nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Google : WebAccelerator

bringitdown

New beta - http://webaccelerator.google.com

Claims to speed up DSL/Cable speeds

Of course mountains of data about you and your surfing habits will be built up buy Google...

Hmmm.

/edit: has had no effect on my office connection, will try via NTL tonite.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peteee

Dont care, they already know what i search for and whats in my email!

What more, bizarrely enough i still trust them. After all they've saved me .2 seconds so far today! How could I go wrong!

Khannie

Just use your ISP's proxy servers for http browsing. TBH, the speed increase you get from it will far exceed anything you get from webaccelerator.

Pages load like magic. It's great.

the IOL one is: cache.iol.ie port 80
(stick that in your http proxy setting in your web browser).

Not sure about the eircom one.

lomb

Khannie wrote:

Just use your ISP's proxy servers for http browsing. TBH, the speed increase you get from it will far exceed anything you get from webaccelerator.

Pages load like magic. It's great.

the IOL one is: cache.iol.ie port 80
(stick that in your http proxy setting in your web browser).

Not sure about the eircom one.

can u explain how to do that in firefox ive tried about:config and there is no http proxy setting there

bringitdown

lomb wrote:

can u explain how to do that in firefox ive tried about:config and there is no http proxy setting there

Tools->Options->General->Connection Settings

Manual Proxy configuration

et. voila

Anyone know if NTL have a caching proxy?

Mr E

Tools / Options / General Settings / Connection Settings.

unklerosco

If anyone has the eircom one let me know..

daramullally

bringitdown wrote:

Anyone know if NTL have a caching proxy?

As far as I know NTL use a transparent proxy by default. You can't avoid it, all you can do is enter a specific one in IE.

Khannie

unklerosco wrote:

If anyone has the eircom one let me know..

Google doesn't show up anything obvious.

You could try using the IOL one anyway. They may not restrict access.

Let us know the outcome if you do try this.

LegacyUser

I use a proxy server with NTL, after my connection droppped a few times in the last couple of months. I have the server address if anyone needs it.

Lump

WOoo, I've saved a minute in the last hour!

John

Chalk

Khannie wrote:

Google doesn't show up anything obvious.

You could try using the IOL one anyway. They may not restrict access.

Let us know the outcome if you do try this.

webcache.eircom.net

Fibonacci

how have you saved a whole minute? I've only saved 0.2 seconds in the last several hours?

...still trying to figure out what to do with my extra free time....

zAbbo

Chalk wrote:

webcache.eircom.net

webcache.eircom.net:82

Duffman

I find that using eircom webcache makes no difference to page loading speeds at all

snappieT

How do you tell how much time you've saved?

Ciaran500

Tee link doesn't work anymore. Just leads to the google toolbar page.

Nietzschean

Ciaran500 wrote:

Tee link doesn't work anymore. Just leads to the google toolbar page.

works for me

Ciaran500

Works for me now o_O

Its a conspiracy to make me look crazy.

Nietzschean

Ciaran500 wrote:

Its a conspiracy to make me look crazy.

I think your well able to do it by yourself

zenith

bringitdown wrote:

Claims to speed up DSL/Cable speeds

/edit: has had no effect on my office connection, will try via NTL tonite.

Can't really say it's done a whole lot for me, but it has crashed IE twice, but not firefox. Been using it most of the day.

I'm seeing more 'hanging' than I used to do, though: it may improve the throughput, but it might disrupt the latency ...

Giblet

ATTENTION

Google caches all the websites onto a server and other machines (ala P2P). People have been reporting that they can see other peoples cache'd versions of certain websites. For example, if you are using it, you might be able to see someone elses PM's (although unlikely)

People on SA have been reporting crazy crap happening.

Do not use this.

Nietzschean

its in beta as such odd stuff is to be expected, as regards having other people's pm's... well what decent IM network doesn't encrypt stuff now?

As for seeing cached versions of people's versions of website, is there any proof of this? surely google would have taken steps that if it was stored there the user wouldn't be able to read it...

Giblet

If you are registered to the Something Awful forums, you can read all the crap that happened.

PM as in private messages on a Messageboard.

Google always stays in Beta anyway, this is just stupid.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Nietzschean

anything thats actually private should be encrypted , simple as that.........

As regards that website/forum erm i've not seen any proof there, an easily forgeable picture and a massive anti-google rant which leads me to believe its more of a sensational piece in order to get page hits up than much else tbh.

Giblet

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Google-Web-Accelerator/browse_thread/thread/6c0290ab558802c4/a63715102e4edbff#a63715102e4edbff

Giblet

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That's not the problem, not everyone knows about this and I'd say a few people will get stung.

Giblet

And

This is 1 person who got into all of these accounts.

Nietzschean

Giblet wrote:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Google-Web-Accelerator/browse_thread/thread/6c0290ab558802c4/a63715102e4edbff#a63715102e4edbff

i don't see where the p2p stuff mention'd earlier is comming from?

it sounds like a simple bug in the program that some users are getting others previously visited pages....doesn't sound malicious/evil on their part...

google hardly want to cache bbc news's website on their server several million times and so on, its a beta so for this type of technology something like this should be expected imo

Nietzschean

Giblet wrote:

That's not the problem, not everyone knows about this and I'd say a few people will get stung.

For one, as it says on that google fourm, people are given the appearence of being logged in as someone else, but actually arn't as the cookies arn't there for proforming commands.....

So there is the possible risk of someone reading what you viewed, but PM's seems highly unliked as they usually have unique id's so unless someone randomly guessed the id and the page was cached on that google server at the time and bla bla bla... you've about the same odds as google accidently sending you a virus imo