Win XP internet download slower than Win 7

Microsoft Windows xp professional w/serv...
May 26, 2010 at 16:51:10
Specs: Windows XP
I've had windows 7 ultimate and my download was exactly 25.99mbps download and 13.44mbps upload. I switched back to XP because windows 7 was lagging too much, now my download is 10.00mbps download and 8.53mbps upload. I was wondering why the internet speeds changed so dramatically?

See More: Win XP internet download slower than Win 7

Report •


#1
May 26, 2010 at 18:29:10
Download of what? Internet download speeds shouldn't really be effected too much by what OS you're using. There might be small, subtle differences. They ARE effected by

1. The speed of your Internet connection. You can test this on www.speedtest.net

2. The speed of your PC hardware.

3. The size of the file being downloaded.

4. The particular Web Browser that you're using to download files (IE7/8, Chrome, Opera, FireFox, Safari etc).

5. Amount of Internet traffic AT the Internet site you're downloading from. The more ppl on that site - the slower it is.

6. Amount of Internet traffic on your local network node (Corporation) or your WAN Node (Home user if you are a cable subscriber) in your geographic area. With cable Internet or on your corporate LAN, like a freeway with cars, the more ppl that are online using the LAN (local area network) or the WAN (Wide area network, a.k.a. Internet) - the slower it is.

DSL doesn't have this problem.

TMI?

Just another stupid saying...


Report •

#2
May 27, 2010 at 08:36:20
DSL doesn't have this problem.

Oh yes it does. DSL uses shared resources just as much as cable does. Look up contention ratio in Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conten...

Quote from the article:

It is also less often divulged by ISPs than it is in the UK

The fact that it isn't divulged doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Stuart


Report •

#3
May 27, 2010 at 09:14:00
A couple of corrections.....

1. The speed of your Internet connection. You can test this on www.speedtest.net

The correct term is "bandwidth" and it is not a measure of 'speed' like mph or kmh. This is a common mistake made by people who don't have a real understanding of networking. By definition, bandwidth is a measure of the amount of data able to pass one point in a network in one second.

2. The speed of your PC hardware.

This has nothing to do with network bandwidth be it internal or external (internet)

3. The size of the file being downloaded.

Irrelevant and does not affect bandwidth.

4. The particular Web Browser that you're using to download files (IE7/8, Chrome, Opera, FireFox, Safari etc).

Incorrect. Again, you're talking about the computer and it's software and this is not relevant to download rates.

5. Amount of Internet traffic AT the Internet site you're downloading from. The more ppl on that site - the slower it is.

You finally got one right! Good for you.

The busier a server is, the slower the download will be for all users connected

6. Amount of Internet traffic on your local network node (Corporation) or your WAN Node (Home user if you are a cable subscriber) in your geographic area. With cable Internet or on your corporate LAN, like a freeway with cars, the more ppl that are online using the LAN (local area network) or the WAN (Wide area network, a.k.a. Internet) - the slower it is.

That's two right!

The internet, and most all modern networks are "contention based" networks utilizing CSMA/CD. The older Token Ring type networks didn't suffer from congestion issues because in order to transmit data, you had to have possession of the "token". Only the one computer with the token could transmit and the rest had to sit and wait. This just isn't a great idea for a Global network like the internet so we use a contention based network.

DSL doesn't have this problem.

And you were doing so well getting two things in a row correct and then you went and said something wrong....again.

Stuart is correct. DSL and cable are equally affected by all the same things....busy server, network congestion etc.


Extol_Burial

The most likely cause for the difference is network congestion or the server you're downloading from was busier/less busy.

To do a true test, you would need identical systems with one running XP and the other 7 and start a test download from the same source of the same file at the same time.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
May 27, 2010 at 12:41:39
Well, CurtR, ok, wording could have been better with Speeds vs Times.

Yes, speed is not the same as time. I implied download times as speed here.

2. Yes, PC hardware has nothing to do
with bandwidth speed, BUT it has everything to do with
download times. A slower PC will take longer to download
something than a faster PC will.

3. Again, times were implied here, not bandwidth speed, my
mistake. But the larger your file is, the longer it'll take to
download, obviously.

4. OK CurtR, referencing download times here again, I
downloaded 23 Mb Office 97 SP2 in IE 7 - it took me 1 minute,
7 seconds. The same download, same PC in Chrome took 31
seconds.

RE: DSL: Only meant to imply that DSL isn't shared the same
way that Cable is and speeds are more constant is all I
meant.

Thanks for the clarifications. And here is a correction for you: RE:

"To do a true test, you would need identical systems with one running XP and the other 7 and start a test download from the same source of the same file at the same time."

Actually, you wouldn't want them running at the same time to have it be a true test. You would want to run one from a particular connection, then run the other on that same connection as the first one, preferably off hours with less traffic.


Just another stupid saying...


Report •

#5
May 27, 2010 at 13:47:36
Only meant to imply that DSL isn't shared the same
way that Cable is and speeds are more constant is all I
meant.

It is though. That is what is meant by contention ration. My DSL line has a contention ratio of 50:1. That means there are 50 people connected to the same DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer) as I am. If all 50 started to download large files simultaneously they would have to share the available bandwidth which would slow things down considerably.

A buisinees class DSL connection often has a 20:1 contention ratio. That's what makes them more expensive.

The DSLAM is what you telephone line coming into your house is connected to. Amongst other things it separates the voice from the data.

Nowhere in the World is there one DSLAM for one subscriber, except perhaps in The White House.

Stuart


Report •

#6
August 8, 2010 at 12:03:07
Hi,

I've just noticed similar symptom since a week ago, after I finished setting up Windows 7 on my laptop and desktop (both dual boot with XP).

All sorts of test I've done (speedtest.net, downloading a file off an FTP and HTTP server, etc.) undoubtedly point out that I've got better download speeds in Windows 7 on both computers compared to that in XP. In each test, I got around 1,102 - 1,110 Kbit/s in Windows 7 and around 857 - 907 Kbit/s in Windows XP. All tests were performed after midnight (1:30 - 2:00 AM) for a few days. The results were consistent regardless of connection method, in that I saw similar figures and pattern, either when the computer being tested was connected directly to the modem or through a wireless N router. And just like the OP, I'm on cable internet.

So please, quit the classroom arguments about differences between DSL and Cable and let's delve into the question at hand: How can Windows 7 give higher download speed (or bandwidth, doesn't matter) than XP?

I know some settings (like MTU size) can determine connection speed and reliability, so what is it that's different in Win7 that may result in higher download speed?

Reason I'm asking for possible solution is that although I love Windows 7, some of my much needed hardware (especially printers and multifunction devices) do not support Windows 7 in a satisfactory manner, so I may have to roll back to XP, at least on my desktop, if I can't sort things out by next week.


Report •

#7
August 9, 2010 at 08:39:54
BUT it has everything to do with download times. A slower PC will take longer to download something than a faster PC will.

Wrong!

The bandwidth rate is controlled by the Network Interface. If your NIC is 10 Mbps, you can download to a maximum of 10 Mbps. If 100 Mbps, then a max of 100. If 1000 Mbps, then a max of 1000 Mbps.

This is regardless of processor speed. The ONLY thing that might not be as "fast" would be the rate the CPU recombines the packets as they're coming in. While I don't have any statistic on hand, I'd wager even the slowest Pentium IV class CPU can recombine faster than a 1000 Mbps processor can download.

4. OK CurtR, referencing download times here again, I downloaded 23 Mb Office 97 SP2 in IE 7 - it took me 1 minute, 7 seconds. The same download, same PC in Chrome took 31 seconds.

Did it ever occur to you that the difference could have been cause by:
- How busy the server you were downloading from was in each instance?
- How many packets had to be retransmitted during the download process do to contention based issues (ie: packet collisions causing resends)?

I realize you don't know very much about networking and I really wish you would listen to me and stop misinforming others who know less than you do. You'll only confuse them.

RE: DSL: Only meant to imply that DSL isn't shared the same way that Cable is and speeds are more constant is all I meant.

Wrong again. They are "shared" exactly the same way. A network is a network is a network........period, full stop. Every provider, be they ADSL or cable, have segments. Each segment has "X" number of users (each one being a "home" connection). The segments will be separated by subnets (usually using a Private Class addressing scheme). When one segment becomes saturated (as in, has the maximum number of connections it can support while still providing decent bandwidth to all connections) they then start another segment. Each segment is "shared" between the users connected to it. It's worth noting at this point, a segment could theoretically be comprised of up to 254 connections (the maximum number of netowrk IP's on a segment).

Actually, you wouldn't want them running at the same time to have it be a true test. You would want to run one from a particular connection, then run the other on that same connection as the first one, preferably off hours with less traffic.

Actually, I know what of I speak and I was correct at the outset and you are once again....wrong.

Try this on a LAN while downloading from one PC to two others. Even if your LAN is only 100 Mbps, you should still be able to download a 1 GB file from PC A to PC's B and C at the same time and achieve close to the same download rate and have the download take approximately the same time to download.

The same is mostly true if downloading from the internet. BUT, and I stress the word but, there are variables that can adversely affect one of the two download streams without bothering the other. See my answer to #4 above for two of the "variables" than can affect download rates.

I don't have the time or energy to educate you on networking so you're either going to have to do some reading/research on your own, or you're just going to have to trust that a guy with 15+ years working in industry, with the last 5 solely in Enterprise Level Networking (including LAN, MAN, WAN and wireless) actually knows what he's talking about.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#8
August 9, 2010 at 08:48:28
So please, quit the classroom arguments about differences between DSL and Cable and let's delve into the question at hand: How can Windows 7 give higher download speed (or bandwidth, doesn't matter) than XP?

I'm trying to stop someone from misinforming someone else. If you don't like it, you're free to start a separate thread with your question or go to another forum.

I know some settings (like MTU size) can determine connection speed and reliability, so what is it that's different in Win7 that may result in higher download speed?

This is true. But unless you've turned the MTU size down in XP, they should be the same. It's been my experience Windows uses the same default MTU size.

You don't mention if you checked and compared so I would start by doing so. If they're not the same, then by all means increase the MTU size of XP to match that of Windows 7.

As far as I know, basic MTU size for an ethernet network is 1500. I can tell you this much. I've never in my work (as a Network Technician at a university) had to change the MTU size on any PC, laptop, netbook, server, switch or router. I've also never changed them on any of my PC's or switches at home because Windows always uses the default of 1500.

Instead of downloading from the internet, which as I have mentioned several times now can be affected by how busy the server is as well as how busy the hops between you and your download source AND normal contention issues, do your testing on your LAN. Copy a large file from another LAN client to your PC in Windows 7, then in XP. Is there a difference? If so, how much of a difference?

There shouldn't be much of one if everything is working as it should be. But, there is likely to be some difference.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#9
August 9, 2010 at 12:52:07
My Windows 7 box has faster response times for web pages loading then my XP box and both use the same router/comcast.

I suspect Windows 7 is just doing a better job of caching by design.

The question why is 7 faster than XP is like asking why is broadband faster than dialup. Old technology compared to newer technology will always have newer being faster since that is what the market demands.


Report •

#10
October 3, 2010 at 11:05:45
Hey Extol.
I just found the "Magic Bullet".
Go here:
http://www.speedguide.net/tcpoptimi...
Download the free TCPoptimizer utility.
Make sure you reboot, and BINGO!
It seems XP doesn't optimize wireless adaptors like vista and win7.
Hope this helps.
Kim

Report •


Ask Question