HP3000-L Archives

November 1997, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mark Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:57:12 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
We recently put in a frame relay Internet connection. I was excited to see
how fast my browser would bring up web sites. My struggles with slow
dial-up access were finally going to be over!

 My first impression was that web sites seemed to connect faster, but the
graphics
loaded just as slow as with my 24k dial-up connection. I wasn't impressed!
Luckily, I set up a few other folks and noticed a pattern. Those that used
the
Microsoft TCP/IP stack had must faster loading of web pages. I tested
several more
systems and finally theorized: WRQ's TCP/IP stack must be the problem!
I called WRQ and, after working with me for an hour, they finally told me
"maybe Microsoft's stack WILL work better for you". It Does! At least with
Internet Explorer it does. I am talking about a tenfold increase in loading
web pages that have significant
graphics( I can wait 2 seconds, but 20 seconds is ridiculous).

Is anyone else aware of this? Any ideas why this is? I thought WRQ's stack
was rated very favorably.



Mark Gross
Emerson Motion Control
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2