advertise throught website maybe? sometimes good things happenDosan wrote:Yes that sounds good, but maybe a little bit to good to be true tbh.
Why is it free to use?
http://www.smoothping.com/
As far as trojans go you're safe, both Putty and Freecap are "clean". You don't have to download them from the site since they just provide them for you. You can go to their respective homepages and download them there.
I can personally vouch for Putty being safe.
The only concern you might have is that they can listen on your traffic since it get's routed via their server. But since wow doesn't transmit any vital information (such as username/pass) they can't hack your account even though they have access to your packets.
I can personally vouch for Putty being safe.
The only concern you might have is that they can listen on your traffic since it get's routed via their server. But since wow doesn't transmit any vital information (such as username/pass) they can't hack your account even though they have access to your packets.
I doubt this very much. To measure latency you send a request to the destination and wait for a reply.
Asking the destination to send a request to you, have the destination measure the latency and then send the result back to you just sounds very backwards and stupid.
If you use quartz (or similar) you can look at the latency it displays since this is "real" latency; it's calculated per spellcast and it measures the time it takes for the server to respond to spellcasting requests from the client.
alright! do you doubt "smoothping" aswell?Raniz wrote:I doubt this very much. To measure latency you send a request to the destination and wait for a reply.
Asking the destination to send a request to you, have the destination measure the latency and then send the result back to you just sounds very backwards and stupid.
If you use quartz (or similar) you can look at the latency it displays since this is "real" latency; it's calculated per spellcast and it measures the time it takes for the server to respond to spellcasting requests from the client.
That talk about encrypted protocols having higher priority on the internet is just a load of bullcrap. Routers transmit packets and they only care about the headers that tells them what their next destination is, they don't have any notion about whether the contents of the package is encrypted or not.Tbone wrote:alright! do you doubt "smoothping" aswell?Raniz wrote:I doubt this very much. To measure latency you send a request to the destination and wait for a reply.
Asking the destination to send a request to you, have the destination measure the latency and then send the result back to you just sounds very backwards and stupid.
If you use quartz (or similar) you can look at the latency it displays since this is "real" latency; it's calculated per spellcast and it measures the time it takes for the server to respond to spellcasting requests from the client.
What probably makes this work is that you connect to a server closer to you and then that server has a much better route to Paris than you do. You can compare it to driving to the closest major city and taking the highway to Paris instead of driving on smaller roads the whole way.
The SSH tunnel is just a simple way of tunneling packages, any tunneling protocol would probably work.
Raniz wrote:That talk about encrypted protocols having higher priority on the internet is just a load of bullcrap. Routers transmit packets and they only care about the headers that tells them what their next destination is, they don't have any notion about whether the contents of the package is encrypted or not.Tbone wrote:alright! do you doubt "smoothping" aswell?Raniz wrote:I doubt this very much. To measure latency you send a request to the destination and wait for a reply.
Asking the destination to send a request to you, have the destination measure the latency and then send the result back to you just sounds very backwards and stupid.
If you use quartz (or similar) you can look at the latency it displays since this is "real" latency; it's calculated per spellcast and it measures the time it takes for the server to respond to spellcasting requests from the client.
What probably makes this work is that you connect to a server closer to you and then that server has a much better route to Paris than you do. You can compare it to driving to the closest major city and taking the highway to Paris instead of driving on smaller roads the whole way.
The SSH tunnel is just a simple way of tunneling packages, any tunneling protocol would probably work.
Okay, then I understood it right.. the big question though is how safe it is in terms of hijacking accounts and such things... I feel like my mother, afraid of everything on the web..
I'm just very protecitve of my account 
Does it work for Vista?? and does it work at all? what does it really do in understandable terms?Dosan wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRpifq6DRvI
Does that regestry fix still work in Windows XP SP3?