progress, and we can applaud them for that.
they work just fine, some with minor issues like with any product.
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:2ck045h859dl02n0u2rtbcvvjl1psdf4d4@4ax.com:
> I can do about 70Mb/s sustained across my WiFi, speedtest.net from the
> browser reports about 12Mb/s across the same WiFi, so 9Mb/s seems to be
> the iPhone's independent limit.
>
I find that simply AMAZING, seeing as how the iPhone is an 802.11b/g device
who's absolute maximum dream speed is 54Mbps!
It does NOT support the proprietary Linksys or Netgear 802.11g 108Mbps
extensions, which makes this speed test you tout simply a lie!
54Mbps would only take place in space or a screen room or way out in the
boondocks, with no other wifi signals present to crash against
it....another dream world we'd all wish we could have.
70Mbps is simply wrong. Can't tell from here why, but it's not gonna
happen on that tiny processor running on 802.11g. iPhone doesn't support
802.11n, which, even then would never reach 70Mbps except in the boondocks
where no other wifi signals are present.
Makes one wonder if the iphone app isn't made to make someone's device look
much faster than it will really go....sorta like a motorcycle or jetski
speedometer, 20-30% "optimistic"....(c;]
--
-----
Larry
Now, tell me it runs 8Mbps at Starbuck's ATT wifi in NYC during lunch......
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ufs045l324pefmd1poolv3tlf08k04dphq@4ax.com:
>>1250Kb/s down, 110Kb/s up, tested 6 times throughout the day today,
>>always in that ballpark, save for one test at 998kb/s.
>
> Nice, but no better on downlink than the V3xx has been doing for a long
> time, and still not anywhere near as fast as the V3xx on uplink.
>
>
They must be measuring it when noone else is online at 3AM.
Wifi in any venue is a heavily SHARED resource. It doesn't take many wifi
customers to bring a Verizon DSL wifi at Starbuck's to its knees if any of
them are watching TV....(c;]
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3374590DD88noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
> news:2ck045h859dl02n0u2rtbcvvjl1psdf4d4@4ax.com:
>
>> I can do about 70Mb/s sustained across my WiFi, speedtest.net from the
>> browser reports about 12Mb/s across the same WiFi, so 9Mb/s seems to be
>> the iPhone's independent limit.
>>
>
> I find that simply AMAZING, seeing as how the iPhone is an 802.11b/g
> device
> who's absolute maximum dream speed is 54Mbps!
>
> http://compnetworking.about.com/od/w...stis80211g.htm
>
> It does NOT support the proprietary Linksys or Netgear 802.11g 108Mbps
> extensions, which makes this speed test you tout simply a lie!
For the love of pete, Larry, READ before you accuse. You asked "what WiFi
has a 9MB cap" so DevilsPGD explained his WiFi network has 70Mbps bandwidth-
NOT that the iPhone connects at the that speed. You were trying to
insinuate that 9Mbps was impossible, or at least unlikely, on a typical home
network, due to the typical ISP's bandwidth caps. DPGD was simply verifying
that 9Mbps was quite possible on HIS network.
Whether you like the iPhone or not, that's pretty damned impressive for a
mobile device. My WinMo devices have nowhere near that speed over WiFi.
In message <E770m.5657$Zc7.5654@newsfe22.iad> "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Whether you like the iPhone or not, that's pretty damned impressive for a
>mobile device. My WinMo devices have nowhere near that speed over WiFi.
My AT&T Tilt isn't anywhere close... I've never done any speed testing,
but I'd ballpark it around 300Kb/s based on downloading large-ish CABs
from a HTTP server on my internal LAN.
In fairness to the Tilt, I have the WiFi chipset set to low-power, that
might hobble it's speed somewhat.
In message <Xns9C3374590DD88noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news:2ck045h859dl02n0u2rtbcvvjl1psdf4d4@4ax.com :
>
>> I can do about 70Mb/s sustained across my WiFi, speedtest.net from the
>> browser reports about 12Mb/s across the same WiFi, so 9Mb/s seems to be
>> the iPhone's independent limit.
>>
>
>I find that simply AMAZING, seeing as how the iPhone is an 802.11b/g device
>who's absolute maximum dream speed is 54Mbps!
>
>http://compnetworking.about.com/od/w...stis80211g.htm
>
>It does NOT support the proprietary Linksys or Netgear 802.11g 108Mbps
>extensions, which makes this speed test you tout simply a lie!
How so?
I didn't say the iPhone is getting 70Mb/s, just that I can do about
70Mb/s across the WiFi in general (from my laptop) -- Sorry if that
wasn't clear.
>54Mbps would only take place in space or a screen room or way out in the
>boondocks, with no other wifi signals present to crash against
>it....another dream world we'd all wish we could have.
Not as much a dream, as a relatively large condo in a building with
relatively large suites, a building that isn't fully occupied at this
time of year.
There are no other adjacent buildings, an agricultural reserve
(farm-land) is all I see looking out my window, and no wifi interference
coming from that crop.
I only see a few other wifi networks in my area, and they're mainly on
the same channel as each other (1-2), I'm on the far opposite end of the
2.4GHz spectrum, plus I also have a access point on the 5.8GHz spectrum
where I'm 100% alone.
>Makes one wonder if the iphone app isn't made to make someone's device look
>much faster than it will really go....sorta like a motorcycle or jetski
>speedometer, 20-30% "optimistic"....(c;]
So, a brief recap:
The iPhone is reporting about 9Mb/s from speedtest.net.
I see about 12Mb/s from my laptop (W7 x86) on speedtest.net.
Both of those are realistic for a 15/1.5Mb/s cable modem connection,
especially since I traffic shape to limit to a 12/1.2Mb level of service
to keep latency down for specific devices.
I haven't attempted to test speeds from my internal HTTP server to the
iPhone, I'm unclear how I would do so since I don't have any apps that
can download large files that also report speed.
70Mb/s is from an internal server to a laptop, which I only mentioned to
point out that my wireless LAN's uplink, router and internal switches
are capable of doing much faster then the 9Mb/s-12Mb/s speeds I see from
speedtest.net.
In message <Xns9C337899F59DCnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
<noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>ALL cars will soon have a speedometer, gas guage and spare tire after the
>public gives a big thumbs up to the newest version of the Ford Fantasy 3GS!
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:26:14 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9C3374590DD88noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>:
>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news:2ck045h859dl02n0u2rtbcvvjl1psdf4d4@4ax.com :
>
>> I can do about 70Mb/s sustained across my WiFi, speedtest.net from the
>> browser reports about 12Mb/s across the same WiFi, so 9Mb/s seems to be
>> the iPhone's independent limit.
>
>I find that simply AMAZING, seeing as how the iPhone is an 802.11b/g device
>who's absolute maximum dream speed is 54Mbps!
He claimed only "12Mb/s" versus maximum 802.11g throughput of 22-25
Mbps. Nothing "amazing" about that.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:28:11 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9C3374ADE8A95noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:ufs045l324pefmd1poolv3tlf08k04dphq@4ax.com :
>
>>>1250Kb/s down, 110Kb/s up, tested 6 times throughout the day today,
>>>always in that ballpark, save for one test at 998kb/s.
>>
>> Nice, but no better on downlink than the V3xx has been doing for a long
>> time, and still not anywhere near as fast as the V3xx on uplink.
>
>They must be measuring it when noone else is online at 3AM.
>
>Wifi in any venue is a heavily SHARED resource. It doesn't take many wifi
>customers to bring a Verizon DSL wifi at Starbuck's to its knees if any of
>them are watching TV....(c;]
I think he's talking HSPA speed, not Wi-Fi speed,
although HSPA speed is also affected by being a shared system.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:13:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <Rh60m.354$j84.334@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> It's a couple orders of magnatude faster then that (which largely shows
>> off how slow the iPhone 3G 2.x was, but that's another story)
>
>The iPhone 3G wasn't limited by the 3G network, it was limited by the
>processor, so even on WiFi it wasn't all that fast. The browser didn't
>help either.
>
>The iPhone 3GS looks like a very good product. As I said ...
We really don't care what you said, because you don't have any real
experience with either phone.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:15:48 -0700, DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net>
wrote in <2i3245tanmkuq63iolfeu277sbrefnt50e@4ax.com>:
>In message <Xns9C3374590DD88noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> Larry
><noone@home.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>>news:2ck045h859dl02n0u2rtbcvvjl1psdf4d4@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> I can do about 70Mb/s sustained across my WiFi, speedtest.net from the
>>> browser reports about 12Mb/s across the same WiFi, so 9Mb/s seems to be
>>> the iPhone's independent limit.
>>
>>I find that simply AMAZING, seeing as how the iPhone is an 802.11b/g device
>>who's absolute maximum dream speed is 54Mbps!
>>
>>http://compnetworking.about.com/od/w...stis80211g.htm
>>
>>It does NOT support the proprietary Linksys or Netgear 802.11g 108Mbps
>>extensions, which makes this speed test you tout simply a lie!
>
>How so?
>
>I didn't say the iPhone is getting 70Mb/s, just that I can do about
>70Mb/s across the WiFi in general (from my laptop) -- Sorry if that
>wasn't clear.
To get 70Mb/s throughput you need at least 140 Mbps raw speed, only
possible with a fairly short 802.11n connection.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep
making excuses for it? The inquiring mind wants to know.
iPhone 3G S much faster than Pre & G1 
1kv35h107m1rcl3s4lt8024lvm88rdbct@4ax.com:
Linear Mode
