To Aragorn64468

When I used dialup I found it necessary to experiment with port speeds, and the results seemed to depend on the provider. When I did tec support for MSN, we were 'told' to tell customers who were having 'performance issues' (i.e. downloading a 3MB tune took 8 hours) to check that their port speed wasn't set to 115K, and if it was, to lower it to 57K - the 'logic' being the higher port setting would (and I'm paraphrasing here) "predispose a system expectation of network performance that was not possible at the fixed bandwidth provided by 'the service'; and, so, in turn, would result in a network bottle-neck effect, paradoxically slowing down surfing performance."

Whatever. The 'system' doesn't give a rats patuty how it gets connected, because it has no 'expectations' because it's, well a computer. Anthropomorphising aside, it does seem that some connections work better by "streamlining" at a lower port speed, preventing the so called "bottle-neck effect." But, personally, I always found when I set my port speed (no matter who the provider was - and I tried many) at 115K I was usually clocking my connections at 41-44K, using a 56k modem. But that's just ISP connection speed.

I've had broadband for several years now, and have been pretty fortunate with Limewire downloads, so am only guessing on dialup download/upload performance. But if someone put a gun to my head and said I had to download off a 28K modem (and gawd as my witness, I once sped a 2400baud modem on an XT - back in d'day), I'd be inclined to max my port speed to 115K; didn't try to download 23,000 tunes at the same time (say 3-5 at a time, to be on the safe side); chose cable/T1/T3 sources; wasn't multi-tasking, gaming, or trying to blend marguerites while attempting to download; and didn't have a trough of items being fed at the systray. What’s' that 'puter realtor saying? Oh yeah: "Resources, resources, resources."

So, I’d lower my output, and maximize my input to get those tunes.