<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://slashstar.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Alex Parker</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/default.aspx</link><description>Just a thought...</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008 (Build: 30417.1769)</generator><item><title>Notebook overheating issue resolved, Again!</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/26/notebook-overheating-issue-resolved-again.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:29:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:21025</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=21025</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/26/notebook-overheating-issue-resolved-again.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;Well it amazed me that this is a typical issue.&amp;#160; My Toshiba M400 the other day was running really warm during normal use, 60&amp;#176; C-70&amp;#176; C.&amp;#160; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;So of course I had to take the whole thing apart and inspect.&amp;#160; The first thing I did was to clean out the FAN, again a big yuck!&amp;#160; Then I took off the CPU fan and heat sink and removed all the old CPU paste.&amp;#160; I then cleaned the surfaces with Isopropyl alcohol, re-applied some new thermal paste, making sure that it is evenly coating the CPU and then re-assembled the notebook.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;So now my idle temperatures are more inline with when I got the notebook, 35&amp;#176; C-45&amp;#176; C.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Here is a good article I found on the &lt;a href="http://icrontic.com/articles/clean_laptop_heatsink" target="_blank"&gt;topic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=21025" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Laptop/default.aspx">Laptop</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/CPU/default.aspx">CPU</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Hardware/default.aspx">Hardware</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Solution/default.aspx">Solution</category></item><item><title>Vista file copy performance finally solved!!!</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/24/vista-file-copy-performance-finally-solved.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:27:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20854</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20854</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/24/vista-file-copy-performance-finally-solved.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;Well it has been over a year since Vista has been released and I have been struggling with poor file copy performance between my Vista machines on a GB switch, since about December.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2007/12/03/poor-network-performance-with-windows-vista-rtm.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Poor Network Performance with Windows Vista (RTM)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2007/12/12/poor-gb-network-performance-on-vista-back.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Poor GB Network Performance on Vista back! =(&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/01/17/poor-network-performance-on-vista-resolved.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Poor Network Performance on Vista resolved?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#39;t know how I missed the article about &lt;a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=711" target="_blank"&gt;MMCSS (Multimedia Class Scheduler Service)&lt;/a&gt; but after reading into it, it seemed to fit my performance issue...my stability issues were due to old network drivers.&amp;#160; If you have a Broadcom onboard nic, you should definitely upgrade the drivers.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Mark Russinovich&lt;/a&gt; uncovered that MMMCSS is hardcoded to throttle your network performance to 10,000 frames per second or about 15Mb/sec on standard ethernet with 1500 byte frames.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Here is the &lt;a href="http://courtneymalone.com/2007/08/28/a-note-on-vista-network-speed/" target="_blank"&gt;solution&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;#160; I have disabled the MMCSS service, updated the registry to remove the Windows Audio dependency and network performance is back to where it should be!&amp;#160; CPU utilization is a bit high, I will have to check to see if I disabled TCPChimney, RSS and TCPA (DMA)...Otherwise it looks good!&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/Vistafilecopyperformancefinallysolved_14508/image_4.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="221" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/Vistafilecopyperformancefinallysolved_14508/image_thumb_1.png" width="373" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/Vistafilecopyperformancefinallysolved_14508/image_6.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="213" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/Vistafilecopyperformancefinallysolved_14508/image_thumb_2.png" width="375" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/Vistafilecopyperformancefinallysolved_14508/image_8.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="153" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/Vistafilecopyperformancefinallysolved_14508/image_thumb_3.png" width="375" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20854" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Vista/default.aspx">Vista</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Issue/default.aspx">Issue</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Solution/default.aspx">Solution</category></item><item><title>Case of the bad CPU paste</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/20/case-of-the-bad-cpu-paste.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:45:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20828</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20828</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/20/case-of-the-bad-cpu-paste.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;The other day I ran into an interesting problem with my ThinkPad T60.&amp;#160; For some reason the machine would shut down after about 10-30 minutes.&amp;#160; There were no indications to the cause from the error in the event logs in Vista, nor were there any obvious hardware sounds.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Lucky for me I had another laptop at my disposal where I could swap the hard disk out to rule out some Vista related bug.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;By chance I noticed that the base of the machine was running very hot, the internal heat sink was running about 90&amp;#176; C (using my &lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fluke-62-Mini-Infrared-Thermometer/dp/B000MX5Y9C/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=hi&amp;amp;qid=1206058857&amp;amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank"&gt;Fluke infra-red&lt;/a&gt; temperature sensor) around when the machine shutdown unexpectedly.&amp;#160; So I suspected that the machine was going into thermal shutdown.&amp;#160; The &lt;a href="http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL8VQ" target="_blank"&gt;Core Duo&lt;/a&gt; CPU is rated at about 100&amp;#176; C, but other components on the system board may not be stable at such high temperatures.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;So the first thing I did was clean all that dust out of the heat sink and fan, yuk...&amp;#160; Then I fired up the laptop again.&amp;#160; This time it took the machine significantly longer to shutdown but the problem was the same.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;So instead of arguing with some support rep, I took matters into my own hands (literally).&amp;#160; I busted open the laptop, took off the heat-sink and cleaned the old paste off.&amp;#160; Lucky for me I still had some arctic silver CPU paste leftover from putting a monster of a head sink on my Q6600.&amp;#160; Sorry forgot to take some gory ThinkPad T60 pictures.&amp;#160; Maybe I will take some pictures when I change the processor to a 2GHz Core Duo that I removed from my Toshiba M400, that&amp;#39;s a topic for another post.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Before I digress even more, I am glad to report, the problem is resolved.&amp;#160; The machine not longer shuts down and I am a happy camper.&amp;#160; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I wonder why Lenovo put so little CPU paste on the CPU.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20828" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Laptop/default.aspx">Laptop</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/CPU/default.aspx">CPU</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Hardware/default.aspx">Hardware</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Issue/default.aspx">Issue</category></item><item><title>$100 oil = $40-$60 speculation</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/11/100-oil-40-60-speculation.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:22:38 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20588</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20588</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/11/100-oil-40-60-speculation.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;I was always wondering how the Market hype actually affects the price at the pump.&amp;#160; Here is what I was able to find out.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;blockquote&gt;   &lt;p&gt;One barrel of crude oil makes about 19&amp;#189; gallons of gasoline, 9 gallons of fuel oil, 4 gallons of jet fuel, and 11 gallons of other products, including lubricants, kerosene, asphalt, and petrochemical feedstocks to make plastics.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt;  &lt;p&gt;The current price at the pump is about $3&amp;#8230;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;At $3 per gallon * 19.5 gallons in one barrel = $58.50 per barrel.&amp;#160; $100 per barrel - $60 actual cost or about $40 in market speculation&amp;#8230;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;In actuality the price per barrel is much lower considering the actual cost breakdown&amp;#8230;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;At $3 per gallon the raw cost is about $1.98 per gallon&amp;#8230;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;($3 * 66% = $1.98 per gallon (Actual cost of crude, 40% plus refining costs 13%, plus distribution 13%, excluding taxes)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The total cost is 19.5 * $1.98 = $38.61 per barrel raw costs. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Source:   &lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html"&gt;http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20588" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Misc/default.aspx">Misc</category></item><item><title>Why I won't buy an ultra-portable notebook (Yet)</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/10/why-i-won-t-buy-an-ultra-portable-yet.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:55:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20536</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20536</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/10/why-i-won-t-buy-an-ultra-portable-yet.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;Well that is not entirely true, I will by an ultra-portable notebook computer (&amp;lt; 4lbs) if it has the following characteristics (Yes I may be dreaming but by the EOY I think we might see such a beast):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Core 2 Duo Processor (What is the deal with the LV and the ULV, they don&amp;#39;t save that much power) &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;4 GB RAM (Do you really think 2GB is enough?) &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;1.8&amp;quot; SSD (&amp;gt;50MB/sec performance) or 2.5&amp;quot; 7200 rpm drive &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;64bit support (Must have support for x64 OS) &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;LED backlit display &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Tablets should have dual touch screens &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The power adapter shouldn&amp;#39;t weigh more that the notebook ;-) &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;DVI/HDMI port &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;2-3x USB2 ports &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Express Card Slot &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Discrete graphics&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Price &amp;lt; $2000 &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All new notebooks are more than capable of running modern applications but the piece of technology that really needs to be left behind are the slow 1.8&amp;quot; 4200 rpm hard disks.&amp;nbsp; I think we are at a point where the performance of ultra-portable notebooks doesn&amp;#39;t have to suffer because of the small form factor.&amp;nbsp; I think manufacturers should stop manufacturing these pathetically slow drives.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fast SSDs from SanDisk and MTron will eventually come down in price where ultra-portables can really benefit from the performance previously only available to notebooks larger siblings...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lately a few ultra-portable notebook PCs have gotten a lot of press, namely the &lt;a href="http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:category.details?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087&amp;amp;current-category-id=AB685843BDD4412BB8FAB17D26FADACF" target="_blank"&gt;Lenovo X300&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.apple.com/macbookair/" target="_blank"&gt;MacBook Air&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;nbsp; I think the X300 has gotten it very close to right.&amp;nbsp; I still would ditch the low voltage processor but for the most part this notebook has most of my criteria.&amp;nbsp; From the many reviews, it looks like Lenovo didn&amp;#39;t skimp on the performance of the SSD.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20536" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Laptop/default.aspx">Laptop</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Hardware/default.aspx">Hardware</category></item><item><title>Latitude Tablet XT, nice but pricey tablet from Dell</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/10/latitude-tablet-xt-nice-but-pricey-tablet-from-dell.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:40:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20528</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20528</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/10/latitude-tablet-xt-nice-but-pricey-tablet-from-dell.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;The Dell tablet is an very sleek looking 4 lbs notebook.&amp;#160; As with most of the tablet PCs this one foregoes the optical drive, opts for a low voltage processor, uses a 1280x800 LED display, has a capacitance touch N-Trig digitizer, and has a 100GB 1.8&amp;quot; 4200rpm hard disk. &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;All in all, I like the build quality and the quality of the keyboard.&amp;#160; The LED screen is exceptionally bright, with an ambient light sensor to help adjust brightness and extend battery life.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Over all this machine is a great tablet.&amp;#160; But due to the Low Voltage processor, slow 1.8&amp;quot; 4200 rpm hard disk, it may not be able to satisfy those in need of fast performance.&amp;#160; The Toshiba &lt;a href="http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/ebtext.to?page=m700" target="_blank"&gt;M700&lt;/a&gt; (btw, I own a M400 so I may be biased) would be a better machine for this as it has faster Core 2 Duo processors and support for 2.5&amp;quot; SATA disks which can go up to 7200 rpm.&amp;#160; The Tablet XT&amp;#39;s battery life is fair, with 2+ hours with the default battery.&amp;#160; In my mind the Lenovo &lt;a href="http://shop.lenovo.com/us/notebooks/thinkpad/x-series-tablet" target="_blank"&gt;Thinkpad X61&lt;/a&gt; Tablet would be a better choice if battery life is most important to you.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;One other thing.&amp;#160; The price is out of control.&amp;#160; Come on $2600+, what were you thinking Dell.&amp;#160; This should be in the sub $2000 range w/o SSD.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;If I had to choose only one notebook, I would have to pass on this one.&amp;#160; But if I had the luxury of having two notebooks, this would definitely compliment a faster one with a faster processor and hard disks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20528" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Laptop/default.aspx">Laptop</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Hardware/default.aspx">Hardware</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Review/default.aspx">Review</category></item><item><title>Sorry no Comcast (NJ) download performance increase</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/01/sorry-no-comcast-nj-download-performance-increase.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:21:41 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20273</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>2</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20273</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/03/01/sorry-no-comcast-nj-download-performance-increase.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;Nope it doesn&amp;#39;t seem like the increased speed lasted that long.&amp;#160; I am now back to my 10Mbit.&amp;#160; :( &lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20273" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Comcast (NJ) download performance increase?</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/02/26/comcast-nj-download-performance-increase.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:48:52 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:20163</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=20163</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/02/26/comcast-nj-download-performance-increase.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;This morning I was downloading the latest Vista with sp1 (x86) and I noticed that my download speed has doubled to about 20Mbit/sec...Awesome.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/ComcastNJdownloadperformanceincrease_6E01/image_2.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="141" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/ComcastNJdownloadperformanceincrease_6E01/image_thumb.png" width="456" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I wonder if this is in response to the upcoming competition from Verizon FIOS.&amp;#160; They have just started digging in my neighborhood and laying the fiber.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I think Comcast is going to have to speed up their &lt;a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/09/comcast-shows-off-blisteringly-fast-channel-bonding-modem/" target="_blank"&gt;next generation&lt;/a&gt; channel bonding technology...I hear in some areas, Verizon is offering 50Mbit/50Mbit &lt;a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/internets/verizons-symmetrical-fios-expands-to-entire-coverage-area-325178.php" target="_blank"&gt;symmetrical&lt;/a&gt; upload/download speeds... Look out Comcast...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20163" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Broadband+Service/default.aspx">Broadband Service</category></item><item><title>Tweaking mobile wireless performance on Vista</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/01/17/tweaking-mobile-wireless-performance-on-vista.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:35:50 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:19333</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=19333</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/01/17/tweaking-mobile-wireless-performance-on-vista.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;The one thing I have to say is that I am addicted to being connected to the net.&amp;#160; From my smartphone to my laptop I kind of wish that every device had the ability to plug-in to the net.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I any case, I currently have a Verizon USB727 USB wireless modem.&amp;#160; Overall I am very happy with the performance.&amp;#160; But it seems that performance seems to vary a bit from minute to minute and hour to hour.&amp;#160; I have been finding myself disconnecting and reconnecting to the Verizon network, multiple times of the day.&amp;#160; My performance would vary from 50-60Kb all the way to 800-1000Kb.&amp;#160; A big variation if you ask me.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I had to install the following hotfix...   &lt;br /&gt;&lt;a title="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940646" href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940646"&gt;http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940646&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Additionally I setup my USB727 modem to use the NDIS interface.&amp;#160; This allowed me to utilize the &lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2007/11/28/faster-surfing-with-opendns-com.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;OpenDNS&lt;/a&gt; DNS servers.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/TweakingmobilewirelessperformanceonVista_E9BE/image_6.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="258" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/TweakingmobilewirelessperformanceonVista_E9BE/image_thumb_2.png" width="443" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I then renamed the connection to &amp;quot;EDVO&amp;quot; and set the OpenDNS servers&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/TweakingmobilewirelessperformanceonVista_E9BE/image_4.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="384" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/TweakingmobilewirelessperformanceonVista_E9BE/image_thumb_1.png" width="578" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;If you want to set the DNS servers on the command line you can use the following syntax&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;netsh interface ip set dnsserver EVDO static 208.67.222.222   &lt;br /&gt;netsh interface ip add dnsserver EVDO 208.67.220.220 index=2&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;My TCP settings&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/TweakingmobilewirelessperformanceonVista_E9BE/image_2.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="133" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/TweakingmobilewirelessperformanceonVista_E9BE/image_thumb.png" width="343" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Now my connections are very stable and fast 500Kb-1.3Mb....Yippee!!!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=19333" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Laptop/default.aspx">Laptop</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Vista/default.aspx">Vista</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Broadband+Service/default.aspx">Broadband Service</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/EVDO/default.aspx">EVDO</category></item><item><title>Poor Network Performance on Vista resolved?</title><link>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/01/17/poor-network-performance-on-vista-resolved.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:15:58 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">050b5a1e-cd37-407b-b168-c2f83230f2c7:19331</guid><dc:creator>alex</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=19331</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2008/01/17/poor-network-performance-on-vista-resolved.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;I hope everyone has had a good new year.&amp;#160; I just wanted to let everyone know that I have partially resolved my large file copy &lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/2007/12/03/poor-network-performance-with-windows-vista-rtm.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;issue&lt;/a&gt; by installing the recently released &lt;a href="http://www.news.com/Near-final-Vista-SP1-goes-public/2100-1016_3-6225945.html?part=rss&amp;amp;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&amp;amp;subj=news" target="_blank"&gt;Vista SP1 RC Refresh&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;My file copy woes are not completely over, see picture...I only get about 28 MB/sec performance across the GB interface.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;If anyone has any ideas please let me know.&amp;#160; I recently switched to Intel GB NICs in hope it was due to the on board broadcom cards, but it didn&amp;#39;t make a difference.&amp;#160; The next thing is to replace my linksys switch.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/PoorNetworkPerformanceonVistaresolved_C922/image_2.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="331" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/PoorNetworkPerformanceonVistaresolved_C922/image_thumb.png" width="668" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;One other thing, I needed to turn ECN Capability off.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/PoorNetworkPerformanceonVistaresolved_C922/image_4.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-right:0px;border-top:0px;border-left:0px;border-bottom:0px;" height="144" alt="image" src="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/WindowsLiveWriter/PoorNetworkPerformanceonVistaresolved_C922/image_thumb_1.png" width="376" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://slashstar.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=19331" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Vista/default.aspx">Vista</category><category domain="http://slashstar.com/blogs/alex/archive/tags/Issue/default.aspx">Issue</category></item></channel></rss>