Is Usenet getting smaller?

Guys..ive noticed that some of my usenet groups are having problems
posting. Dont know if this is cause googles screwing it up or if
usenet itself is slowly dying away. Anyone have a clue? If it is...I
kind of knew it would happen bout a decade ago. Once internet speeds
became faster and everyone started to use it...advertising could
easily be injected into everything and actually become profitable
(this was not the case a decade ago when alot of people still used
dial up and dsl and cable were very expensive) So im guessing the rise
of web based forums with advertising (and you see them all nowadays)
now dominate the internet (which sucks since now every friggen group
you have to have a friggen account or password..jeese!)

E.T. wrote:
> Guys..ive noticed that some of my usenet groups are having problems
> posting. Dont know if this is cause googles screwing it up or...

Um, Google has an incompetence problem. It's been going on
for a while now, and they're not giving details. They claim to
be "working on it", but there is no tangible evidence of
such work. It's still broken.

If you want a real USENET server, there is AIOE.org or
eternal-september.org . Check their web sites for details.
AIOE doesn't use a password, which means you can be posting
there, five minutes after reading this... AIOE limits
how many text postings you can make per day, so it is not
a good fit, if you're a "chat room" kind of poster (i.e.
one sentence per post). AIOE polices users by using filters,
and has extensive and annoying filter rules. So it's an
acquired taste. E-S requires you to sign up for username/password,
but the end result is less annoyances.

Paul

> * * * * Do you realize that Google doesn't have much to do with Usenet. *Google
> just give you a very small part of the whole Usenet, so if Google is downor
> having some issue doesn't mean that Usenet will go down with Google.
>
> * * * * Most real Usener users don't readf/write online, but mostdo offline using
> offline Usenet reader. *And using real Usenet server/service not Google

Yes I know that. Im no expert but Ive been using it since 96 and I
only got into it cause my isp (like many others in those days) had a
dedicated usenet server. Then somewhere in mid 2000s I finnally got on
the bandwagon and got broadband service after years of dial up
service. The only thing I knew was the google groups had the service
for free...(and my broadband service didnt) so my newsgroup client
sorta got unused. And since google supposedly had it for free and had
kept years of old usenet data in storage (supposedly) I became to lazy
to search for any servers. (there were several that I remember you had
to pay out like 20 bucks a month for server usage) Besides I never
really liked google. I dont like the fact that nowadays google this
and google that means to search online. I can remember many other
search engines before its time.

I have Win7 ultimate, an i7CPU and a GA-X58A-UD7 motherboard.

The motherboard has 3 USB3 connections:

1/ The four at the back panel called "USB 3.0/2.0 port".

2/ Two extra on a plug-in USB 3.0 PCI-e card (Shintaro USB3.0, 2-port
PCIe SHUSB3PCIE)

3/ Two extra from a small socket at the very bottom of the motherboard
called "USB headers "F_USB1/F_USB2/F_USB3"

I need to know if these are all equivalent in performance (speed) when
using a flash drive for images and video.

Is it OK to use the HDD performance checkers (such as HD-tune Pro) to
determine the fastest port and the best Flash Drive?

Peter

Peter Jason wrote:
> I have Win7 ultimate, an i7CPU and a GA-X58A-UD7 motherboard.
>
> The motherboard has 3 USB3 connections:
>
> 1/ The four at the back panel called "USB 3.0/2.0 port".
>
> 2/ Two extra on a plug-in USB 3.0 PCI-e card (Shintaro USB3.0, 2-port
> PCIe SHUSB3PCIE)
>
> 3/ Two extra from a small socket at the very bottom of the motherboard
> called "USB headers "F_USB1/F_USB2/F_USB3"
>
> I need to know if these are all equivalent in performance (speed) when
> using a flash drive for images and video.
>
> Is it OK to use the HDD performance checkers (such as HD-tune Pro) to
> determine the fastest port and the best Flash Drive?
>
> Peter

You can do "sustained read" testing if you want, as that doesn't
hurt the flash memory. Even the free version of HDTune (2.55) can
do that for you.

*******

They make USB3 flash drives now, so if you want to benchmark,
try one of these. This one is expensive, at $179.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820220584

"sequential reads were consistently between 185-195 MB/s and
sequential writes were consistently between 117-119 MB/s"

If you run a USB2 device on a USB3 port, expect USB2 speeds.
In the low to mid 30MB/sec range best case.

If you use a USB3 device on a USB3 port, then it can use
the set of pins that support higher speeds. The upper
limit (predicted value) is 336MB/sec or so, and no device
does that, just yet. The best value seen in storage devices
that I've heard of, is around 200MB/sec. Maybe the 336MB/sec
value will be unobtainable. Only time will tell.

HTH,
Paul

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:13:25 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:

>Peter Jason wrote:
>> I have Win7 ultimate, an i7CPU and a GA-X58A-UD7 motherboard.
>>
>> The motherboard has 3 USB3 connections:
>>
>> 1/ The four at the back panel called "USB 3.0/2.0 port".
>>
>> 2/ Two extra on a plug-in USB 3.0 PCI-e card (Shintaro USB3.0, 2-port
>> PCIe SHUSB3PCIE)
>>
>> 3/ Two extra from a small socket at the very bottom of the motherboard
>> called "USB headers "F_USB1/F_USB2/F_USB3"
>>
>> I need to know if these are all equivalent in performance (speed) when
>> using a flash drive for images and video.
>>
>> Is it OK to use the HDD performance checkers (such as HD-tune Pro) to
>> determine the fastest port and the best Flash Drive?
>>
>> Peter
>
>You can do "sustained read" testing if you want, as that doesn't
>hurt the flash memory. Even the free version of HDTune (2.55) can
>do that for you.
>
>*******
>
>They make USB3 flash drives now, so if you want to benchmark,
>try one of these. This one is expensive, at $179.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820220584
>
> "sequential reads were consistently between 185-195 MB/s and
> sequential writes were consistently between 117-119 MB/s"
>
>If you run a USB2 device on a USB3 port, expect USB2 speeds.
>In the low to mid 30MB/sec range best case.
>
>If you use a USB3 device on a USB3 port, then it can use
>the set of pins that support higher speeds. The upper
>limit (predicted value) is 336MB/sec or so, and no device
>does that, just yet. The best value seen in storage devices
>that I've heard of, is around 200MB/sec. Maybe the 336MB/sec
>value will be unobtainable. Only time will tell.
>
>HTH,
> Paul

I did buy a USB3 flash drive, but I am very disappointed with it.
It's a 16Gb "ARam Turbo" TRX200 USB3.0 "Super
Fast Drive", and HD-tune says it has a read of 35Mb/sec. It says
there's a built-in "Error Correction Code" that might be slowing it
up.

Anyway, when I am processing images (transferring/deleting/sorting) it
starts off fast but then inexorably slows down, and always seems to be
stalling so as to "catch up".

I am looking for a supplier for the one you suggest above.

Peter

Joel:

> Most real Usener users don't readf/write online, but most do offline
> using offline Usenet reader.

So you can save $$ with your 1200 baud modem.

Joel:

> You mean save TIME not $$$$?

No I'm just making fun of your characterization of "real" usenet users.

> I started with 300 bps and the phone
> line was only good at around 110bps.
>
> Not only that The Source and similar service charged around
> $15-20/hour

And what decade was this? Is that Source Cable in Canada? Are they still
charging by the minute/hour? Yeah, back in the early 90's I would download
newsgroups because I used a modem and paid by the minute. But the way
plans work now, it doesn't make sense.

> NOW, things are much cheaper, and most services charge by
> QUANLITY not QUALITY.

I don't know of any residentual services that charge by quality. In the
states, they have always charged by quantity, either in minutes or
bandwidth.

> Do you understand BLOCK Account? and it
> doesn't matter if you use 300bps or T3, you can use all your BLOCK in
> 1 hour or 10 years

Here they are called metered accounts, xxxGB per month for a fee. Block
accounts here are sold by the GB. I buy usenet in 180GB blocks. When it
runs out, I buy more. Either way, downloading an entire newsgroup to read
offline would burn it up faster.