Forums online, news to follow

By Steven P.
in Site Announcements

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Tim Dorr Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Happy with the new Host ?

Think I saw Neobond say the old host where charging Neowin for extra bandwidth used.

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Should look like this:

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109

ing statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms

Experienced

pixated

Posted
Posted

Hmm.. :/

ping 63.28.242.201

Pinging 63.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 63.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

ping 67.19.41.49

Pinging 67.19.41.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=241

Ping statistics for 67.19.41.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 166ms, Maximum = 281ms, Average = 201ms

Collaborator

Varish

Posted
Posted
Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=115

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 323ms, Maximum = 327ms, Average = 325ms

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 342ms, Maximum = 393ms, Average = 360ms

Grand Master

pimpshiznid

Posted
Posted

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Should look like this:

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109

ing statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms

Did you mean 66.28.242.201 and not 63.28.242.201, because I get Request Timed Out on 63.28.242.201, and I noticed you used 66.28.242.201 in your ping results. :p

Anyway, here are my results.

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 88ms

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 135ms, Average = 68ms

Grand Master

ozgeek

Posted
Posted

Heh. I woke up to find Neowin still on my computer screen. (it was a thread I left open. lol. I closed it and re-open it to get fresh tthreads or news but got told the servers were down. lol.

btw I am now known as ozgeek, not mr.roberts. (ozgeek stands for Australian geek).

and timdorr how do I ping for you? is it ping via cmd?

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Hmmm... I can go to neowin.net/forum, yet all the links inside point to neowin5.net/forum/whatever... Kind of strange... Is this still a result of the DNS servers or what?

Hey I just noticed that now I know how many stars I have to go to reach the end :D Just 3 left...

Grand Master

Daninku

Posted
Posted

Mine ...

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 179ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 181ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 166ms

Grand Master

Redmak Administrators

Posted
  • Administrators
Posted 
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=236
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=236
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=237
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 131ms, Average = 125ms


Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=113

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 120ms, Maximum = 122ms, Average = 120ms

Proficient

prz

Posted
Posted

Last login: Tue Nov 29 20:55:27 on ttyp1

Welcome to Darwin!

nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$ ping 67.19.42.49

PING 67.19.42.49 (67.19.42.49): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=49.703 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=59.904 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=84.557 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=47.258 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=48.742 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=52.378 ms

^C

--- 67.19.42.49 ping statistics ---

6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 47.258/57.090/84.557/12.945 ms

nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$

Veteran

karma_police

Posted
Posted 

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 102ms, Average = 99ms 

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 130ms, Average = 118ms

Grand Master

accesser

Posted
Posted

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Timdorr, Other than ping time the thing interests me is the number of hops inside the network look at the number of hops once I get inside the cogentco network.

traceroute to neowin.net (66.28.242.203), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177)  0.335 ms  0.202 ms  0.258 ms
 2  10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129)  0.357 ms  0.389 ms  0.259 ms
 3  Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21)  12.936 ms  12.972 ms  12.984 ms
 4  10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86)  32.545 ms  12.983 ms  12.982 ms
 5  10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42)  13.234 ms  13.208 ms  13.17 ms
 6  i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101)  161.363 ms  161.335 ms  161.353 ms
 7  unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166)  160.962 ms  160.91 ms  160.872 ms
 8  unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66)  160.952 ms  160.934 ms  160.844 ms
 9  p6-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.209)  162.04 ms  162.152 ms  162.201 ms
10  p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78)  163.916 ms  163.649 ms  163.72 ms
11  p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5)  195.383 ms  195.381 ms  195.81 ms
12  p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106)  223.775 ms  223.66 ms  223.736 ms
13  p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34)  234.876 ms  235.536 ms  234.794 ms
14  p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154)  234.369 ms  234.337 ms  234.413 ms
15  p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42)  235.05 ms  234.902 ms  234.985 ms
16  g3-1.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.30)  234.651 ms  234.532 ms  234.636 ms
17  StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250)  234.951 ms  234.965 ms  235.292 ms
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Here's my ping times:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 42ms

and

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 69ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 110ms

That second server's not as fast to respond...

Collaborator

Ksg

Posted
Posted
Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=232

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 121ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 124ms, Average = 123ms

Pretty adverage ping times for me.

Keep up all the good work <3

Grand Master

accesser

Posted
Posted

Whoops, yep, I meant 66.28.242.201. Sorry about that. Just curious, though. No biggie :)

and for that IP still a lot of hops insde that network

traceroute to 66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177)  0.339 ms  0.358 ms  0.24 ms
 2  10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129)  0.341 ms  0.281 ms  0.389 ms
 3  Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21)  13.067 ms  12.866 ms  12.965 ms
 4  10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86)  12.923 ms  13.025 ms  12.967 ms
 5  10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42)  13.213 ms  13.205 ms  13.21 ms
 6  i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101)  161.414 ms  161.362 ms  161.34 ms
 7  unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166)  246.252 ms  160.911 ms  160.839 ms
 8  unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66)  160.858 ms  160.93 ms  160.977 ms
 9  p15-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.213)  161.429 ms  161.372 ms  161.707 ms
10  p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78)  163.94 ms  163.584 ms  163.764 ms
11  p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5)  195.505 ms  196.641 ms  195.494 ms
12  p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106)  223.754 ms  223.725 ms  223.642 ms
13  p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34)  235.219 ms  234.752 ms  234.889 ms
14  p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154)  234.494 ms  234.479 ms  234.522 ms
15  p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42)  235.082 ms  235.106 ms  234.924 ms
16  g3-2.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.34)  235.012 ms  235.066 ms  235.036 ms
17  StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250)  234.916 ms  234.771 ms  234.756 ms
18  66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201)  234.784 ms  236.982 ms  234.748 ms

Proficient

dissonation

Posted
Posted

From the UK...

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 116ms, Average = 115ms

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=245

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 161ms, Maximum = 164ms, Average = 162ms

Edit: ooooo, quick edit is niiiiice

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Apple reportedly has a second-generation iPhone Fold planned for 2027

      By Hamid Ganji · Posted

      Apple reportedly has a second-generation iPhone Fold planned for 2027 by Hamid Ganji The iPhone Fold is one of the most anticipated tech products expected to debut this fall. It will be Apple’s first foldable iPhone, ushering in a new product category for the company. While the first generation has yet to hit the shelves, a new leak suggests Apple has already begun work on its successor. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claims that the second-generation iPhone Fold has already been confirmed, meaning Apple could launch a successor in fall 2027. The foldable iPhone is also reportedly referred to as the “iPhone Ultra,” though it remains unclear whether Apple will ultimately choose that branding, especially as Samsung is rumored to rename the Galaxy Z Fold 8 as the Galaxy Z Fold Ultra this year. The leaker also claims that the second-generation foldable will feature a wider folding display while reusing the same screen found in the first generation. Apple’s first foldable iPhone is expected to feature a 7.8-inch inner display and a 5.3-inch outer screen in a passport-style form factor. It has already been reported that Apple plans to change its iPhone release cycle in 2026 to spread launches throughout the year. Under this strategy, the iPhone Fold is expected to debut this fall alongside the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max. The standard iPhone 18 and iPhone Air 2 are expected to arrive later in 2026 or in early 2027. Speaking of the iPhone Air, Digital Chat Station says Apple remains undecided about a third-generation model. The company is reportedly waiting to see how the iPhone Air 2 performs in the market, and if sales disappoint, a successor may never materialize. As we reported this week, the iPhone Air has not been scrapped from Apple’s plans. The second-generation model is reportedly scheduled for spring 2027 and could introduce upgrades such as an additional rear camera for ultrawide photography and improved battery life.
    • Sony announces Bungie layoffs that will affect "significant number of employees"

      By daryld · Posted

      ahh yes the good old your opinion differs from mine so you are therefore insane lol destiny 1 had no agenda pushing and was a massive success of a game, if you clearly look online the team for some reason thought they had too many men on the team and went on a woman and dei recruitment drive and we all know how destiny 2 performed from then on in
    • EU says AWS and Microsoft Azure should be treated as DMA gatekeepers

      By Nas · Posted

      The limited imaginations and business acumen of non-dominant players is simply that: the abject lack of creative business acumen. Businesses often want to operate in a financially-rewarding marketplace (free market economics) and/or exit/cash-out at maximal financial recompense. Money is their incentive; regulations are both their obstacles and their tools; politics is their means of influencing the marketplace. Google, in this story's example, is crying that AWS and Azure are "too dominant" -- cuz Google Cloud is not printing as much money as Alphabet wants (although it is still dramatically more than they actually need). The EU DMA should truly follow-the-money and treat the EU as its own sovereign nation in order to protect European market players: Domestic entities are exempt from market-influence regulations until absolute monopoly is achieved; Foreign (non-EU/non-Euro) entities are all regulated via stricter DMA measures whereby regulated partnership with independent domestic entity becomes the only way for foreign entities to 'tip the scale' for favorable financial remunerations. Basically create a dual-track aligning with China's foreign investment models. In my eyes, this is the only way to properly protect the European marketplace beyond the current dot-com/ai-bubble/social-media crazes.
    • ABSTRACT//AWESOME//WALLPAPERS - made by me!

      By remixedcat · Posted

      purrs!
    • Neowin's 2026 GNU/Linux Desktop Thread

      By remixedcat · Posted

      I have a fire n ice theme w my bedroom laptops. one is a red lenovo gaming laptop (fire) and the precision is ice

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Vistor earned a badge
      One Year In
    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      403
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      131
    4. 4
      Xenon
      72
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      70
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!