Any way to test bandwidth on a pocketpc

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Seems like all the sites I go to run some script that won't run on the pocketpc. Is there a pocketpc friendly site?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

The majority of them start a *big* uncompressible file or image
download, after getting the time in milllseconds. When the download
completes, they get another time, work out (or are usually *told) how
big the file was and can calculate the bytes or bits per second from
that.

It would prolly work on the PPC with a tweak - can you give some
examples of what's not working, and why you need a bandwidth
determination ?

Cheers - Neil

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:37:01 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Seems like all the sites I go to run some script that won't run on the pocketpc. Is there a pocketpc friendly site?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

http://www.info-techs.com/speedtest50.html works fine on ppc's although
I sometimes suspect that it has it's own connection speed issues ;-)

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

No reason other than curiosity. Got a new bluetooth phone and I wanted to see what speeds I was getting on the 1xRTT network on the pocketpc. Pretty sure it's not the phone because when I use my bluetooth card for the laptop all works ok. Seems to do the download test, but the pocketpc seems to fail when it tries to put up the comparison chart. I've tried the cnet account and a couple others all with the same result. Running the Ipaq 5550

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<khh1j01dtm3acar10k8k3rm66gh2220asi@4ax.com>

The majority of them start a *big* uncompressible file or image
download, after getting the time in milllseconds. When the download
completes, they get another time, work out (or are usually *told) how
big the file was and can calculate the bytes or bits per second from
that.

It would prolly work on the PPC with a tweak - can you give some
examples of what's not working, and why you need a bandwidth
determination ?

Cheers - Neil

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:37:01 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Seems like all the sites I go to run some script that won't run on the pocketpc. Is there a pocketpc friendly site?
>


[microsoft.public.pocketpc]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

It's possible the comparison chart is created as a 'Flash' movie
rather than a GIF or JPEG image. But without you telling us the site
you're looking at ..... is it top secret or something ?

Cheers - Neil


On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:20:36 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> No reason other than curiosity. Got a new bluetooth phone and I wanted to see what speeds I was getting on the 1xRTT network on the pocketpc. Pretty sure it's not the phone because when I use my bluetooth card for the laptop all works ok. Seems to do the download test, but the pocketpc seems to fail when it tries to put up the comparison chart. I've tried the cnet account and a couple others all with the same result. Running the Ipaq 5550
>
> nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<khh1j01dtm3acar10k8k3rm66gh2220asi@4ax.com>
>
> The majority of them start a *big* uncompressible file or image
> download, after getting the time in milllseconds. When the download
> completes, they get another time, work out (or are usually *told) how
> big the file was and can calculate the bytes or bits per second from
> that.
>
> It would prolly work on the PPC with a tweak - can you give some
> examples of what's not working, and why you need a bandwidth
> determination ?
>
> Cheers - Neil
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:37:01 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Seems like all the sites I go to run some script that won't run on the pocketpc. Is there a pocketpc friendly site?
> >
>
>
> [microsoft.public.pocketpc]
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Try any, one that I've tried is the cnet bandwidth site.

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<ikf3j05esf2trdeu8ltuoe6rh93npu3ffc@4ax.com>

It's possible the comparison chart is created as a 'Flash' movie
rather than a GIF or JPEG image. But without you telling us the site
you're looking at ..... is it top secret or something ?

Cheers - Neil


On Sat, 28 Aug 200411:20:36-0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> No reason other than curiosity. Got a new bluetooth phone and I wanted to see what speeds I was getting on the 1xRTT network on the pocketpc. Pretty sure it's not the phone because when I use my bluetooth card for the laptop all works ok. Seems to do the download test, but the pocketpc seems to fail when it tries to put up the comparison chart. I've tried the cnet account and a couple others all with the same result. Running the Ipaq 5550
>
> nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<khh1j01dtm3acar10k8k3rm66gh2220asi@4ax.com>
>
> The majority of them start a *big* uncompressible file or image
> download, after getting the time in milllseconds. When the download
> completes, they get another time, work out (or are usually *told) how
> big the file was and can calculate the bytes or bits per second from
> that.
>
> It would prolly work on the PPC with a tweak - can you give some
> examples of what's not working, and why you need a bandwidth
> determination ?
>
> Cheers - Neil
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:37:01 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Seems like all the sites I go to run some script that won't run on the pocketpc. Is there a pocketpc friendly site?
> >
>
>
> [microsoft.public.pocketpc]
>


[microsoft.public.pocketpc]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

You're not going to help, are you ?
*What* "CNET bandwidth site" ?
Whats the URL ?

Cheers - Neil

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:40:30 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Try any, one that I've tried is the cnet bandwidth site.
>
> nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<ikf3j05esf2trdeu8ltuoe6rh93npu3ffc@4ax.com>
>
> It's possible the comparison chart is created as a 'Flash' movie
> rather than a GIF or JPEG image. But without you telling us the site
> you're looking at ..... is it top secret or something ?
>
> Cheers - Neil
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 200411:20:36-0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No reason other than curiosity. Got a new bluetooth phone and I wanted to see what speeds I was getting on the 1xRTT network on the pocketpc. Pretty sure it's not the phone because when I use my bluetooth card for the laptop all works ok. Seems to do the download test, but the pocketpc seems to fail when it tries to put up the comparison chart. I've tried the cnet account and a couple others all with the same result. Running the Ipaq 5550
> >
> > nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<khh1j01dtm3acar10k8k3rm66gh2220asi@4ax.com>
> >
> > The majority of them start a *big* uncompressible file or image
> > download, after getting the time in milllseconds. When the download
> > completes, they get another time, work out (or are usually *told) how
> > big the file was and can calculate the bytes or bits per second from
> > that.
> >
> > It would prolly work on the PPC with a tweak - can you give some
> > examples of what's not working, and why you need a bandwidth
> > determination ?
> >
> > Cheers - Neil
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:37:01 -0700, "Brian H" <brianh4321@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Seems like all the sites I go to run some script that won't run on the pocketpc. Is there a pocketpc friendly site?
> > >
> >
> >
> > [microsoft.public.pocketpc]
> >
>
>
> [microsoft.public.pocketpc]
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

>> what's the url? <<

Probably http://reviews.cnet.com/Bandwidth_meter/7004-7254_7-0.html

imho, all of these are subjective depending on a number of connect
issues... for example the above test reports about 4-5 times faster than
most other connections... I notice that some download sites perform
hugely faster than others and those sites vary between workstations
giving rise to the suspicion that matchups in tcp/ip configurations
between site and computer makes a huge difference.

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Right, well their scripting is patchy to say the least eg
location = "/7009-7254_7-0.html?CType=2277&ac=&ISPID=&ISPNAME=&" +
'&kbps=' + kbps;

should read location.href which is standard for almost every browser.
(There's also no 'BODY' tag for the HTML page)

Finally, their maths is flawed, they're using a 51353 Byte image to
do the test, but assuming it's 50000 Bytes in size. I haven't checked
whether the image can be compressed further.

Anyway back to the plot :

This page http://download.enitel.no/speedtest/ downloads simple
(compressible) text. It will calculate *throughput* rather than
*bandwidth*, which is the real figure you need - the ability of your
device to max out uncompressed text data. And, it'll work with Pocket
IE.

Cheers - Neil


On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:04:54 -0500, "Beverly Howard
[Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:

> >> what's the url? <<
>
>Probably http://reviews.cnet.com/Bandwidth_meter/7004-7254_7-0.html
>
>imho, all of these are subjective depending on a number of connect
>issues... for example the above test reports about 4-5 times faster than
>most other connections... I notice that some download sites perform
>hugely faster than others and those sites vary between workstations
>giving rise to the suspicion that matchups in tcp/ip configurations
>between site and computer makes a huge difference.
>
>Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Sorry this was such a frustrating process, but there was no need to get snippy. I only check this every couple of days and I didn't have time to fish the link out last time. I guess I've assume this activity was more common and that most would know which site I was referring. Thanks for the info.

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<vtk8j0do3oev6qtn87upu11bh67jflrd4t@4ax.com>

Right, well their scripting is patchy to say the least eg
location = "/7009-7254_7-0.html?CType=2277&ac=&ISPID=&ISPNAME=&" +
'&kbps=' + kbps;

should read location.href which is standard for almost every browser.
(There's also no 'BODY' tag for the HTML page)

Finally, their maths is flawed, they're using a 51353 Byte image to
do the test, but assuming it's 50000 Bytes in size. I haven't checked
whether the image can be compressed further.

Anyway back to the plot :

This page http://download.enitel.no/speedtest/ downloads simple
(compressible) text. It will calculate *throughput* rather than
*bandwidth*, which is the real figure you need - the ability of your
device to max out uncompressed text data. And, it'll work with Pocket
IE.

Cheers - Neil


On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:04:54 -0500, "Beverly Howard
[Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:

> >> what's the url? <<
>
>Probably http://reviews.cnet.com/Bandwidth_meter/7004-7254_7-0.html
>
>imho, all of these are subjective depending on a number of connect
>issues... for example the above test reports about 4-5 times faster than
>most other connections... I notice that some download sites perform
>hugely faster than others and those sites vary between workstations
>giving rise to the suspicion that matchups in tcp/ip configurations
>between site and computer makes a huge difference.
>
>Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]


[microsoft.public.pocketpc]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Personally, didn't see anything "snippy" about any of the responses...
felt that all of them were simply trying to be as accurate as possible.

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Bev I think partly as well the subjectiveness comes into play because
some sites don't understand they need to use uncompressible files
(highly compressed jpegs or zipped text).

Some use plain text and then report the result verbatim. But this
leaves out the influence of compression on the resulting stream, and
this is certainly important for modem-class connections.

In every case I've looked at their maths is basically wrong cause they
assume 8 bits per byte of information, neglecting the overhead of TCP,
network packet framing and other variables. So at best they're a
guess.

Cheers - Neil

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:04:54 -0500, "Beverly Howard
[Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:

>>imho, all of these are subjective depending on a number of connect
>issues... for example the above test reports about 4-5 times faster than
>most other connections... I notice that some download sites perform
>hugely faster than others and those sites vary between workstations
>giving rise to the suspicion that matchups in tcp/ip configurations
>between site and computer makes a huge difference.
>
>Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]