2 ms·
Dial-up, has better latency, since their is no packet-switching. So it is slow, but not laggy.
by 1718627440 1y ago
Dial-up, has better latency, since their is no packet-switching. So it is slow, but not laggy.
- ipython 1y agoDialup has a ton of latency (100+ms), but little jitter.
- toast0 1y agoIf you're dialed up directly, you should be able to get a little bit better latency as you won't need IP, UDP, and PPP/SLIP headers; at modem bandwidth, header bytes add meaningful latency. But data transmission is still pretty slow, even with small packets.
- pak9rabid 1y agoDialing-up a friend to play Quake, there essentially was no lag. Dialing-up to the Internet to play Quake via TCP/IP...shit tons of lag (150+ ms).
- giantrobot 1y agoYou're using confusing terminology so you look very wrong. What you mean to say is direct modem-to-modem connections were not laggy because there was no packet switching. This is a true statement. What the GP comment was talking about was dial-up Internet being most people's exposure to TCP/IP gaming in the 90s. That was most assuredly laggy. Even the best dial-up Internet connections had at least 100ms of latency just from buffering in the modems. The QuakeWorld network stack was built to handle the high latency and jitter of dial-up Internet connections. The original Quake's network was fine on a LAN or fast Internet connection (e.g. a dorm ResNet) but was sub-par on dial-up.
- kleiba 1y agoAnd then there was also this: https://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-faster-than-sending-a-pixel-to-the-screen https://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-fa...
- hylaride 1y ago> Dial-up, has better latency, since their is no packet-switching. So it is slow, but not laggy. It was laggy as there was buffering and some compression (at least for later revisions of dial-up) that most definitely added latency.