older pc win95 Please help review my tweaks

[5MpstweakR]

Long story short see my post #30 if you are on an old system/OS and having problems with TCP Optimizer, RWin and scaling...

http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.p ... stcount=30

Hope it Helps

as Andrzej noted http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.p ... stcount=10 the problem I experienced may have been a problem unique to version 2.0.1 or is it 2.0.2.2 whatever

==============================

Long post, skip to III. below to see my request for help.

I. My Answers to the initial request for help questions:

roadrunner cable connection - advertised speed down (dwn 5Megabytes, up = 384Kbs)
OS = Win95 (unbelievable I know but gets the job done 4 me)
other: Router, proxomitron & Kerio software firewall

TCP/IP Analyzer Test now:

TCPIP analyzer (bypass proxo soft firewall disabled router engaged)

Browser/OS = Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 95) Opera 7.23 [en]
Notes: Read the Analyzer FAQ if the above is not your IP address.
TCP options string = 020405b4010303030101080a000000000000000001010402
MTU = 1500
MTU is fully optimized for broadband.
MSS = 1460
Maximum useful data in each packet = 1460, which equals MSS.

Default Receive Window (RWIN) = 513920
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 3 bits (scale factor of 6)
Unscaled Receive Window = 64240

RWIN is a multiple of MSS
Other values for RWIN that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
256960 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 4)
128480 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 2)
64240 (MSS x 44)
bandwidth * delay product (Note this is not a speed test):

Your RcvWindow limits you to: 20556.8 kbps (2569.6 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your RcvWindow limits you to: 8222.72 kbps (1027.84 KBytes/s) @ 500ms
MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON
Time to live left = 46 hops

TTL value is ok.
Timestamps (RFC1323) =

Timestamps (RFC1323) = ON
Note: Timestamps add 12 bytes to the TCP header of each packet, reducing the space available for useful data.
Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON
IP type of service field (RFC1349) = 00000000 (0)

==============================

II. Tweaking done so far:

I used TCP Optimizer and selected optimal settings button which changed among other things my RWin from 8760 to 513920 (see below for actual registry changes) and I made some Network connection type changes to Opera web browser


==========================

III. Purpose of my request for help

To start I want to say thanks for all the great work you all do here.

The purpose of this post is:

1) to determine if I should do further tweaking or leave the tweaked settings as they are.

2) Also I have some specific questions regarding results of UCSC network diagnostic tool,

3) and a question concerning win95 and application of the faster web browsing tip & forward buffer memory tweak.

============

First Q - is any further tweaking needed to either reach greater speed and/or better connection results, such as turning off time stamp if so how? or dropping the Rwin back to 256960 from 513920

Second Q My results at UCSC network diagnostic tool http://nitro.ucsc.edu/ (actual results posted under Item IV. below)

indicate the following:
1) packet retransmits
2) duplicate acks received
3) round trip time is greater now than before tweak
4) connection stall

Before tweaking I got none of this. Why now after the tweak am I getting packet retransmits and why the duplicate acks; why the connection stall - do I need to change any settings?

Also the round trip before the tweak was 71.01 msec now after tweak it is 141 to 166 msec - if my connection is faster shouldn't this number be lower after the tweak?

Also prior to the tweak this test indicated a recommend Rwin of 26 or 26.7Kbs which would be comparable to TCPIP analyzer's second recommended Rwin of 256960 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 4). The question here is should I leave it at 513920 or try the lower number (256960) for RWin

at the end of this post you will see my stats on this test

Third, I saw the great post here by Dr Tweak: https://www.speedguide.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=73799

My question is regarding the page load speedup recommendation for win98 and above.

The question is should I try this tweak on Win95 - in other words are there any known problems with changing priority in the keys referenced for DNS etc. or was it simply omitted on purpose or otherwise.

My keys are showing:

DNS priority set to 07 00 00 00
HostsPriority = 06 00 00 00
LocalPriority = 05 00 00 00
NetbtPriority = 08 00 00 00

for win95 is it ok to set these to 01 00 00 00 without any issues or problems ensuing

Same question for the FORWARD BUFFER MEMORY TWEAK: I searched but could not find this specific key in my registry so unless you say otherwise I will presume it is not applicable for win95.

_____________________________________

IV. Additional info., settings changed or tweaked; UCSC Network analysis results; speed test results after tweaking

registry settings changed by TCP Optimizer:

after tweak:

Rwin 513920
PMTU 1
PMTU blackhole 0
default TTL 64
Max connections service 10
Max connections OS 10
Max MTU 1500
IP MTU 1500

before these values were either not set or set to default such as the Rwin was at 8760

_______________________________________

additional changes: Browser Opera under network prefs I changed max connection to server to 8 from 4 and Max total connections to 8 from 16

_______________________________________

UCSC Network analysis tool test: http://nitro.ucsc.edu/

results:

1) TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool v5.3.3d
click START to begin
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 367.00Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 4.29Mb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link

running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 4.29Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows 95, Architecture = x86, Version = 4.0
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = xxx

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Half Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 166.46 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
There were 114 packets retransmitted, 234 duplicate acks received, and 178 SACK blocks received
The connection stalled 1 times due to packet loss
The connection was idle 0.3 seconds (3.0%) of the time
This connection is network limited 99.97% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End

2) click START to re-test
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 365.17Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 4.77Mb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link

WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 365.17Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 4.77Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows 95, Architecture = x86, Version = 4.0
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = xxx

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Half Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 141.01 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 0.59% of the time
This connection is network limited 99.97% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End

more info:

estimate = 78.99 based on packet size = 11Kbits, RTT = 141.01msec, and loss = 1.0E-6
The theoretical network limit is 78.99 Mbps
The NDT server has a 8192.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 453.85 Mbps
Your PC/Workstation has a 501.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 27.80 Mbps
The network based flow control limits the throughput to 5.92 Mbps

Client Data reports link is 'T1', Client Acks report link is 'T1'

3) click START to re-test
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 371.69Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 4.74Mb/s
Your PC is connected to a Cable/DSL modem
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link

WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 371.69Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 4.74Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows 95, Architecture = x86, Version = 4.0
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = XXX

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Half Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 162.13 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
There were 44 packets retransmitted, 228 duplicate acks received, and 253 SACK blocks received
The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time
This connection is network limited 99.97% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End


====================================

speed tests taken after my tweaking:

testmy.net (bypassed proxo software firewall up router engaged)

download:

1) Your connection is: 2232 Kbps (about 2.2 Mbps)
You downloaded at: 272 kB/s
Your TRuSPEED: ^info^ 2388 Kbps :: 291 kB/s (7% overhead factored)
Bottom Line: You are running: 40 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 3.76 second(s)
Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 58.17 % of your hosts average (rr.com)
This was tested from a 2992 kB file and was downloaded in 10.98 seconds

2) Your connection is: 2304 Kbps (about 2.3 Mbps)
You downloaded at: 281 kB/s
Your TRuSPEED: ^info^ 2465 Kbps :: 301 kB/s (7% overhead factored)
Bottom Line: You are running: 41 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 3.64 second(s)
Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 60.05 % of your hosts average (rr.com)
Results Comparison

::You::
avg rr.com (3837 Kbps)
This was tested from a 1496 kB file and was downloaded in 5.32 seconds

upload:

Your connection is: 200 Kbps (about 0.2 Mbps)
You uploaded at: 24 kB/s
Your TRuSPEED: ^info^ 214 Kbps :: 26 kB/s (7% overhead factored)
Bottom Line: You are running: 4 times faster than 56K and can upload 1 megabyte in 42.67 second(s)
Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 71.68 % of your hosts average (rr.com)

_________________________

rr 50Meg FTP (bypassed proxo soft firewall disabled router engaged)

ftp://test.tampabay.rr.com/ftp.50m.sav

1) 570 KB/s or 4,560,000 bps 4.56Mbs or 91.2% of advertised speed

2) 565 KB/s or 4,520,000 bps 4.52Mbs or 90.4% of advertised speed

------------

internetfrog: http://www.internetfrog.com/mypc/speedtest/

lousy if correct on download & upload looks way too high

1) Download:
31,656 bps
Upload:
2,061,384 bps
QOS: 99%
RTT: 650 ms
MaxPause: 0 ms

2) Download:
845,456 bps
Upload:
0 bps
QOS: 46%
RTT: 500 ms
MaxPause: 610 ms

3) Download:
642,976 bps
Upload:
1,041,064 bps
QOS: 60%
RTT: 523 ms
MaxPause: 770 ms

_____________________

speakeasy test using IE (proxo bypassed soft firewall disabled)

1) 2005-06-04 11:43:07 EST: 4454 / 346
Your download speed : 4561717 bps, or 4454 kbps.
A 556.8 KB/sec transfer rate.
Windows 95 may not give reliable speed results.
Your upload speed : 354924 bps, or 346 kbps.

2) 2005-06-04 11:56:20 EST: 3925 / 343
Your download speed : 4019243 bps, or 3925 kbps.
A 490.6 KB/sec transfer rate.
Windows 95 may not give reliable speed results.
Your upload speed : 351802 bps, or 343 kbps.

[mccoffee]

lower your rwin it's kinda high

Try thease in the sg optmizer below me to download and install

check - custom settings
network adapter selection -
check modify all adapters
maxmtu 1500
TTL - 64
TCP Receive Window 128480
MTU Discovery - yes
Black Hole Detect - no
Selective Acks - yes
Max Dup ACKs - 2
TCP 1323 windows scailing is checked
Other Settings tab:
Max Connections per Server - 10
Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 20
Lan Browsing Speedup - optimized
Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect.

1. Under your LAN connection - properties - general tab, uninstall all the protocols there that you do not need.

2. Open IE and select tools - internet options - connections -
LAN settings, make sure NOTHING there is checked.

3. ALWAYS connect your modem via ethernet (NIC) and make sure you have the latest drivers for your NIC from the manufacturer. Set your NIC duplex mode to 10mb half duplex for Cable, for DSL it is ISP dependent unless you are using a router, if so then set it to 100mb full duplex for both Cable & DSL (the instructions are in my Help & Tips link). If you are using a router make sure you have the latest firmware.

4. Clear your temporary internet files.

5. Power cycle your modem, unplug it for atleast 15 seconds.

6. Download and update then do a scan with SpyBot http://beam.to/spybotsd & Ad Aware http://www.lavasoftusa.com/support/download to remove any spyware then install and update SpywareBlaster to stay spyware FREE. YOU MUST USE BOTH AD AWARE & SPYBOT TO ENSURE YOU ARE SPYWARE FREE SINCE ONE FINDS WHAT THE OTHER MISSES.

7. Make sure you do the faster web page tweak in Read1st link.

8. If you have Zone Alarm as a firewall uninstall it then visit Zonelabs.com for further instructions on removing it's left over junk.

9. Install Outpost Firewall http://www.agnitum.com\ or Sygate Firewall http://www.sygate.com/ , both have FREE and Pro versions and are heads above ZA.

10. Scan for viruses with your antivirus app, if you do not have one get one IMMEDIATELY, AVG 6.0 http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php is an excellent FREE AV app.

11. Make sure you have ALL of the latest Windows Updates

[5MpstweakR]

mccoffee, et al

Thanks for your reply - a few Questions

lower your rwin it's kinda high

Try thease in the sg optmizer below me to download and install

check - custom settings
network adapter selection -
check modify all adapters
maxmtu 1500
TTL - 64
TCP Receive Window 128480
MTU Discovery - yes
Black Hole Detect - no
Selective Acks - yes
Max Dup ACKs - 2
TCP 1323 windows scailing is checked
Other Settings tab:
Max Connections per Server - 10
Max Connections per 1.0 Server - 20
Lan Browsing Speedup - optimized
Then select "Apply Changes" and reboot to take effect.

using tcp optimizer when I change Rwin to 128480 it comes back and says it is not an acceptable value with min = 0 & max = 65535

I can use 64240, but see below on TCP scaling - must be a quirk in win95 or maybe no registry entry for this?

should I dump TCP optimizer for DrTCP? If so should I use version 021 or 014

also Selective Acks, Max Dup Acks, & TCP 1323 windows scaling & timestamp are greyed out which probably explains why the Rwin is set so high if scaling is not available - maybe?

2. Open IE and select tools - internet options - connections -
LAN settings, make sure NOTHING there is checked.

I do not use IE that much (2x a yr if that) but when I do I always connect via local proxy - proxomitron

this is the only entry there localhost & the port for proxo

3. ALWAYS connect your modem via ethernet (NIC) and make sure you have the latest drivers for your NIC from the manufacturer. Set your NIC duplex mode to 10mb half duplex for Cable, for DSL it is ISP dependent unless you are using a router, if so then set it to 100mb full duplex for both Cable & DSL (the instructions are in my Help & Tips link). If you are using a router make sure you have the latest firmware.

OK, Im using a router & connected via ethernet adapter

7. Make sure you do the faster web page tweak in Read1st link.

So you confirm there are no known issues for win95 in changing my priority settings to 01 00 00 00

from:

DNS priority set to 07 00 00 00
HostsPriority = 06 00 00 00
LocalPriority = 05 00 00 00
NetbtPriority = 08 00 00 00

[mccoffee]

http://www.speedguide.net/files/W95ws2setup.exe download this patch it should fix the 65536 problem with 95 i can't confirm or deny it why i haven't tested it on a 95 machine before to be honest with you but since i know it works in win98 in theory you shouldn't have any problems doing that tweak try this reg patch that puts those values in http://j79zlr.com/reg/ME98Internet.reg

[5MpstweakR]

http://www.speedguide.net/files/W95ws2setup.exe download this patch it should fix the 65536 problem with 95 i can't confirm or deny it why i haven't tested it on a 95 machine before to be honest with you but since i know it works in win98 in theory you shouldn't have any problems doing that tweak try this reg patch that puts those values in http://j79zlr.com/reg/ME98Internet.reg

mccoffee,

thanks for the reply.

I already have ws2update installed; the problem may be in the architecture of win95 not having the scaling

So am I dead in the water now? or would you go for lowering to 64240 to relieve - I guess I could just try it and see what happens.

Also probably do the same thing on page load tweak priority codes - the keys are already there - just need to change value to 01 hex...

always good to backup reg before making changes like this...

_______________

If you or anyone else has any additional ideas, please post...

I guess the thing which caught your eye was the high rwin, but in the context of no scaling avail for me...

and also the dup acks - I wonder how much this is a drag on my system?

[mccoffee]

If you didn't have scailing you would've have rwin as 513920 which is odd since that requires scailing in order to work also if you noticed my reply i said try 128480 with scailing did you reboot after changes???

The dup acks are fine

[5MpstweakR]

If you didn't have scailing you would've have rwin as 513920 which is odd since that requires scailing in order to work also if you noticed my reply i said try 128480 with scailing did you reboot after changes???

The dup acks are fine

good point on scaling...

I noticed, but if scaling is greyed out and as noted I tried 128480 but TCP Opt. cited the error as noted in my prior post, it is not an option for me at least from where I am now using TCP opt. Maybe what I need to do is revert back, reboot and then try the custom settings. I'm thinking this will not work either since I searched my registry for anything 1323 and saw nothing associated with TCP options - again maybe a quirk with win95.

if dup acks is not a problem and no packet loss - & I am over 90% of advertised speed - do I have addtl speed tweak issues if rwin is scaled too big? I think the answer we come up with is yes since I am getting an intermittent packet loss as noted in my 1st post using UCSC network analyzer so I'll try the reverting... or other suggestions as they come...

Also I was thinking the issue is not how big the straw is if no packet loss (not the case), but rather the number of connections which maybe too many at 10 - is that something to consider? I guess not if you are suggesting to move to 20 for one of the settings from 10...

___________

also maybe I need to try drtcp instead... although I like the tcp opt. maybe it does not like my system?

[mccoffee]

good point on scaling...

I noticed, but if scaling is greyed out and as noted I tried 128480 but TCP Opt. cited the error as noted in my prior post, it is not an option for me at least from where I am now using TCP opt. Maybe what I need to do is revert back, reboot and then try the custom settings. I'm thinking this will not work either since I searched my registry for anything 1323 and saw nothing associated with TCP options - again maybe a quirk with win95.

if dup acks is not a problem and no packet loss - & I am over 90% of advertised speed - do I have addtl speed tweak issues if rwin is scaled too big? I think the answer we come up with is yes since I am getting an intermittent packet loss as noted in my 1st post using UCSC network analyzer so I'll try the reverting... or other suggestions as they come...

Also I was thinking the issue is not how big the straw is if no packet loss (not the case), but rather the number of connections which maybe too many at 10 - is that something to consider? I guess not if you are suggesting to move to 20 for one of the settings from 10...

___________

also maybe I need to try drtcp instead... although I like the tcp opt. maybe it does not like my system?

it's tcpopts1323 in the regirtry if that value is set to one scaling is on http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/896

[5MpstweakR]

it's tcpopts1323 in the regirtry if that value is set to one scaling is on http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/896

As I mentioned earlier I do not have this registry entry.

Are you suggesting I create this?

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip

Under my \Services

there is no folder for Tcpip or anything close to that.

[mccoffee]

[5MpstweakR]

I already read all that before I posted this new thread.

can someone answer my question...

The question is for Win95 is it ok (no known negative issues) to add the folder \Tcpip and the proper values to Control RFC 1323

The link provided by mccoffee:

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/896

clearly refereces (Windows NT/2000/XP)

not all windows and not specifically win95...

a yes or no will do - but if there are issue specifically for win95 and this registry entry, I would like to know before proceding TIA

[mccoffee]

i forgot this is the right key for it this is annoying how windows scalining is working the optimzier this should be so simple most of the time it is http://www.hakanozerdem.biz/registry/sources/detail-745.htm

[YeOldeStonecat]

For Windows 9X, make sure you have the latest Dial Up Networking installed, upgrades the TCP stack.
DUN 1.4
http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... US;q285189

Also get the vtcp.386 fix from our website.

[mccoffee]

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q239705 this making more sense this will fix it

[5MpstweakR]

mccoffee,

thank you for the win95 link: http://www.hakanozerdem.biz/registr.../detail-745.htm

======

YeOldeStonecat,

thank you for that additional info regarding dun upgrade (I have dun1.3 but not the dun 1.4 upgrade) One question - If I am not using dialup why do I need the dun 1.4 upgrade? You said it upgrades the TCP stack?

I tried to answer my Dun 1.4 question for win95 using this ref:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/297774/EN-US/

What I get is from this link is for Dialup Networking or DUN you get 1) greater security 2) Yr 2000 fix for the DHCP Client 3) PTP or VPN support ; also Name Resolution Issues fixes; Packet Size Adjustment for dial-up connections...

....for dial-up - but I still don't get what this has to do with my cable access via ethernet. If someone else can help me understand why I need this dun1.4 upgrade I would appreciate it.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311215/EN-US/ <--- more info

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/285189/EN-US/ <--- link to dun 1.4

Thnks also for the ref to the vtcp.386 fix

In some of my searches, researching this prior to posting this thread I remember reading something about this vtcp.386 fix - now I know I need it and that it is available at this site here:

http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php

____________________

Correct me if I'm wrong guys but it sounds like I need to:

1) use TCP Optimizer to revert back to my original untweaked settings.
2) Install the dun 1.4 upgrade (after I understand why I need it)
3) Install the vtcp.386 (after I understand the issues in this fix)
4) add registry key & values to Control RFC 1323
5) run TCP Optimizer again - custom install settings suggested by mccoffee in his 1st response post #2

also can someone tell me how to stay logged in - I checked under user cp and did not see a control set for time out

[mccoffee]

yes on the steps yes on the login they do it by cookie

[Andrzej]

w9x; ME can be find in http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/745/

BTW above the link was on page ... The link provided by mccoffee:
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/896
clearly refereces (Windows NT/2000/XP) ...

OTOH you can check also :
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/30/
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/646/
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/31/
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/726/
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/724/
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/740/
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/741/

BTW only for interested in
to compare TCP settings in win registry : w9x;ME vs w2k and wXP
Windows TCP/IP Registry Entries
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q158474
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows 95
Microsoft Windows 98
Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition

TCP/IP and NBT Configuration Parameters for Windows 2000 or Windows NT
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q120642
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 3.5
Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 3.51
Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT Server 3.5
Microsoft Windows NT Server 3.51
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0

TCP/IP and NBT Configuration Parameters for Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314053
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Microsoft Windows XP Professional[/size=1]

PS many my valuable links to w95 tweaks are actually death

my opinion about internet in w95 etc on old PC can found on thread
https://www.speedguide.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=s=&postid=1130760#post1130760
see also 'my 2003 award' hehehe

[YeOldeStonecat]

If I am not using dialup why do I need the dun 1.4 upgrade? You said it upgrades the TCP stack?[/b]

[5MpstweakR]

anyone with any history of doing MS upgrades knows to weigh the + agin the -

8)

[5MpstweakR]

PS many my valuable links to w95 tweaks are actually death

my opinion about internet in w95 etc on old PC can found on thread
https://www.speedguide.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=s=&postid=1130760#post1130760
see also 'my 2003 award' hehehe

IMO internet and ms ofice97 as minimum + tweaking: OS & TCP/IP
w95 is vvvvv.slow - per se (as is) - tweaking impoved but still so far to wSE
w98SE is fater & acceptable - tweaking impoved but still so farrrrr to w2k
wME not possible to use at all - vvvvv slow]

patience is a virtue ;0

good info thou - thnks it lets me know I have an uphill fight...

I'm not dropping packets anymore speeds faster than ever - hit 4.75Mbps out of advertised 5 Mbps page load is faster with page load tweak priority 1, but theoretically according to tcp/ip analyzer scaling is off... and I should only be limited to

(Your RcvWindow limits you to: 2621.4 kbps (327.675 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your RcvWindow limits you to: 1048.56 kbps (131.07 KBytes/s) @ 500ms)

i know - not a speed test

my new registry key set scaling on - LOL and I have vtcp386 installed - which explains why my packet problem is no longer an issue...

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP]
Name: Tcp1323Opts
Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value)
Value: 1 0x00000001 (1)

also tcp optimizer is having problems interacting with my system

so my choice was 65k 256k(by screwing with the speed slider) or 513k

so far I have gotten better performance out of rwin = 513920 no scaling which is 65535 max rwin w/out scaling

I might scale this back manually using regedit if I discover I am dropping packets again since TCPO won't let me go to 128k.

still experimenting...
___________________

Has anyone ever gotten win95 & tcpO to work perfectly - i doubt it

but sure feels good @ close to 5Mbps

maybe if I do the dun1.4 upgrade I'll hit 5Mbps

[5MpstweakR]

[quote="5MpstweakR"]
Has anyone ever gotten win95 & tcpO to work perfectly - i doubt it

but sure feels good @ close to 5Mbps

maybe if I do the dun1.4 upgrade I'll hit 5Mbps ]

I decided to give DrTCP a whirl and am now able to scale on & off and change rwin values as I wish (something I could not do with TCP optimizer).

I like the combination.... (tcp optimizer & dr tcp) works 4me

right now I am experimenting with multiples of mss

to see how far I can go before I get intermittent packet retransmission or loss and to max out on ftp download speed target is 4.75Mbps or higher

[mccoffee]

did you see the custom setting on the bottom left of the optimizer you need to click that to use the menual changes such as sciling and rwin i think that's where the confusion was the whole time i could be wrong

[5MpstweakR]

did you see the custom setting on the bottom left of the optimizer you need to click that to use the menual changes such as sciling and rwin i think that's where the confusion was the whole time i could be wrong

yup, it never worked as I said in post #3... your 1st instruct. step was to select custom settings, I followed your instructions to the letter except where grayed out options were not avail...

using tcp optimizer when I change Rwin to 128480 it comes back and says it is not an acceptable value with min = 0 & max = 65535

I can use 64240, but see below on TCP scaling - must be a quirk in win95 or maybe no registry entry for this?

should I dump TCP optimizer for DrTCP? If so should I use version 021 or 014

also Selective Acks, Max Dup Acks, & TCP 1323 windows scaling & timestamp are greyed out which probably explains why the Rwin is set so high if scaling is not available - maybe?

good to know for others who may be lurking or traveling dwn this path that some systems like mine don't completely work correctly w/ TCP Opt...

also good that both programs complement and make the tweaking easier...

when I get done I will try and edit/summarize n my 1st post what I did... again for those with the initiative to search on win95 b4 posting like I did.

[Andrzej]

Please find a few links concerning on
w95 upg, tweaking etc
Windows 95/98/NT4/2000/ME/XP/2003 + DOS 7.xx/8.00 ©Tricks + Secrets Files http://www.mdgx.com/95.htm
Windows 95/98 http://www.windowsitpro.com/Departments/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=812&PubID=16
Optimizing.net >>> Optimizing Windows 95 Internet Connections http://www.optimizing.net/html/
Dial-Up Networking 1.3 Upgrade http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/dunupg13.htm
Dial-Up Networking 1.3 / 1.4 Upgrade (updated Dec. 9, 2001)

IMVHO in yours case problem is in w95
but also in experiments methodology
so please explain yours actual
w95; patches; tweaks & settings
& hdw

BTW TCP Optimizer is 'ALL in one prg'
so it [Registry] tab can be used
in this case instead of regedit.

[5MpstweakR]

Please find a few links concerning on
w95 upg, tweaking etc

IMVHO in yours case problem is in w95
but also in experiments methodology
so please explain yours actual
w95] tab can be used
in this case instead of regedit.

Gr8 links thnks. Dun1.3-->1.4 confirmed my findings of not needing the upgrade since I already had 1.3 if not concerned w/ ptp (vpn) or 128 bit...

My opinion... what I experienced appears to be a software compatability issue w/ my win95 & TCP Optimizer...

the proof is DrTCP was able to do what TCP Optimizer could not which was to allow me to change Rwin & scaling option.

this is not a rant, or a criticism... it is simply a fact

as I said I like both programs... they each offer me something different...

personal pref. to use regedit rather than a GUI interface under certain circumstances

[Andrzej]

fortunately for you
last week clean w95B was installed by me for my brother
(for prg taking care on log of his CB radio)
so if you really need
I can also add appropriate upg & patches
to check 'yours' problems with TCP/IP in w95

OTOH I'm afraid of that we can still stay in own opinions
So again, if you really need
please follow my advice and explain yours w95 hdw & sfw details
In one of my above post you can find link & method
how to use actual Belarc Advisor for mentioned propose.

:2cool: of mentioned thread
phrase ... You get my "patience of the year" award ...
in this case (but also in my lng)
means 'a mule' hehehe

[Shinobi]

If you really like Windows 95.. Try to find the Win95C version..

Kind of hard to find on CD-Rom now a days..

Shinobi

[5MpstweakR]

looking like my rwin value will be 1 of the following:

62780 (43 x mss)
61320 (42 x mss)
59860 (41 x mss)

anything above 62780 causes packet retransmission or loss depending on how high I go. I just did a ping test at dslreports which points me to a slightly higher rwin @ 67160 (46 x mss), so I will try this again in my testing just for grins.

dwnld speed using ftp site indicates I'm getting 90% or above of advertised so I'm satisfied

over the weekend I'll find a small block of time to do my final testing

looks good though

[Andrzej]

Shinobi yours ... Win95C version ...
is never heard by me
so I cannot follow yours advice hehehe

[5MpstweakR]

from post#23...

good to know for others who may be lurking or traveling dwn this path that some systems like mine don't completely work correctly w/ TCP Optimizer version 2.0.1 ...

also good that both programs complement and make the tweaking easier...

when I get done I will try and edit/summarize n my 1st post what I did...

Interesting path I took to get to my optimal Rwin value of 64240 on a 9 year old win 95 relic pc as follows:

Before tweaking I started with an Rwin of 8760 the default setting for win95 not optimized for broadband.

Max advertised speed per my ISP was 5 Mbps down.

ethernet connection - Netgear

Preliminary testing (b4 tweaking) showed my download speed to be between 970.4 Kbps to 1,150,400 bps down using UCSC network analysis and FTP SPEED TESTS.

After my tweaking (outlined below) RWin optimized & page load tweak my numbers are consistently in the 4.75 to 4.8 Mbps range with page load times 50 to 75% faster.

Summary of what I did for a 9 year old pc on win95:

*** before I did anything I backed up my registry ***

1) I used TCP Optimizer (TCPO) optimal settings and instructions here:

https://www.speedguide.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=73799

also see additional tweaks: FASTER WEB PAGE LOADING from above link

more info of similar sort here: http://www.testmy.net/forum/t-2097

2) Optimal settings by TCPO put my Rwin at 513920 - scaling on way to high

+ installed the vtcp.386 patch & added registry keys to Control RFC 1323 since my version of Win95 did not have this key

+ I tried changing RWIN using TCPO to no avail - must be a quirk with my system and this software <--- as corroborated & reported by Andrzej here:
http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.p ... stcount=10

+ Using DRTCP I was able to change RWin and scaling at will.

real good info on DRTCP here: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/578

The above link explains RWin concept and what is and what is not tweakable by OS - great milk shake analogy to explain RWin see bottom of this post for excerpt.

+ both programs (TCPO & DRTCP) offered very useful optimization, so if you run into this same issue where TCPO will not allow you to change your RWin, I suggest you start with TCPO using optimal settings and then use DRTCP for final tuning of RWin as I did.

3) I experimented with multiples of my mss (you can get your mss using the TCP/IP Analyzer online test) keeping in mind the milk shake analogy until I was optimized - finding that 44 times mss for me was best or 64240

additional info:

speed tests which were helpful to me:

FTP SPEED TESTS (mentioned in links above)
SPEAKEASY SPEED TESTS (mentioned in links above)
speed tests from this http://www.dslreports.com/stest/0

other useful tests:

Tweaks test from this http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks page.
Line Quality test from http://www.dslreports.com/testme (follow instructions for becoming pingable for this test - helpful for determining packet loss at your location)

The Bottom line is - find the RWin which makes you fast but not so fast as to create packet loss at your location.

===========================

RWin and Milkshake analogy from http://www.dslreports.com/faq/578

Default RWIN for broadband, is like having a tiny straw in a thick milk shake, only so much can get through the straw (line), so fast. By putting a larger straw (higher RWIN) in that same thick shake, you allow more shake (data) to come through faster, to a point that is. After which, there is no more improvement, and shake (data) can start spilling all over (packet loss). So the key is, to find an RWIN that fits your line just right.

HIH

[Andrzej]

agree
Optimizer 2.01 (was not checked with previous versions)
cannot see Windows 95 B (OSR2) (build 4.0.1111)
registry settings for :
System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP\Tcp1323Opts
even if mentioned was added manually

[5MpstweakR]

agree
Optimizer 2.01 (was not checked with previous versions)
cannot see Windows 95 B (OSR2) (build 4.0.1111)
registry settings for :
System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP\Tcp1323Opts
even if mentioned was added manually

Thanks for corroborating & reporting as aberration for TCP Opt version 2.0.1

http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.p ... stcount=10

[Andrzej]

5MpstweakR yours thread was read again

so if someone needs more experiments on old & weak PC

Hdw recommended upgs :
BIOS latest
CPU up to 500MHz (but only double can be worth the money)
RAM up 512 MB (but only double can be worth the money & size problems)
HDD new one, modern, high RPM, huge cache buffer (size problems)
NIC still so similar (Ethernet so USB is not recommended)
Modem as above still so similar
Router (recommended hdw client : ICS; VPN & PPPoE or PPPoA)

OS choice :
IMO still only w2k & SE are worth attentions
but w95 options are as follow :
several v.important OS's paches
Windows 95 OSR2.5 means Version C
nano95

OS settings :
Clean up & Defrag (OS & HDD)
Memory management prgs (several for RAM, but only one Cacheman)
Virtual Memory settings
Reduction of background activity (prg, services, vir, spy etc)

Web Agents, Accelerators (prgs for surfing speed up) :
Naviscope v 8.7
since 2001 immortal prg sfw proxy & much more http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Naviscope-Download-11649.html dw, need install

"No! Flash" v2.2
Block multimedia ads (pop-up, animated, flash etc.), Spyware (browser Parasites, hijackers etc.)
http://www.bbshare.com/noflash/download/noflash2.zip zipped file, 137K, need install