Recommended Posts

  Mephistopheles said:
In one word: No.

The TCP/IP patch was never needed; it's nothing more than a placebo.

/me waits for BudMan to see this thread

unfortunately you're way off there. The limit was introduced in vista and then removed in 7.

So no, no need for patch.

  ZombieFly said:
unfortunately you're way off there. The limit was introduced in vista and then removed in 7.

So no, no need for patch.

The limit was introduced in XP SP2. And you may be correct, I cant find any event in the event viewer related to the limit in windows7.

And while the patch was never needed, some weird combinations of devices, drivers and windows7 can really slow down torrents for no apparent reason.

  illwillnos said:
um, the tcp/ip patch made a HUGE difference for torrents from xp sp2 until vista sp2

if you think it was a placebo you're talking out of your ass

no, I have 6MB/s with and without the tcpip patch :rolleyes:

So it's useless.

  MagicAndre1981 said:
no, I have 6MB/s with and without the tcpip patch :rolleyes:

So it's useless.

In XP and Vista < SP2, the limit makes a significant difference, but not in overall speed. Eventually enough clients will connect and you'll get good speed, but it will take much longer with the connection limit. Also, while the torrent client is using up half-open connections, your web pages will take a while to load because the web requests have to wait for connections as well. The connection limit was always pointless (it makes no significant impact on the spread of viruses; there are a number of tech bloggers who have proven this). And Microsoft has acknowledged that it's pointless by removing the limit in Vista SP2 and Windows 7. Every time someone posts about the TCP half-open connection limit, I see the same idiots posting about how it doesn't affect torrents. But it does, and why the **** would people complain about how their torrents slowed to a crawl for a while with the limit in place, then be perfectly happy when the TCP limit patch from LVLLord came out?
  illwillnos said:
um, the tcp/ip patch made a HUGE difference for torrents from xp sp2 until vista sp2

if you think it was a placebo you're talking out of your ass

but yes, the patch is no longer needed if you're using windows 7

I used that patch on XP all the time, and never noticed any real speed difference at all. I agree that it was a placebo

Well, i had problems like that when i've installed Vista here for the first time (without SP). I wasn't able to update my Windows and access some sites, after a looooong search on google I've found there's some changes on Vista's MTU settings, I don't know about Windows 7, but hope it helps you. :)

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winvista/t1158155937

  illwillnos said:
um, the tcp/ip patch made a HUGE difference for torrents from xp sp2 until vista sp2

if you think it was a placebo you're talking out of your ass

but yes, the patch is no longer needed if you're using windows 7

It only seemed like it did. The only difference is the client can attempt to connect to more sources when the transfer starts. It doesn't affect the speed of the transfers a bit.

  xiphi said:
You are aware that there is no limit on 7, right?

post-175510-1248996129_thumb.png

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • PC manufacturers used to trick BIOS copyright strings to get full editions of trial software by Usama Jawad You may have noticed that when you purchase a new PC, it comes with certain software pre-installed. Sometimes, when you open this software, it activates, and you receive the full version of it without paying any additional cost. This is because that PC's manufacturer is a licensee of that software and the fact that a customer gets the full version of a trial software for free serves as a perk for potential buyers. However, many PC manufacturers tried to trick this process in its infancy. During the days of Windows 95, when the Plug and Play specification was still in development, the OS' engineering team was trying to figure out ways through which it could identify PCs that existed prior to the inception of this specification. To that end, one of the methods they tried was searching for copyright strings and firmware dates in the BIOS. Through the course of this investigation, they discovered a rather oddly named copyright string "Not Copyright Fabrikam Computer" in a PC that was actually manufactured by Contoso. In this case, both Fabrikam and Contoso are fictional names that are used to describe this scenario without revealing the actual identity of the OEMs involved. Microsoft engineer Raymond Chen explains in a blog post that these odd copyright strings were actually appearing because Contoso PCs contained a trial version of a software and the company wanted the full version to be activated for customers even though it was not an official licensee. In order to bypass the costly licensing process, what the firm did was that it added the following text to its copyright string: "Copyright Contoso Not Copyright Fabrikam Computer". The trial version of said software would search for the string "Copyright Fabrikam Computer" and end up finding it within the substring of the convoluted copyright string mentioned above, accidentally activating the software's full version. While more robust ways were adopted later to avoid this problem, it's certainly interesting to see that OEMs would go to this length in order to distribute software that they are not officially allowed to. Well, as they say, the past stays in the past.
    • Uhm... a couple of issues with this. First, you're engaging in revisionist history. People weren't dragged from Win 7 to Win 10. You've kind of glossed over a whole cycle there: Win 8/8.1. People stayed on 7 because they hated 8/8.1 and held on until 10 showed up. THEN they actually started to switch voluntarily. Second, it's not about the OS, it's about the workflow. OS fans consistently miss this. People have work to do and they've invested a lot of time, effort and even money building their workflows. It's expensive to change so, that change has to offer real benefits that compensate for the cost of updating workflow and sorry, Win 11 just doesn't. That's the same reason they won't just jump to an entirely new OS - which has an even bigger workflow cost - until there's just no other option. Not only is there the core workflow cost, but the cost of finding new parallel software for the new OS, transferring and possible converting files and dealing with incompatibilities and then redeveloping workflows. It's just not as simple as "switch". And now there IS another option, stay on Win 10 for another year and pray for Win 12 (much as Win 7 users did with Win 8 - which happened when Win 10 came out).
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      DrRonSr earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Sharon dixon earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Parallax Abstraction earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      956400 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      davidfegan earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      616
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      227
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      170
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      166
    5. 5
      Som
      148
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!