Skype Call vs. Windows Update
-
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
How's that going to help? I'm complaining about the updates being downloaded, not about my PC being forcibly restarted. That's a completely separate issue already covered all over these forums.
-
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@uschwarz said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Ah, but Skype is actually low-bandwidth. I'd not be surprised at all if BITS only backs off for high-bandwidth requests, i.e. when the 300k of minified gzipped gruntgulped JS tangle the fad framework of the day produces is downloaded, it will throw BITS into "oh, there's big downloads, better stop doing anything for ten minutes" mode.
Because Skype uses UDP to transfer voice data, if your boardband router/hubs supports QOS, the Windows Update download which uses TCP will gain priority and can probably suck up all the bandwidth.
I wasn't actually on the Skype call at that point, just preparing for it by opening (or, more accurately, trying to open) some Google docs. After the call I disabled metered connection and tried to watch some YouTube videos. You can probably guess how well that went.
-
@Deadfast said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
How's that going to help? I'm complaining about the updates being downloaded, not about my PC being forcibly restarted. That's a completely separate issue already covered all over these forums.
You're right. That's a different issue.
-
@anonymous234 said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@TimeBandit Yup, they started removing stuff, changing everything for no clear reason, added a completely dysfunctional full-screen start menu, claimed it was the best thing to ever, refused to take any criticism, lost most of their users, then finally fixed the most egregious flaws and begged people to come back... sounds familiar?
Sounds disturbingly like an abusive boyfriend.
-
@masonwheeler said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Sounds disturbingly like an abusive boyfriend.
They had no choice. You made them do that.
-
Dear Microsoft, please add "the middle of a multiplayer game" to the list of situations Windows Update should not be stealing all my bandwidth.
By the way, setting a speed limit for the "Background
IntelligentInsufferable Transfer Service (BITS)" via a policy has no effect whatsoever.
-
@coderpatsy said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
Until Windows Update decides to ignore that setting for whatever
dumbIntelligent™ reason.I'm a night person.
Windows 10 checks to make sure that the end time is after the start time, which means if I tend to use my computer until, say, 4am I can't actually set my hours to cover that while at the same time covering the time I'm up before midnight.
-
@izzion said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Onyx
What, doesn't everyone have 3 old computers sitting around from their upgrades over that past 5 years? That's perfectly normal, right? Right?!?!?I usually keep the case and swap out the innards. So I always have lots of innards sitting around, but no actual "computers" other than the one I'm currently using.
-
@flabdablet said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@masonwheeler said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Sounds disturbingly like an abusive boyfriend.
They had no choice. You made them do that.
It's not Microsoft's fault. They were drunk.
-
@powerlord said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@coderpatsy said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
Until Windows Update decides to ignore that setting for whatever
dumbIntelligent™ reason.I'm a night person.
Windows 10 checks to make sure that the end time is after the start time, which means if I tend to use my computer until, say, 4am I can't actually set my hours to cover that while at the same time covering the time I'm up before midnight.
You're kidding? I indeed set it for between 5 PM and 12 AM...
-
@Deadfast said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@powerlord said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@coderpatsy said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
Until Windows Update decides to ignore that setting for whatever
dumbIntelligent™ reason.I'm a night person.
Windows 10 checks to make sure that the end time is after the start time, which means if I tend to use my computer until, say, 4am I can't actually set my hours to cover that while at the same time covering the time I'm up before midnight.
You're kidding? I indeed set it for between 5 PM and 12 AM...
Must not have kept up with those updates or something...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@powerlord said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@coderpatsy said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
Until Windows Update decides to ignore that setting for whatever
dumbIntelligent™ reason.I'm a night person.
Windows 10 checks to make sure that the end time is after the start time, which means if I tend to use my computer until, say, 4am I can't actually set my hours to cover that while at the same time covering the time I'm up before midnight.
You're kidding? I indeed set it for between 5 PM and 12 AM...
Must not have kept up with those updates or something...
I wasn't talking about the active hours but the BITS bandwidth limit group policy that seems to do fuck all. Come to think of it, I'm not sure which one @powerlord is talking about...
-
@Deadfast said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
BITS bandwidth limit group policy
That exists? Huh, never knew.
-
@Deadfast I was talking about updates and apparently they did change how their form worked for it at some point (probably the Anniversary update).
Having said that, you're right, BITS seems to ignore it.
The problem with BITS is that it seems to go by what your network connection is.
Great, I have a Gigabit LAN connection, but my ISP refuses to offer anything faster than 15Mbit (and the other "high speed" ISP in my area offers max 3Mbit).
-
@powerlord said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
high speed
Apparently, anything faster than 512 Kbps is "high speed"
I guess the FCC considered anything better than 4 Mbps "high-speed", but recently* may have decided 25 Mbps is the new "High speed"
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Apparently, anything faster than 512 Kbps is "high speed"
I remember when that was actually true.
-
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Apparently, anything faster than 512 Kbps is "high speed"
I remember when that was actually true.
It certainly was, considering the web was still mostly text based. :P
-
@Polygeekery I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
-
@TimeBandit said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
A boatload of Micro SD cards is massively high speed, just also massively high latency. So tradeoffs?
-
@TimeBandit said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
I do also...
I remember paying big money for a 33.6 modem. Several hundred bucks at the time. It was even an external model. But not quite old enough to have to set the phone handset on it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Apparently, anything faster than 512 Kbps is "high speed"
I remember when that was actually true.
It certainly was, considering the web was still mostly text based. :P
Pffffbt. There were pictures. There was even porn. But you were usually done wanking before the picture fully loaded.
-
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@TimeBandit said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
I do also...
I remember paying big money for a 33.6 modem. Several hundred bucks at the time. It was even an external model. But not quite old enough to have to set the phone handset on it.
Me too. And I returned it. Because my phone line quality couldn't manage more than 26K. Think I still have that modem in my closet...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@TimeBandit said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
A boatload of Micro SD cards is massively high speed, just also massively high latency. So tradeoffs?
RFC1149 defines something similar. I think it was superceded by RFC2549 though.
-
@TimeBandit said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
I remember needing to modify the serial card on my Apple ][ to let it transmit and receive simultaneously at different bit rates after upgrading from a 300 baud acoustic coupler to a directly connected V.23 1200/75 baud modem, and being very pleased with the results.
-
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
But you were usually done wanking before the picture fully loaded.
You, maybe....
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
But you were usually done wanking before the picture fully loaded.
You, maybe....
Pfff show off ... bragging with your internet speed
-
@Luhmann said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
But you were usually done wanking before the picture fully loaded.
You, maybe....
Pfff show off ... bragging with your internet speed
No. It can take hours to complete sometimes. Somewhat frustrating when I want to go to sleep but can't...
Filed under: Wait, we're still talking about making sure you disconnect the connection after a long download, right?
-
@dcon said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Me too. And I returned it. Because my phone line quality couldn't manage more than 26K. Think I still have that modem in my closet...
No, you don't.
-
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Pffffbt. There were pictures. There was even porn. But you were usually done wanking before the picture fully loaded.
Ah, good old uuencode. When just downloading the porn wasn't enough. You had to assemble all the pieces and convert them.
-
@No_1 said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@dcon said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Me too. And I returned it. Because my phone line quality couldn't manage more than 26K. Think I still have that modem in my closet...
No, you don't.
Should have clarified that... I returned the 56K modem, kept the 33 - since those extra Ks (and $s) were useless.
-
@boomzilla said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Pffffbt. There were pictures. There was even porn. But you were usually done wanking before the picture fully loaded.
Ah, good old uuencode. When just downloading the porn wasn't enough. You had to assemble all the pieces and convert them.
Ah, memories...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@TimeBandit said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Polygeekery I remember when 3429 baud (33.6k) was considered high speed.
A boatload of Micro SD cards is massively high speed, just also massively high latency. So tradeoffs?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
-
@El_Heffe said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
a station wagon full of tapes
Tapes are old hat. If we're going to load up that station wagon in 2016, we should be using micro SD cards.
Let's assume our station wagon has 500 litres of load space. A micro SD card is about 100 cubic millimetres. At a million cubic millimetres to the litre, that gives us room for 5 million micro SD cards. If they're nice new Samsung ones at 256GB each, that's 1.28EB = 10Eb.
Google Maps says that LA and NY are 41 hours apart by car, which is 150ks. So our station wagon's cross-continental transfer rate is 68Tb/s. Not too shabby.
-
@flabdablet You really should include time needed to read/write them though. And hardware costs.
-
@flabdablet and the fact that it's not streaming, so you can't use the first 68Tb after the first second; you have to wait for the entire transfer to complete before any part is usable. Still, not bad.
-
@cheong said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@Deadfast Sounds like you should adjust your Active Hours then.
You mean the bullshit that won't let you set an active period of more than 10 hours? Because family and gaming computers are totally not a thing. Oh, and you can't set it to span midnight, because who sleeps during the day?
I wonder if you could get around that in the registry ….
ETA Bwahahaha!
-
@flabdablet said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
500 litres of load space
- Assume that a Station wagon must be at least a Mid-size vehicle according to US size categorizations for passenger cars.
- This gives us a MINIMUM total passenger/cargo capacity of 110 cubic feet by the size categories chosen above
- Convert to SI units because we're not heathens here. that's a minimum of 3115 and a smidge litres of total interior volume.
- Assume that the driver and passenger (to swap periodically for non stop fun) plus necessary supplies can consume not more than 1000 litres of total interior volume
- Assume that the containment provisions for the microSD cards consumes not more than 115 litres of total interior volume.
- Assume an average packing efficiency of 90%.
- Thus each microSSD require 112 cubic mililiters, or 0.000112 litres of storage volume.
- Based on our assumptions above there are 2000 litres of cargo capacity available.
- =2000/0.000112 results in 17.8 million (and a bit) microSD cards.
- Sandisk has releases a 512GB microSD card.
- Using 1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes and 1 GiB = 1,073,741,824 we arrive at an adjusted raw capacity of 476.83GB per card.
- multiply by 17.8 (and a bit) million to get a total raw capacity of...8.5 Billion GB... or 7.93 Petabytes.
- That's lower than your estimate by a factor of..... over a thousand, and that's with having 4 times the cargo capacity, and 2x the data density of your stated calculations
- For completeness below is the formula i used to work out the final number, just in case i mathed wrong
LET MFG_GB = 1000000000 LET TRUE_GB = 1073741824 LET MAX_GB = 512 LET CARGO_LITRES = 2000 LET UNIT_LITRES = 0.0001 LET PACKING_EFFICIENCY = 0.9 =(MFG_GB / TRUE_GB * MAX_GB) * (CARGO_LITRES / (UNIT_LITRES / PACKING_EFFICIENCY))
-
@accalia said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
7.93 Petabytes.
Err. sorry. that's Exabytes actually. i converted up the scale incorrectly. Whoopsies.
-
@accalia said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Err. sorry. that's Exabytes actually. i converted up the scale incorrectly. Whoopsies.
So after allowing for that :) you're within a factor of 10 of @flabdablet's calculation. Not too bad for what is little more than Fermi Estimation.
-
@dkf said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
you're within a factor of 10 of @flabdablet's calculation.
i'm actually (now that i'ved checked it) EXACTLY
8 * 1/1.073,741,824
times higher than his estimate.not bad actually.
-
@accalia I don't understand why you take a side trip into gibibytes. Micro SD card capacities, like hard disk capacities but unlike RAM capacities, are generally quoted in standard SI multiples; if a manufacturer says a card's capacity is 512GB, you can fit 512,000,000,000 bytes on it. Data rates are also generally quoted in standard SI multiples, so it's more convenient to work in them consistently throughout.
Also, a GiB is not a "true" GB regardless of Windows's opinion.
I was assuming 500 litres of station wagon load space because that's pretty close to what their manufacturers generally spec it at. If you're going to stuff cards into the passenger spaces as well, you'll obviously fit more in.
-
@PleegWat said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
You really should include time needed to read/write them though. And hardware costs.
I'm just designing transmission infrastructure. How you interface with it is somebody else's problem.
-
@accalia said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
not bad actually.
You had different volume for the vehicle, and different assumptions for capacity and physical size of the μSD cards. But it's the order of magnitude that we'd be aiming to be close on, not the exact figure. For the exact figure, we'd need to take into account just how much the seats recline, what the shape of the wheel arches is, how thick the carpet in the trunk is, etc. Whatever.
-
@flabdablet said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
I don't understand why you take a side trip into gibibytes
because i could, and it made the calculations just slightly more needlessly complicated.
@flabdablet said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
generally quoted in standard SI multiples
that's fine, but if i put it in my computer and ask my partition manager how big the drive is it gives it to me in GiB, REGARDLESS of what operating system it is.
so either the operating systems need to switch to the SI unit, or the drive manufactures have to switch to GiB too, i don't fracking care which one is the standard, i just want my [drive manufacturer]/[computer](delete whichever is inappropriate) to stop lying to me.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
it's not streaming, so you can't use the first 68Tb after the first second; you have to wait for the entire transfer to complete before any part is usable.
Ah, but the beauty of this solution is that it can be scaled up via road division multiplexing.
If we run a continuous fleet of station wagons maintaining a safe following distance of two seconds, we can stream at 5Eb/s per lane in standard format, or up to 40Eb/s using 512GB cards and @accalia's quad-density station wagons, and only require (say) five seconds of buffer capacity.
-
@accalia said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
if i put it in my computer and ask my partition manager how big the drive is it gives it to me in GiB
Really?
I don't know what shitty partition manager you're using. GNU parted works in whatever units you like; both decimal and binary prefix sets are supported.
-
@flabdablet said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Really?
Windows Disk Manager
also fdisk/parted because command line is king.
parted is capable of using SI uinits, but it is NOT the default.
also
ls
lists size on disk in 2^10 based units instead of 10^3, as do every file manager i have used to date.
-
@flabdablet You run into weight limits first anyway - at 165mm³ (source each I arrive at 30 kg/l. Checking a rental site indicates a Ford Connect will fit 2.8³ of cargo, but only 667kg. So we hit the weight limit at only 22l of SD cards. The larger Ford Transit will fit 3.6 m³, and goes up to 933kg (or 31l of SD cards).
A weight-first calculation gives me 2000 cards per kilogram, or 1 petabyte per kilogram. You won't hit an exabyte (1 tonne of cargo) in any normal passenger car.
-
@dkf said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
Fermi Estimation
Hey! No mention of those outside of the garage. Some people are touchy about those.
-
@PleegWat said in Skype Call vs. Windows Update:
@flabdablet You run into weight limits first anyway - at 165mm³ (source each I arrive at 30 kg/l. Checking a rental site indicates a Ford Connect will fit 2.8³ of cargo, but only 667kg. So we hit the weight limit at only 22l of SD cards. The larger Ford Transit will fit 3.6 m³, and goes up to 933kg (or 31l of SD cards).
A weight-first calculation gives me 2000 cards per kilogram, or 1 petabyte per kilogram. You won't hit an exabyte (1 tonne of cargo) in any normal passenger car.
...I will absolutely concede, especially with my Imperial Units educational impediment, that I am likely wrong...but I think it is 3kg/l?