attn: Computer wizards
09-13-2005, 09:09 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
attn: Computer wizards
Hello!
I am trying to decide if I should go with Cable or DSL. DSL is a lot cheaper, but I do not want to sacrifice speed (I'm very impatient). I've done a lot of reading and frankly have no idea which is better. Any advice would be helpful but use small words. I really have no idea what the difference between kpbs, daps, or sos is.
Just some background info:
1 IMAC G5
1 HP Tablet
1 ancient HP that I only use for storage
We do not do a lot of gaming (if we do its usually chess), some video watching.
I am also setting up to go wireless with computers, home theater, and coffeemaker. Thanks in advance for your advice.
Cheers!
Kallan
I am trying to decide if I should go with Cable or DSL. DSL is a lot cheaper, but I do not want to sacrifice speed (I'm very impatient). I've done a lot of reading and frankly have no idea which is better. Any advice would be helpful but use small words. I really have no idea what the difference between kpbs, daps, or sos is.
Just some background info:
1 IMAC G5
1 HP Tablet
1 ancient HP that I only use for storage
We do not do a lot of gaming (if we do its usually chess), some video watching.
I am also setting up to go wireless with computers, home theater, and coffeemaker. Thanks in advance for your advice.
Cheers!
Kallan
09-13-2005, 09:23 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for the most part you will rarely use Cable to it's full potential unless you are downloading a lot of music/ movies etc.
DSL is cheaper and pretty quick unless you live in a very populated area with a lot of other high speed internet users.
So... I guess lower population area, DSL is safe and fast.
Higher population area Cable is a better bet though it's more expensive.
Just my thought, I have been using Cable for a couple years now and it works great.
DSL is cheaper and pretty quick unless you live in a very populated area with a lot of other high speed internet users.
So... I guess lower population area, DSL is safe and fast.
Higher population area Cable is a better bet though it's more expensive.
Just my thought, I have been using Cable for a couple years now and it works great.
09-13-2005, 09:29 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 3,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DSL is much slower than cable. And you WILL notice the difference, in terms of web pages loading faster etc.. Downloading files and transferring files.. etc.. DSL is MUCH cheaper however than CABLE. I think DSL can be had via SBC now for $15. But Cable at the minimum is going to run you About $$40-60 (I know comcast is $20 for the first 6 months though, IF you have their $30 cable tv package(which becomes $70 after 6 mo), reg price for cable internet after is $58 I think. Just ordered the comcast service so thats how I know the prices. But if you like your web pages to load in 1-2 secs oppose to 5-6 seconds, I'd go with cable. I hate the lag with DSL. IMHO.
09-13-2005, 10:40 AM
#5
Originally Posted by scratchdesk,Sep 13 2005, 12:23 PM
for the most part you will rarely use Cable to it's full potential unless you are downloading a lot of music/ movies etc.
DSL is cheaper and pretty quick unless you live in a very populated area with a lot of other high speed internet users.
So... I guess lower population area, DSL is safe and fast.
Higher population area Cable is a better bet though it's more expensive.
Just my thought, I have been using Cable for a couple years now and it works great.
DSL is cheaper and pretty quick unless you live in a very populated area with a lot of other high speed internet users.
So... I guess lower population area, DSL is safe and fast.
Higher population area Cable is a better bet though it's more expensive.
Just my thought, I have been using Cable for a couple years now and it works great.
DSL is dedicated bandwidth. If they say you get 512K then YOU get 512K. With cable, the bandwidh is shared with your neighborhood. So they will put in a 10Mbit link to your neighborhood and you will share it will others.
Also the closer you are to the switching station, the faster access you can get on DSL. They typically need more switching stations in the city because of the higher density of the population.
So you will get better performance on Cable in the suburbs than you will on cable in the city. You will generaly get better DSL in the city than in the suburbs.
That said, cable will generally be faster than DSL no matter where you are. However, Comcast is a bunch of theiving bastards and one more penny in their pockets makes me sick to my stomach. Their service is poor on their best days. If you get a cable modem from them you are FORCED into buying cable TV from them too.
If I could get DSL in my area, I would take it in a heartbeat.
09-13-2005, 10:49 AM
#6
Registered User
Originally Posted by ruexp67,Sep 13 2005, 10:40 AM
Actually you have this backwards.
DSL is dedicated bandwidth. If they say you get 512K then YOU get 512K. With cable, the bandwidh is shared with your neighborhood. So they will put in a 10Mbit link to your neighborhood and you will share it will others.
Also the closer you are to the switching station, the faster access you can get on DSL. They typically need more switching stations in the city because of the higher density of the population.
So you will get better performance on Cable in the suburbs than you will on cable in the city. You will generaly get better DSL in the city than in the suburbs.
That said, cable will generally be faster than DSL no matter where you are. However, Comcast is a bunch of theiving bastards and one more penny in their pockets makes me sick to my stomach. Their service is poor on their best days. If you get a cable modem from them you are FORCED into buying cable TV from them too.
If I could get DSL in my area, I would take it in a heartbeat.
DSL is dedicated bandwidth. If they say you get 512K then YOU get 512K. With cable, the bandwidh is shared with your neighborhood. So they will put in a 10Mbit link to your neighborhood and you will share it will others.
Also the closer you are to the switching station, the faster access you can get on DSL. They typically need more switching stations in the city because of the higher density of the population.
So you will get better performance on Cable in the suburbs than you will on cable in the city. You will generaly get better DSL in the city than in the suburbs.
That said, cable will generally be faster than DSL no matter where you are. However, Comcast is a bunch of theiving bastards and one more penny in their pockets makes me sick to my stomach. Their service is poor on their best days. If you get a cable modem from them you are FORCED into buying cable TV from them too.
If I could get DSL in my area, I would take it in a heartbeat.
To the OP, I have both DSL and Cable at my house. Cable is faster, maybe 3-5 times faster than DSL. It also is a lot more reliable. My DSL goes down at least once a week, cable has only gone down twice in a year and a half. This is very important to me beacause I require a constant internet connection. (for my own reasons which I wont go into)... BUT it may not be important to YOU. If you're looking for CHEAPER but still GOOD ENOUGH, go with DSL. There's some really good deals out there. But if you're looking for speed and reliability, then get cable. $50 isn't that much in today's economy, and in my oppinion, it's worth it.
Another thing, if you plan on getting CABLE TV, get CABLE INTERNET. If you plan on getting SATELITE TV, get DSL.
Also what Pete said, DSL is STILL not available in all areas.
To Pete::: SBC's customer service is even crappier... stick to cable.
09-13-2005, 11:24 AM
#7
Comcast has customer service? Oh, you mean those Indian girls that read through an "idiots guide to cable modem service" and ask questions like "do you have the cable modem powered up?" ?
Other than that, Cable > DSL. Though if you can get DSL for $15/month, I'd go that route unless you are a hardcore interwebber.
Other than that, Cable > DSL. Though if you can get DSL for $15/month, I'd go that route unless you are a hardcore interwebber.
Trending Topics
09-13-2005, 11:26 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ruexp67,Sep 13 2005, 10:40 AM
Actually you have this backwards.
DSL is dedicated bandwidth. If they say you get 512K then YOU get 512K. With cable, the bandwidh is shared with your neighborhood. So they will put in a 10Mbit link to your neighborhood and you will share it will others.
Also the closer you are to the switching station, the faster access you can get on DSL. They typically need more switching stations in the city because of the higher density of the population.
So you will get better performance on Cable in the suburbs than you will on cable in the city. You will generaly get better DSL in the city than in the suburbs.
That said, cable will generally be faster than DSL no matter where you are. However, Comcast is a bunch of theiving bastards and one more penny in their pockets makes me sick to my stomach. Their service is poor on their best days. If you get a cable modem from them you are FORCED into buying cable TV from them too.
If I could get DSL in my area, I would take it in a heartbeat.
DSL is dedicated bandwidth. If they say you get 512K then YOU get 512K. With cable, the bandwidh is shared with your neighborhood. So they will put in a 10Mbit link to your neighborhood and you will share it will others.
Also the closer you are to the switching station, the faster access you can get on DSL. They typically need more switching stations in the city because of the higher density of the population.
So you will get better performance on Cable in the suburbs than you will on cable in the city. You will generaly get better DSL in the city than in the suburbs.
That said, cable will generally be faster than DSL no matter where you are. However, Comcast is a bunch of theiving bastards and one more penny in their pockets makes me sick to my stomach. Their service is poor on their best days. If you get a cable modem from them you are FORCED into buying cable TV from them too.
If I could get DSL in my area, I would take it in a heartbeat.
I know that usually the DSL companies will allow you to "upgrade" your access to the point that it is faster than Cable even on off peak hours.
09-13-2005, 11:34 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Streamwood Il.
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I switched from cable to DSL, the only diff I see is in downloading big files like a movie.
But what the hell, 4 hours on cable .vs 6 hours on DSL, no biggie. Go out and do something while you download. Other than that the only annoying difference I see is with DSL from SBC.
It works fine if you have it on 1 computer, it always stays conected. If you want to share it using a router you lose the connection every 3-4 days and have to go through a minor ritual to get the connection back through the router.
It's because SBC uses PPPoE and Comcast does not.
But what the hell, 4 hours on cable .vs 6 hours on DSL, no biggie. Go out and do something while you download. Other than that the only annoying difference I see is with DSL from SBC.
It works fine if you have it on 1 computer, it always stays conected. If you want to share it using a router you lose the connection every 3-4 days and have to go through a minor ritual to get the connection back through the router.
It's because SBC uses PPPoE and Comcast does not.
