Re: [NTLK] eMate vs. 2100

From: Jim Anderson (jiman_at_microsoft.com)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 12:40:04 EST

Next message: Radovan Biciste: "[NTLK] changing door clips"
Previous message: Jim Anderson: "Re: [NTLK] <incomprehensible garbage>"
Maybe in reply to: Rolf Brakvatne: "[NTLK] eMate vs. 2100"
Next in thread: Woo Lee: "Re: [NTLK] eMate vs. 2100"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Rolf wrote:
> How is the e-mail download speed of a 2100 compared to that=20
> of an eMate (600K free memory with a 32MB card). This would=20
> be a DSL connection via a Farrallon card. 28 messages (small)=20
> take 6 to 7 minutes to download on the eMate. Would I see a=20
> large difference moving to a 2100. Thanks.

The 2100 just screams compared to the eMate. As an eyeball
estimate, the 2100 (via ethernet) downloads typical 2K messages in 2-3
seconds. The eMate is quite a bit slower than this.

Jim Anderson

Evil Overlord Rule 197:
I will explain to my Legions of Terror that guns are ranged weapons and
swords are not. Anyone who attempts to throw a sword at the hero or club
him with a gun will be summarily executed.

-- 
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
	mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe

Next message: Radovan Biciste: "[NTLK] changing door clips"
Previous message: Jim Anderson: "Re: [NTLK] <incomprehensible garbage>"
Maybe in reply to: Rolf Brakvatne: "[NTLK] eMate vs. 2100"
Next in thread: Woo Lee: "Re: [NTLK] eMate vs. 2100"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 10:02:18 EST