Broadband speed thread. Post your superior broadband speeds

Does your high speed internet help get those ads in your face as fast as possible?

>>57922099
This is not yours, start the thread by posting your real speedtest

>>57922099
>100mbit up

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-09 18:33:41.png (10KB, 528x135px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 528x135px

Fucking RIP me

I normally get about 17 down but I have a cable modem and its during peak hours right now. 6:30pm so everyone just got home from work not too long ago

>>57922116
Only poorfags use adblockers because they can't buy all the merch.

>>57922120
That's a photo taken of my screen with my smartphone, bud.

>>57922099
dumb /co/ poster

>>57922316
Dumb /Jelly/ faggot bang on time.

>>57922280
prove it

File: 5791501332.png (32KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x135px

>>57922099
500Mbps symmetric

File: IMG-20161115-WA0025.jpg (120KB, 900x1600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 900x1600px

>>57922337

File: 5856691899.png (30KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x135px

Waiting for 1 gbps .-.

File: IMG-20161110-WA0022.jpg (170KB, 900x1600px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 900x1600px

>>57922337
Need I go on?

>>57922340
Nice, welcome to the club man.

>>57922354
Worth the wait mate.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-09 at 6.45.12 PM (2).png (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

ummm idk what these number mean (｡>﹏<｡)
is this good?

>>57922365
Most major cities have 1 gbps but i cant get it because i don't live in a city

File: 1472248331385.png (17KB, 376x226px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 376x226px

not bad for 20 euros

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-09 18-47-01.png (61KB, 694x120px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 694x120px

>>57922099

>>57922389
Still pretty good speeds bro; area can be a bitch sometimes... In due time.

>>57922407
Yeah i guess. Do you have a 10 gbps network card because you get over 1 gbps?

>>57922398
Nice ping at least; ISP?

>>57922397
You're right, that isn't bad; who's that with?

>>57922379
Your speed is "Average" I guess lol your main downside is that you're using a Mac... :^]

>>57922425
I do, yes.

>>57922398
Nice ISDN you got there.

>>57922444
>you're using a Mac
uhh why wouldnt i? their the best

>>57922099
Yeah, but you're in the UK so enjoy your surveillance.

>who's that with?

you mean ISP ? Nowo, a Portuguese ISP

File: osx folder merge.png (457KB, 696x938px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 696x938px

>>57922472
>mac
>the best

>>57922460
Damn man. I was looking in getting a 10 gbps card because there's a new isp who offers 10 gbps in a few cities. Hope it comes to me too. Did you pay 300$ for one? I was considering buying a cheaper second hand one

>>57922475
UK ISP's have some integrity towards keeping their clients privacy their own / not giving a fuck. Why not post yours so I can criticise yours for a bit?

File: speedtest.jpg (177KB, 1493x251px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1493x251px

u jelly fagets

>>57922496
I work in £ here so I guess it would be the equivalent to 300 dorrah yeah; worth it when you've got the speeds mate.

>>57922488
hold option, baka

>>57922519
That looks remarkably like my (OP) picture... :^]

>>57922527
Yeah i know. Was too lazy to convert currency, it was only an estimation. What network card do you have and does it have good driver support?

>>57922554
https://www.amazon.co.uk/StarTech-com-Express-Gigabit-Ethernet-Network/dp/B00LPRS36K

Bought from Amazon and yeah, no real issues to report there.

File: image.jpg (162KB, 2000x1501px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 2000x1501px

>>57922099

File: 2016-11-29_16-31-30.png (54KB, 1920x1050px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1920x1050px

>>57922099

>>57922665
Welcome to the party man, nice speeds.

>>57922099
Well, speaking of internet stuffs, more like Marvell amirite guys?

>>57922812
Eh?

File: thegame.png (524KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 640x480px

>5Mbp/s
>Shootself.jpg

File: isp.png (270KB, 732x448px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 732x448px

Meh, best in NV. Rich twats up the hill wont fork over and make running new lines worth it for the isps.

>>57922836
I don't care how bad the joke was, I had to.

File: 2016-12-08 15_27_35-Speedtest by Ookla.png (8KB, 505x102px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 505x102px

>>57922519
>>57922099

Kek, why are you getting cucked by an upload speed 1/10th of your download?

What a shitty ISP.

>>57922836
Marvell is a tech company that makes ethernet switches and networking equipment.

File: 1450669311889.jpg (52KB, 1448x170px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1448x170px

I don't understand why my ISP charges a fuck ton for this shit internet.

>>57923064
I'd rather have faster download than upload, and so would other people.

>>57923415
Sure, but at 150mbps it's not like most web servers are able to deal with more bandwidth anyway.

Besides my ISP is giving me a nice free upgrade to 300/300 in late 2017.

>>57923438
what ISP?

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-09 21-06-39.png (29KB, 865x333px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 865x333px

>>57922099

>>57922099
>flash based speed test
>using flash in 2016
LAUGHING
MY
OFF
ASS

File: Capture.png (12KB, 356x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 356x200px

>>57922099
You're using a 10 GbE connection or what? That seems like a fairly substantial investment for like 12% extra download speed when it's pretty much fast as fuck anyway.

File: 4513908907.png (31KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x135px

>>57922099

File: Capture.png (7KB, 833x76px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 833x76px

This is what I get with WiFi. It's 30/15 wired.

>>57922472
>their
you sound like a mac user

>>57922365
Aussies BTFO!

File: 2448083317.png (29KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x135px

That's wireless.
I get up to 2x wired.

>>57924305
Class! I think you win bud haha

>>57924507
You are under the impression that I'm poor and am paying for it...

File: speedtest_10.12.2016.png (30KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x135px

Jealous of the crazy fast connections some of you have. I could have it worse though, this 50/5 line is okay for regular use.

File: 5866549352.png (31KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x135px

>shitty upload

>>57922316
Wait, how do you know he's from /co/¿

File: Capture.png (23KB, 413x546px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 413x546px

tally ho, tea and crumpets with fruit spleggings, etc

>>57929342
Hello UK bro... OP here

File: speedof.me_16-12-10.png (155KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1200x800px

Could be better, but it gets the job done.

>>57929010
Kek all I did was edit the html

File: bf1 speed.jpg (54KB, 851x483px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 851x483px

speed tests lie, the ISPs game the system to inflate scores

>>57931532
How is something playable at 33%?

>>57931567
Not like you need all the cut scenes and other assets for mulitplayer

>>57931567
because it prioritizes the core game engine and the assets for the first ~60 minutes of single player so you can play the first mission or two without having the rest downloaded.

I just passed from 3Mb/512Kb copper connection

To 30Mb/3Mb for the same price (fiber)

This first month I have 150Mb/12Mb though, I'm losing my shit

File: 2450248936.png (30KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x135px

Fastest I've seen over wired Ethernet is about 900 Mbps

$23 USD a month

>>57931681
Beyond about 250mbit, it makes very little difference.

The amount of sites and services that can saturate that are very small and then unless you're downloading very huge files the time difference only ends up being a few dozen seconds anyways.

File: speedtest comparison 12_8_16.jpg (146KB, 1139x882px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1139x882px

>>57931532
maybe for you

1GB per minute for a steam download, which is exactly what I pay for

>>57922472
there* fucking retard

File: file.png (13KB, 478x103px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 478x103px

Fucking Nazis at Comcast.

File: SS2702.png (47KB, 696x66px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 696x66px

and i still send more data than 99% of you

>>57931708
Yeah, actually I was trying to download something from Steam that should get me max speed

I got like 15MB/s and the HDD was so saturated that the computer became unusable, I finally understand the need for SSD disks (I have a SATA2 disk though, don't know how much is the difference with a SATA3 HDD)

File: ANGERY.png (19KB, 300x309px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x309px

>>57932006
>SSD disks

File: 2016-12-08 17_25_18-CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 Shizuku Edition x64 (UWP).png (846KB, 790x645px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 790x645px

>>57932006
that's why you fall for the PCI SSD meme.

File: 00584.png (82KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 280x280px

>>57932006
>SSD disks
get the GTFO fuck out

>>57932020
I'm tempted to get one, specially because I have an old 1155 mobo with SATA2 and I don't have plans to change it anytime soon.

I also need a bigger HDD, I don't know what to give priority too, god damn.

>>57932036
What else do you suggest? I can't download at max speed and use the computer at the same time.

RAID 0?

File: 2016-07-21 10_58_33-Piriform Speccy.png (8KB, 502x113px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 502x113px

>>57932043
I'm doing fine on storage personally.

I have about 4TB free of my ~17.75TB total storage.

>>57931764
>1GB per minute for a steam download
who the fuck measures speeds like that ?

You have a meh teir speed, wait until you pay for 500+ mbits but never see that doing anything on your PC


>>57932006
I have a pcie SSD, I can tell you that I cannot for the life of me exceed ~75 megs/sec download.
I can load up origin, steam and some torrents and I can't seem to go faster that that.
Typically from a single service I will get about 25-40megabytes/sec from steam/origin
and torrents depending on the swarm it is pretty common to hit 10megabytes/sec

Meanwhile speed tests still show me 800mbit or better, I could downgrade to 500mbit package and not notice any difference.

File: gottagofast2.png (160KB, 1151x255px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1151x255px

I paid $39.99/month (approx $28 USD) for this.

>>57932071
>wait until you pay for 500+ mbits but never see that doing anything on your PC

I could get that today if I felt like paying 3.5x what I currently pay.

$55/month for 50/50mbps
$65/month for 75/75mbps
$75/month for 150/150mbps.
$165/month for 300/300mbps
$299/month for 500/500mbps

I went for 150/150mbps because it's the lowest cost per mbps.

>>57932057
>SSD disks
I suggest you become an hero

>>57932064
I have 500GB HDD hahaha

With that fucking copper connection didn't need much, It took me months to fill it (I share the connection at home to make it worse)

I want to get 1 or 2TB, should be ok for a while, but also an SSD could be nice to have the SO

>>57932071
I have 150Mb the first month and will have 30Mb after that (150Mb its too expensive for now here and I don't need that much anyway), I guess for my uses its more than enough that limit of 75MB/s

File: 1474672815275.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>57932101
oh, that was what you were complaining about? ok I guess

>>57932064
> 4TB free
fuxking luxury. how much i wish i had 4 more TiB free

>>57932154
It's like fucking saying "pass me the WiFi cable"

>>57932260
the 3x4TB drives are mostly full (I could probably easily free up 500-750GB though if I needed to just by deleting duplicates)

the 5TB HDD has about 1TB on it.

>>57932280
I get it faggot, it was just a typo, get over it

>tfw >4mb/s download speeds

>>57932497
millibits?

>>57922099
wish germany wasnt so retarded in terms of connectivity

File: SS1910.png (63KB, 833x713px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 833x713px

>>57932064
>he will never know that feel

File: file.png (65KB, 833x713px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 833x713px

>>57932699
original pic that you deleted :^)

>>57932883
because i replied to the wrong post

>>57932900
why are the pics different

>>57932900
No you didn't. I'm the person you replied to and both replies were to me.

Also, you changed the position of the Samsung T: drive information which leads me to think most of it is photoshopped in.

>>57932944
you tell me anon. original pic was 63KB

>>57932947
Sorry, it was the Q drive you changed.

Either way you're lying though.

>>57932947
how should i know who is who here?

>>57932968
Why lie about replying to the "wrong" person?

You replied to the same comment both times, I was here before you deleted the previous.

>>57932967
need a fucking photo or something?

>>57932979
>You replied to the same comment both times
bullshit, i first replied to
>>57932288

>>57932987
Why did the position change in the pictures then? And why lie about replying to the wrong person.


Just seems fishy anon.

>>57929240
hes posting from his phone and it automatically capitalized marvel
that's learned, not standard

>>57933014
Yes, you replied to this post >>57932288
Who also happens to have the EXACT same drive configuration as THIS post >>57932064

maybe, just MAYBE, they're the same poster.

hint


they are.

>>57933017
ask the guy who posted the "previous picture" with bigger filesize

>>57933053
You're the one who posted it

>>57933062
well that's funny because mine is 63KB

File: 2016-12-10 13_16_26-1481392201797.png (833×713).png (74KB, 1667x714px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1667x714px

>>57933073
I just redownloaded the original from a 4chan archive and the original you posted is 63kb, but it's also still different from the 2nd one you posted.

Again, the positioning of the Q drive free space is different in both pictures


i can only assume the other anon's OS bloated the file when he saved it. He didn't alter it from what I can see however.

File: 1481391964563.png (63KB, 833x713px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 833x713px

>>57933145
Original

>>57931532
wow 44MB/sec hard life you're living

>>57931532
>the ISPs game the system to inflate scores
It's far more likely that either

1. You're confusing MB and Mb
2. The server you're downloading from doesn't have as much upload bandwidth as the test servers you're using

It's not so much that ISPs “game” websites like speedtest.net as it is simply because speedtest.net has so many servers that one of them is bound to be within like 1 hop of you, sometimes even hosted by your ISP.

>>57933145
sauce on this. i don't see any working links

>>57933399
>http://i.4cdn.org/g/1481391964563.png

>http://i.4cdn.org/g/1481392201797.png

you just deleted the post, not the picture

First link is your original image, 2nd link the 2nd image you posted. Both are 63Kb, both were posted by you.

Both are obviously different for the Q drive.

And yet the limiting factor is still 4ch's server speeds.

>>57933422
first link gives me 404 so...

>>57933433
Well then you never opened the picture originally, or you cleared your browser cache.

File: 2016-12-10 13_38_48-(0) _g_ - Broadband speed thread. Post your superior broad - Technology - 4chan.png (116KB, 1019x1304px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1019x1304px

>>57933433
Works for me even embedded.

>>57933433
It works anon. The jig is up.

120/6 is what i pay for, i get 0/0 because those fuckers are too stupid to activate it, now im still derping around on my old 50/3 connection. if you are wondering about the low upload, welcome to germany

>>57933444
nonsense. after picture gets deleted, you should get 404 when accesing it via i.4cdn.org

http://www.speedtest.net/result/5867400350.png

>>57933483
fellow FiOS bro, and also a 150mbps user. nice
>>57931764

>>57933313
>1. You're confusing MB and Mb
I know the difference.
>2. The server you're downloading from doesn't have as much upload bandwidth as the test servers you're using
Hence I loaded up multiple sources (steam, origin, fast torrents, whatever) and still can't saturate the connection.

>It's not so much that ISPs “game” websites like speedtest.net as it is simply because speedtest.net has so many servers that one of them is bound to be within like 1 hop of you, sometimes even hosted by your ISP.
I tested this out, I picked server 2,000KM away in the same continent and got pretty much the same speeds as I get from a local server.
If I hop across the atlantic then my speeds drop between 30-50% depending on the location.

I am still holding strong that speedtests tends to over estimate what your connection can actually do.
Has speedtest ever under reported your speed ? I haven't experienced this, it always seems to over report it instead.

>>57933471
Fine if you want an archive link

https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/boards/g/img/0579/22/1481391964563.png

https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/boards/g/img/0579/22/1481392201797.png

>>57933471


And a link to the thread if you want more context
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S57922099#p57932632

>>57933563
>Has speedtest ever under reported your speed ? I haven't experienced this, it always seems to over report it instead.
It actually has. I couldn't saturate my link to the speedtest servers but I can saturate it just fine when downloading from multiple servers simultaneously

>>57933563
speedtest gives me 145-151mbps, but I get 155mbps from steam downloads.

>>57933581
kek looks like he just copy pasted and tried changing the exact numbers and drive letters around to make it look like he has UBER storage.

He probably only has 1/3rd of those drives. Maybe half.

>>57933604
>speedtest gives me 145-151mbps, but I get 155mbps from steam downloads.
I would argue that kind of margin is within testing specifications


In my case I get reported speeds of 750-790mbit
meanwhile actual download speeds are 160-200mbit lower than that in the best case scenario.

>>57933699
you fucking moron, that's because no servers out there are expected to serve up 200mbps+ to a single user.

MOST servers are running gigabit connections unless you're connecting to a MAJOR service like steam or similar, where they probably have 10gbps connections on their servers, and even then, you're sharing that server with 50+ other people across the region also downloading things.

>>57933720
read my fucking posts dickshit,
I told you I can load up as many fucking shit services like steam or origin, or torrents at once and never reach those speeds.

>>57933762
well where are you trying to download it to?

sequential write speed for a single drive would be destroyed by that sort of load

>>57933573
>>57933581
well it looks like it. maybe 4chan captured it badly or something, i don't know
>>57933679
yes, i have nothing better to do than trying to prove nothing on nowhere while being noone. want a photo or something?

>>57933785
you already offered a photo, still waiting.

>>57933802
sure brb. i'll get the cam

File: 2016-12-10.png (110KB, 1024x728px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x728px

>>57933777
Even a mid range SSD should be able to handle a measly 100mbyte write speed

>>57933777
>sequential write speed for a single drive would be destroyed by that sort of load
wat no

even cheap HDDs average like 1-2 Gbps, no way in hell are they bottlenecking your network

>>57933825
When talking about multiple downloads from multiple sources you're dealing with random write performance.

Run a crystal disk mark, random write performance is GARBAGE.

How does one even get this fast when ethernet is limited to 1Gbit?

File: 1.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>57933802
first 5 drives

File: 2.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>57933949
next 3
one 2,5 on LEGO and one was too loud so it got a DIY silencer

File: 3.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>57933965
an the rest. not all of them tho, some were borrowed

>>57933965
>>57933982
>LEGO and cardboard drive enclosure
holy shit, the poorfag is real

wanna bet most of those drives are under 1 TB in size? otherwise why would you have to photoshop them

>>57934011
>wanna bet most of those drives are under 1 TB in size?
you're a fucking moron, you know that?

>>57933924
Are you stupid?

File: 2016-12-10 14_22_28-CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 Shizuku Edition x64 (UWP).png (854KB, 794x597px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 794x597px

>>57933825
my samsung 950 pro's random write performance (what you're dealing with when talking about downloading from steam, origin, etc at the same time) is pretty low. It's 1900MB/s read and 950MB/s write performance for sequential read/write, but random write. (>>57932020) is around 220MB/s and that's with a PCI/M.2 NVMe SSD, using a SATA SSD this is MUCH lower.

Using my SATA 3 Seagate 600 500GB SSD I get ~500MB/s sequential read speeds, ~460MB/s sequential write speeds.
BUT for random read it's 28MB/s and for random write it's ~110MB/s

This is using a synthetic benchmark with identical queue depth, chunk size, etc. In real world situations I wouldn't be shocked to see random write performance to drop even further.

>>57934042
says the guy photoshopping his pictures

you haven't even shown jackshit in the way of drive identification except a blurry-as-fuck toshiba logo

>>57934042
says the guy claiming to have 15 hard drives and barely posts proof of 11 of them.

>>57934048
>my samsung 950 pro's random write performance (what you're dealing with when talking about downloading from steam, origin, etc at the same time)
What? No. Those are all sequential workloads

>>57934070
You think downloading from steam, origin, torrents, etc, all at the same moment are sequential?

>>57934061
>photoshop
don't even insult me with this crap
i'll post a full gallery if you kill yourself on cam after that
>>57934063
wew. reading sure is hard:
>>57933982
>not all of them tho, some were borrowed

>>57934070
if you queued up a steam download, then an origin download, then a torrent, that would be 3 sequential tasks and once it's finished with one, it will go on to the next.

If you're doing all 3 downloads at once, there isn't any way your HDD or SSD is writing all of that information sequentially.

>>57934103
>don't even insult me with this crap
explain why the pixel spacing changed

https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/boards/g/img/0579/22/1481391964563.png
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/boards/g/img/0579/22/1481392201797.png

>>57934135
>c-c-cause 4chan did it, i s-swear.

>>57934135
how the fuck should i know? ask 4chan administration, their server, whatever
shit like this actually happens if you didn't know

>>57934104
>if you queued up a steam download, then an origin download, then a torrent, that would be 3 sequential tasks and once it's finished with one, it will go on to the next.
That's not how computers work anon

>>57934079
Pretty much, yes. Since they're all sequential workloads, your I/O size is going to be massive.

Random I/O performance suffers because of small I/O units, like when you're writing 4K chunks at a time in random places, and you hit the IOPS caps before you saturate the throughput. But with three simultaneous downloads it's more like you're writing 10 MB of data for one, then 10 MB of data for the other, then 10 MB of data for the third.

Anyway, feel free to try it if you don't believe me. Copy three large files simultaneously and add up the speed of each copy. It will be the same as your sequential performance for a single copy.

On 500/50 now, upgrading to 1000/1000 in feb, cannae wait.

>>57934172
>Random I/O performance suffers because of small I/O units, like when you're writing 4K chunks at a time in random places, and you hit the IOPS caps before you saturate the throughput. But with three simultaneous downloads it's more like you're writing 10 MB of data for one, then 10 MB of data for the other, then 10 MB of data for the third.


Except you're assuming every service you're using is sending you identical chunk sizes.

Mix up 4 different downloads, all using different size chunks, and good luck with that.

>>57934161
I've been using this website for 8 goddamn years and not ONCE have I seen anything like this “just happen”.

That makes no goddamn sense. Servers don't just randomly move parts of your image, anon. How the fuck would that even happen, especially in such an incredible obvious fashin (like fucking up the spacing of a label)?

And even IF it just happened “randomly”, there's a reason you deleted your post, anon. It's because you knew you fucked up and thought archives didn't exist. (Because obviously you're new to this website)

in b4 “I replied to the wrong person”, people misquote all the time - and when it happens they just reply to their own post and say “meant to reply to <link>”. They don't randomly wait for the post deletion cooldown, delete their post, then reupload an image.

You did this deliberately and we know you did. So, why are you trying to hide something? Too embarrassed about talking tough online and being unable to back it up? Are you seriously so desperate for attention that you need to lie on the internet to make you feel better about your poorfag cardboard-and-LEGO setup?

Jesus christ anon, and I thought I had no life. You're pathetic and should just kill yourself.

>>57934229
>Except you're assuming every service you're using is sending you identical chunk sizes.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I thought this was supposed to be a technology board. Do you have ANY fucking understanding of how file systems, block layers, writeback caching and TCP/IP work?

That question alone implies you have no fucking understanding of any of this, in which case WHY THE FUCK are you spouting your egregiously underinformed “knowledge” online? It makes no fucking sense.

>>57934257
>for 8 goddamn years
>never seen glitched/corrupted pics
>never seen picture swaps
>never seen posted files that are not allowed here
>never seen fucked up site
wew. 8 months at most
>and being unable to back it up?
>literally got his photos
>ignored them completely
no, you're the one who should kill himself

>>57934334
you posted blurry as fuck pictures with 2/3rds of the drives you claimed you had, and you have zero proof of their actual sizes.

Take a physical picture of your windows explorer with all your drives open like your screenshot, but use the camera you took the other pics with so we know there is no photoshopping.

>>57934334
>never seen glitched/corrupted pics
Nope, never happens unless the file was corrupted to begin with; and even if in cases where file corruption does happen its looks _very_ different

Since PNG, JPG etc. are sequentially compressed, any corruption in the bitstream ends up making the rest of the image corrupt as well. Usually, these things are guarded by checksums as well so in all likihood the image would either completely fail to display, and even if the checksums are ignored, then only half of the image would get displayed with the rest corrupt (after a certain point)

>never seen picture swaps
That happens due to hash collisions, which are a completely different effect caused by two people uploading different images at the same time. It is NOT a modification of the image, it just means somebody else's uploaded image will display instead of yours

>never seen posted files that are not allowed here
4chan these days (post-kimmo) very aggressively verifies and strips the files you're posting, to the point where they even remove embedded ICC profiles in case you could be hiding data in them, remove appended data after the image, and so on.

>never seen fucked up site
Not sure what this is supposed to have to do with your image getting mysteriously photoshopped.

You're just digging your grave deeper and deeper, anon. Your photos so far haven't proven jackshit. If you want to impress me, take a VIDEO recording of your screen showing that same explorer window while you're interacting with it (clicking on drives, moving the window and stuff) so I know it's not just another one of your fucking photoshopped screenshots.

>>57934396
>Take a physical picture of your windows explorer with all your drives open like your screenshot, but use the camera you took the other pics with so we know there is no photoshopping.
He'll just take a screenshot of his desktop, photoshop it, show it in fullscreen and snap a picture

It needs to be a video recording proving he's interacting with the explorer window. Everything else at this point will be nothing but more empty boasting and photoshopping. I don't know what kind of agenda anon has for lying on the internet, but it clearly runs deep. If you give him any opportunity to cheat, the little shit WILL use it.

>>57934396
>>57934416
>it's all shpped or fake!
>no, i'm too new and never seen shit here
no, fuck you. i'm not getting up again just to prove something to your autistic little heads. believe your shit, idc

>>57934449
>no, fuck you. i'm not getting up again just to prove something to your autistic little heads. believe your shit, idc
So in other words, you're making this shit up and got BTFO'd so hard that you can't prove your little lies.

What's so sad about it is that somebody would go to all this effort just to lie on the internet. Seriously, I don't get it. Does it make you feel happier at night knowing you “showed off” with fake pictures on the internet? Does it make you feel accomplished?

I hope you go to sleep tonight crying into the pillow because the epik hacker known as 4chan called you out for your bullshit instead of fake-validating your ego.

>>57932064
and feel free to prove that this is real as well while you're at it

>>57934472
if you can't believe photos then you're gonna damage control a video as well
maybe come here so i can shove all these drives up your ass

>>57934503
Oh, I believe your photos are undoctored. It's just that you seem to be deliberately avoiding taking a photo of any actual evidence (device labels, IDs) and also can't back up your claims with the photos you posted (you claimed you had more drives than you do)

Plus, you're still missing the point. The point is that we KNOW, INDISPUTABLY, that you photoshopped the first imaeg you uploaded, then deleted it to fix an alignment fuck-up. There's no need to argue about this, the archive is proof enough.

So the natural question is: If you were telling the truth, then why would you feel any need to alter your screenshot? Do you understand how suspicious that makes you seem?

You can't even come up with a legitimate excuse for having done so, and furthermore you deny a self-obvious truth. That means you're already actively lying to us. It doesn't exactly take a genius to make the mental leap that you're probably bullshitting about your setup as well.

>maybe come here so i can shove all these drives up your ass
Oh, so now you get so angry you got BTFO'd that you resort to physical threats of violence? You sure spook me, mr. tough internet guy

who fucking cares

>>57934549
>Do you understand how suspicious that makes you seem?
yes, i was stupid enough and i wouldn't figure out this obvious thing
once again: i'm not gonna get up again. believe what you want
>that you resort to physical threats of violence?
on the contrary. i know you'll enjoy this

why does half of america pay a fortune for 3rd world internet and the other half have optic fiber?spaniard here, paying 44€/month for real 150 Mbps + TV + phone

>>57934629
live in a big city? good internet
live literally anywhere else? garbage
that's america for you, infrastructure isn't cheap

File: helloworld111.png (85KB, 1049x97px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1049x97px

what should i download?

>>57934629
why does anyone need ultra fast internet in the first place?
are you DL some TB torrents?

File: speeds.png (847KB, 2601x1509px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2601x1509px

>>57934645

US s fucking massive and still has better internet than most Yuro shit holes.

Yuros get BTFO when we start comparing states vs Yuro nations with similar sizes/populations.

>>57934700
>average
>in a country where most servers are

File: MZuF2DH.jpg (121KB, 560x437px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 560x437px

>>57922506
come january theywon't have a choice in the matter. they'll be keeping records for 12 months

File: merkels tears.jpg (40KB, 700x489px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x489px

>>57922099
>mfw I'm in Germany
>mfw I get 6 Mbps down
>mfw This is about as fast as it gets
>mfw My country has enough money to fund refugees and mudslimes, but can't manage to provide its citizens with high speed internet

am i the only one here who cares more about upload?

File: 20160911_081947.jpg (3MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2988px

>>57934481

>>57935201
> Germany
Well, someone has to pay Greece's debts.
and you both have G and E in your name...

File: 5867700817.png (32KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x135px

>>57922099

>>57935201
Germany here

I get 150/10 Mbps for €32/mo from unitymedia (AKA kabel-bw)

>>57935300
what do i need to buy to have a comp as sexy as that, post please

File: 2.jpg (1MB, 2330x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2330x1536px

>>57935300
>he's still at it
just fyi: that proves just as much as my pics of 14 drives but i'm not gonna throw a tantrum over it
here's a pic i made for /diy/ so at least one drive will be "proven"

File: spd.jpg (23KB, 424x89px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 424x89px

idk what caused that upload spike

File: 2016-05-31 10_37_41-Piriform Speccy.png (24KB, 546x481px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 546x481px

>>57935468
kill you are self
just look at the components in the previous pic compared to my speccy.

4 HDDs, M.2 950 pro, Seagate SSD, MSI X99 motherboard, Asus GTX 960 GPU, etc.

it's obviously 10x more convincing than your 3 blurry as fuck poor as pics

>>57935532
your pic proves jack shit. have a nice day
...actually no. kys

>>57935558
Stay salty and poor

>>57935586
>salty
kettlepotblack.txt
>poor
don't worry i have more munny than you'll ever have, i just like DIY stuff. at least my stuff has some soul in it

File: inxi.png (21KB, 915x654px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 915x654px

>>57935532
>>57935558
>poorfags arguing about which one of their cardboard meme setups is less poor
cute

>>57935532
>GTX 960
how poor are you?

>>57935617
DIY is fine, Legos and cardboard? That's being poor.

>>57935626
Because I'm not a gaymer I'm poor?

GTX 960 has the most advanced hardware decoder and encoder from all of the 9xx series. More advanced than the GTX 980ti.

And the 10xx series has been disappointing. I'll wait for the 11xx series before upgrading.

>>57935619
didn't know about inxi, thanks!

>>57935633
LEGO is definitely not for poor, not with their crazy prices. and it's definitely from a higher quality plastic than any 5.25 -> 2.5 out there
and cardboard gets me lower temps than a case for 2.5 drives. sure i could buy one with a case (and i did a few) but when i can get a HDD 30% cheaper without a case then i'd go for it

>>57935619
>18Tib used 113Gib(1%)
jesus you're retarded

>>57936316
No, inxi is reporting the used size incorrectly.

>>57922488
>>57926946
>>57931878
don't reply to the bait.

File: cap.png (43KB, 663x196px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 663x196px

Get on my level faggots

File: 1481408319553.png (45KB, 663x196px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 663x196px

>>57936658
FTFY

>>57931878
Three* you hyper nigger

>>57922340

Your upload shouldn't be faster than your download.

File: 5867926726.png (29KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x135px

>Had trouble even uploading this image

File: 5867933465.png (31KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x135px

20€/month for this garbage in countryside

File: Selection_898.png (11KB, 492x97px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 492x97px

>>57922099
>▶

File: Screenshot_20161211-130720.png (107KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1080x1920px

It ain't real internet unless it's copper based. Only cucks use fibre.

File: utp-kat-5-zelowany-cu.jpg (12KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x300px

>>57938181
4life

>>57937395
hurp durp. It couldnt possibly be the server he connected too could it.

>>57937395
>shouldn't be
says who?

>>57922346
What theme is that. I assume that is sab.

File: file.png (12KB, 484x107px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 484x107px

jelly fags?

>>57939353
Anyone with a brain, retard.

File: IMG_20161115_202505.jpg (82KB, 1013x790px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1013x790px

australia please

>>57940424
So you mean for you personally.

You're pretending everyone has the same needs and wants you do.

Some people upload a SHIT ton, some people have jobs that require them to upload large files regularly, or backup entire libraries of media or other tasks which require large amounts of uploading.


For these people upload speed can be faster than their download speed and they would be VERY happy.

There is nothing bad or wrong about having more upload than download, especially when you're already at 400mbps+ for your download.

File: 5868205184.png (31KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x135px

Just kill me now

>>57940584
lol your equipment is broken, you're using SUPER shitty wifi, or your network is being used by someone else heavily.

Pretty sure the slowest speed FiOS offers is 50/50mbps.

File: 2016-12-10 22_23_42-5868208922.png (300×135).png (34KB, 593x128px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 593x128px

>>57940584
Here is my results to the Albany servers, one was throttling my upload, but the other was fine.

From 300 miles away, using the FiOS network.

File: Screenshot_20161210-193118.png (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

What ISP does /g/ use? I pay $85 a MONTH for this shit AND I live in LA. There should be no excuses.

>>57940645
$75/month for verizon here >>57940645

File: 20161210_193328.png (939KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 1440x2560px

>>57940735
My speeds this morning

File: fucked.png (13KB, 640x259px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x259px

Is there anything I can do on my end to mediate this?

My ISP is a complete dumb ass. I called them to report the issue since its not normal and now ongoing 2 days straight. But the person I talk to on the phone LITERALLY has no idea what latency/ping is.

>>57940584
>dat ping
something is wrong. you better call some technician
>>57940735
>ISP
Orange

File: 20161210_193915.png (937KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 1440x2560px

>$85 a MONTH for supposedly 20mbs down and 10 Up
>Get this speed on Average
>In LA
What's a better cheaper internet provider?