Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: MaxOnline 6500

  1. #1

    Default MaxOnline 6500

    I am thinking of upgrading from my present 1500 to this new 6500...just wondering whether anyone out there has upgraded and is going 'wow-wow' over the fantastic increase in download speed...or just going hmmm....just a bit faster but not very much of a difference ??

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    is there such a new service? anyway for single stream download or browsing 1500 is pretty much good enough since the webserver is unlikely to throw stuff that fast at you. If you have a small office or has multiple download stream then maybe it'll be more suitable.

    At work I have 80Mbps of direct access to an exchange in Los Angeles, browsing experience hasn't been much different. In fact I find the user experience more satisfying on my home PC vs my laptop (both sharing the same MaxOnline 1500) as the PC has much more RAM and faster processor.

  3. #3

    Default

    Yes... it's a new service that has recently been released. I guess it's the answer to SingNet's 3500kbps plan. Maxonline has taken away the 3000kbps plan for new subscribers. It's now only 1500kbps or 6500kbps.

    Unless you do home networking or what... I would think even 3000kbps is overkill. 1500kbps is definitely more than enough. And like what hwchoy mentioned... it's so unlikely there will be a server that can send you files at such a high speed. Thinking p2p? With the strict regulations on downloads now... I don't even think you will utilize half of that 6500kbps download speed.

    Not worth it in my opinion.

  4. #4

    Default

    hmm... wondering getting so fast yet u cannot download anymore... what are they up to? U all know who i mean...
    Favouritism | Design + Lifestyle + Art

  5. #5

    Default

    Oh.. how's the upload speed... That's the most important..

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    hmm. from 3000 to 6500, i've yet to notice much of a difference yet. hehe
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  7. #7
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    Urgh ... why don't they upgrade the 1500 users as well? 3000kbps sounds good ...

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    You will never get 3000 or 6500 speed. You can never utilise your bandwidth to it's max. If you ask them they will say "up to 3000 or 6500 kbps". Most of teh time you will be lucky to get 200 or 300 when downloading. And I'll be more than happy with that.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbma
    You will never get 3000 or 6500 speed. You can never utilise your bandwidth to it's max. If you ask them they will say "up to 3000 or 6500 kbps". Most of teh time you will be lucky to get 200 or 300 when downloading. And I'll be more than happy with that.
    you need to call them about it. I consistently achieve 1.5Mbps (measured using Netpersec) when downloading from sites such as windows update, and even my own website in the US.

    I do know of users who keep getting only 200-300 kbps and SCV needed ti fix something.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    you need to call them about it. I consistently achieve 1.5Mbps (measured using Netpersec) when downloading from sites such as windows update, and even my own website in the US.

    I do know of users who keep getting only 200-300 kbps and SCV needed ti fix something.
    Hey thanks for the info bro. I will certainly call them tomorrow. To think that all this while I have been suffering...hmmmm.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    lulu island
    Posts
    6,131

    Default

    currently using starhub 1500 for many years since its trial period, i'm very satisfied.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    yes I personally know how much capacity they have on the backbone. there is enough.

    ps: I do not work for StarHub nor their competitors.

  13. #13

    Default

    well, 6500 sounds nice but if upstream is still at 15kb/s ........

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Singapore (SengKang)
    Posts
    2,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by igpenguin
    well, 6500 sounds nice but if upstream is still at 15kb/s ........
    its at 384kbits/sec.. so about 48kbytes/sec
    -Express yourself not in words-
    http://www.majere2sg.com

  15. #15

    Default

    Thanks guys... probably will shelve the upgrade plan as now it seems not much of difference between the 1500 and the 6500 judging from wat is being said in this thread....oh well....save money....

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Unless you dl big stuff occassionally, most do not really need it. Well if the price goes down somemore or there are much better way to utilise it, like getting a photo website on it and a lot of people is so "in" in viewing of photos and videos online, why not? So far my 512kbps is good, but more value for my $55 worth of money is even better

  17. #17

    Default

    Get 6500 and piss off Starhub by downloading/seeding multiple Linux ISOs and other open source softwares.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    you need to call them about it. I consistently achieve 1.5Mbps (measured using Netpersec) when downloading from sites such as windows update, and even my own website in the US.

    I do know of users who keep getting only 200-300 kbps and SCV needed ti fix something.
    it also depends on the bottleneck of the server you are downloading the data from, i.e. the lower bit rate

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    it also depends on the bottleneck of the server you are downloading the data from, i.e. the lower bit rate
    no no, there are specific places/devices which gave a problem, but I thought they fixed them a few years back.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by majere2sg
    its at 384kbits/sec.. so about 48kbytes/sec
    that's nice... i thought it would still be at 15kbytes/sec!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •