Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Internet Sharing Speed Problem Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 11:09 am Posted by C K (6910 messages posted) Google for "bandwidth limiters" and you will get hits on utilities that can do it. For Win 9X though you may be out of luck. Most if not all require W2K, XP or higher. Your only other alternative is expensive hardware that would have to replace your current router, and would have to be administered. Current consumer equipment is not capable of limiting bandwidth to a local LAN that I am aware of. Maybe in the future they will build that capablility into the routers. Other than that, you would have to install a server environment with server software, either pay for MS software, or free with Linux then build a domain and I don't think you want to do that. It gets very complicated with a steep learning curve and a lot of time to do it, as well as additional hardware/computer(s). On Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 7:41 am, Sudhindra wrote: >Hello, >I have a Cyber where a 256kbps Internet connection (broadband) is shared between >5 computers. As long as people go for Normal browsing there is no problem regarding >the sharing speed. But off late there are some customers who download heavily like >say, videos/audio etc. So, the problem is,during that time the other computers are >experiencing slow browsing...i.e it takes more than a minute to open websites like >yahoo,rediff etc.Now how do I make sure that even the other computers get a good >share of speed when someone is downloading heavily? ( OS : Win 98 ; We have Router >) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Internet Sharing Speed Problem Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 3:01 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Sudhindra wrote: |I have a Cyber | I assume you mean *a cyber cafe*. Your local shorthand is NOT universally understood. |where a 256kbps Internet connection (broadband) is shared between 5 computers. | {pedantic}*AMONG* 5 computers{/pedantic} |[...]there are some customers who download heavily[...] |So[...]other computers are experiencing slow browsing | http://www.livecdlist.com/?pick=All&showonly=server http://www.google.com/search?q=How.to.set-up.a.Linux.server [Reply or follow-up to this message] The modern way to do public terminals Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 7:26 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Sudhindra wrote: |I have a Cyber [cafe] | I can't imagine how Windoze 98 was deemed a proper OS for this task. At the time this was originally posted (April 3, 2008), all versions of Win9x had already been declared OBSOLETE by Microsoft. Support for those licenses was *officially* dropped as of July 11, 2006. In addition, of all of the multitasking OSes ever created, Windoze has the -WORST- security and Win9x was the most pathetic of that lot, having exactly ZERO security. You must have spent -HUGE- amounts of time maintaining those boxes. At the time of the original post (as was mentioned then), there were several Linux distributions that were MUCH better choices. Linux is Free Software (gratis and libre). Since Linux can be run from a thumbdrive, you could even run thick clients from a flash drive located inside the computer case (even after all your rotating magnetic media has failed). NB Linux filesystems don't require constant defragging either so, even if you are using HDDs, there's less wear on those with Linux. Coming forward to the year 2011, *this* is the easiest way to do a thick client deployment of public terminals: cache of http://freecode.com/projects/fsprotect [1] What it does is analogous to Faronics' DeepFreeze. NB DeepFreeze is closed-source payware; fsprotect is gratis and libre (free and free) as is the OS it uses. For **even more** value per dollar, you could use *one* Linux server and configure your boxes as **thin** clients (terminals): (Note that most computers are idling >99% of the time --even when someone is sitting in front of them.) Small amounts of local RAM are less of a problem with terminals and there are no local hard drives to fail. http://google.com/search?q="Linux.Terminal.Server.Project" As Linux has INNATE security, Linux is MUCH easier to maintain than using M$ wares for anything. Linux also comes with a vast array of server software and what isn't *included* in your distro is just a few clicks away in your Linux package manager. [1] Debian-based distros include Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and many more. http://distrowatch.com/search.php?basedon=Debian&status=Active http://distrowatch.com/search.php?basedon=Ubuntu&status=Active [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum