Local Area Connection question

[tswatek]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38637500/Local Area Connection screen shot.png

In Windows Task Manager, Networking tab, it shows 2 connections:
* Local Area Connection (1 Gbps and no activity)
* Local Area Connection (100 Mbps and some activity)

I subscribe to Brighthouse Lightning 60, which is supposed to provide download speeds of 60 Mbps download and 15 Mbps upload. My internet speed seems, surprisingly lackluster, though, with slow browser draws.

I have a Dell Precision running WinXP, connected via Cat 5e ethernet, to a 1 Gig Cisco router and Brighthouse's Cable modem that's supposed to support speeds up to their 90 Mbps speeds.

Is there a network setting that allows me to turn off the 100 Mbps connection and turn on the 1 Gbps connection?

 

[kyfire]

Does the NIC in your Dell Precision support gigabyte ethernet or only 10/100? If your NIC doesn't support it you can't enable it.

 

[Tokae]

Hey tskwatek! Welcome to the forums!

Whats speedtest.net show for your connection?

Also, do yo have 2 physical network jacks on your PC?

 

[SteveLord]

You can just right click one and disable it.

 

[tswatek]

My hardware settings say I have the following installed:
Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet
Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit controller

When I go into properties of the Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet and go to the Advanced tab and click "Speed & Duplex", it gives me these options:
10 Mb Full
10 Mb Half
100 Mb Full
100 Mb Half
Auto

There are no options for 1000 Mb or 1 Gb. Does that just mean that the Auto setting covers the faster speed? Seems odd that it would be called Gigabit, but not have a Gigabit setting.

Tokae, I only have one physical ethernet port on my computer.

SteveLord, the "local area connection" is already disabled, but is there some benefit to deleting it?

Thanks, again, everyone. T

 

[tswatek]

Kyfire, did my previous post answer your question or were you asking for something else?

 

[cullam3n]

Is is a home Cisco or business Cisco router? Do you have the model number?

 

[tswatek]

I don't know, but I'm guessing it's home version. It's called "Cisco Valet", model M20.

 

[cullam3n]

So if you are directly connected from the laptop to the Cisco router, you should have a 1gbps link. So either your NIC on the laptop is not 1gbps capable, or you are using a cat 5 cable and not a cat 5e cable.

I'm still not sure why you have two LAN connections in your pic; do you have two physical NICs on your laptop?

 

[Wathnix]

You should be getting awesome internet speed on that connection, even if running it over cat5 cable. I suspect you either have a cabling problem or your computer is slow. You will need to go to www.speedtest.net and give us your results. How much memory does your XP system have. it may not be enough.

 

[tswatek]

Cullam3n, it's a desktop so not so easy to move downstairs and test with a direct connection, but I may do that if it comes down to it. I only have one NIC, I think. It's a Dell and I've never modified it so I can't image why I would have bought it with 2 MICs, but I suppose it's possible I did and just didn't know.

Wathnix, my system says I have 4,096 MB Physical Memory and 1.43 GB Available Physical Memory.

 

[Squadfer]

It's been mentioned twice so far here. Visiting www.speedtest.net will show you what you are actually getting as far as speed from your provider. Its quick and painless but you haven't shown the results yet?

A 60mb line from your provider does not guarantee you will have 60mb at all times, even 40mb is considered good on that line. Reason being is, your not the only one on the line, your neighbors are also using it as well. So peak traffic hours can be slow. With that said, you should still be getting fast internet. Question for you, what is your definition of lackluster slow? a minute? 2 minutes? 15 seconds?

poissble to go into command line and type "traceroute www.google.com" ? this should give you a general idea of where your connection is getting hung up at.

 

[cullam3n]

I would try a different ethernet cable (cat5e or cat6), and also reinstalling the drivers.

 

[kyfire]

Not totally sure how much this might help, but the following links are are to info on the Broadcom NetExtreme listed in the OP's hardware installed......

The first link is to the product brief.......

http://www.broadcom.com/collateral/pb/5751-PB03-R.pdf

The second is to the Broadcom NetLink/NetXtreme 57XX User Guide....

https://www.broadcom.com/docs/support/ethernet_nic/Broadcom_NetLink-NetXtreme_DTM_15.4.pdf

 

[tswatek]

Squadfer, my speedtest says I'm getting 64Mbps download and 2.7Mbps upload. To me, lackluster slow means simple web pages loading in about 5-10 seconds and Youtube videos having to occasionally stop and buffer. I'm going to try the tool you gave me traceroute www.google.com.

 

[Squadfer]

What are the specs on your computer? the CPU speed, number of cores, gpu, what browser are you using, how many plugins/addons do you have installed on the browser? Youtube videos having to stop and buffer isnt necessarily an issue with the network. Your computer has to take the time to render the video back into the format that you see on your screen from the stream of 1's and 0's that enter your computer from the internet.

This same concept holds true to loading any webpages as well.

My bad, the command I gave you is the one for linux "traceroute" you want to use "tracert" instead

 

[cullam3n]

Well your ISP connection isn't the problem. Sounds like you have an older computer that's being bogged down by other things or lack of RAM.

 

[tswatek]

I ran tracert several times, but as soon as it would finish, the window it ran in would disappear. I tried to Google whether or not it created a log, but couldn't find one. And I tried to get a screen capture of it before it disappeared, but my Snagit software doesn't capture that fast.

My computer runs WinXP Pro SP3, Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz, my RAM says 4,096 MB when I look it up under Program Files>Accessories>System Tools>System Information, but it says 3.25 GB RAM when I go to Settings>Control Panel>System>General. I don't know why there'd be a discrepancy. I run Firefox and have a lot of extensions and plug-ins running, which I do understand slows the browser, but I also have IE8 and Chrome installed and comparatively they're just a smidgeon faster. I think I'm starting to answer my own question so a confirmation reply will be sufficient.

Tell me if I'm on the right track:
1) My internet speed is probably not the issue of my slow browsing speeds.
2) My computer speed is more likely the issue. While my computer seemed screamingly fast 5 yrs ago, today's apps - along with all the plug-ins and extensions - require a lot more processing power. I'm told that WinXP can't handle more than 4G RAM so I'm maxed out there.
3) I likely have a lot of crap processes running in the background that have accumulated over time and I wouldn't even know where to start to figure out which ones are important and which aren't.
4) I need to suck it up and buy a new computer or quit crabbin' about my slow browser speed.

A quick confirmation is fine. You guys have been great. Thanks a bunch for everything.

 

[Squadfer]

1. Correct, the speedtest confirmed that you are getting your advertised speed and it also confirmed that your network was capable of getting that speed to your computer.
2. Will get back to this one in a bit.
3. This is highly the scenario that is going on. You've mentioned that your computer is 5 years old. Over that time span there could be a a huge list of things that have found their way onto your computer.
4. This is probably the most expensive way to go about fixing the issue with regards to buying a whole new computer.

Back to 2. that Q6600 is still a very capable processor and you are correct on the 4gb limit on ram with XP.

The cheapest fix without knowing what processes are bad and good would be to backup your important data to an external source. Then, reformat your drives and reinstall a windows OS back onto the computer. I don't know how technical you are with computers or if you have your own copy of a windows OS but this would be what I would do before I dished out the money for a whole new computer.

It is kinda typical to have to replace a store bought computer every 4+ years to keep up with the hardware demands of software. However, that is not the case for all computers as the hardware inside them can be still capable to run the software that is coming out today. Which is the case of your processor.

 

[tswatek]

Thanks

I just realized I never thanked you all for your time and expertise on this. I haven't taken that advice yet, but when I have the time and feel brave enough I'll backup and try the reformat/reload WinXP route to see if that works. Thanks, again. T