Menu
Reply
  • 28
  • 0
  • 0
tmonaghan
Tuning in
322 Views
Message 11 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

...

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 928
  • 23
  • 135
shawty1984
Rising star
293 Views
Message 12 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500


@tmonaghan wrote:

I think someone is missing the point!

If it takes 30Mb/s to stream a 4K movie, beside browsing the Internet and downloading a 4.5gb ISO file you would be wasting your money if you upgraded to VIVID500. Likewise for ViVID350. No server in the world would allow you to download any files at the full speed. The max you would be downloading at would be no more than 3Mb/s if you are lucky. So why wasting your money on VIVID350/500 when VIVID200 would be most suited for today's need... Don't even talk about 1Gb/s. That's is why I would downgrade from VIVID350 TO VIVID200 otherwise it would be a waste of your hard-earned money.. Of course if the household is comprised of four people, we just need to multiple by four, and yet VIVID200 would still cope with such demand.


We aren't missing the point. As humans, we progress things. If we didn't, we'd still be on dial up. If 200 is perfectly fine, why isn't 100 or 50? People also like to download things faster. 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 28
  • 0
  • 0
tmonaghan
Tuning in
277 Views
Message 13 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

That is the thing, faster is good enough with VIVID200, and one would be waisting their money for the reason that no Internet server, except for streaming or playing games, will permit files to be downloaded at more than 3Mb/s. Whether you have VIVID200 or VIVID500... Please show me the evidence that you would be downloading at full speed of 350/500Mb/s with VIVID350/500

Many thanks,

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 32
  • 0
  • 2
mpitts
On our wavelength
251 Views
Message 14 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

The two main attractions for me on Voom 500 were not the increased download so much as:

- Upload of 35 Mbps (vs 12Mbps for Vivid 200, although the Vivid 350 also now comes with 35Mbps ul)

- 12h SLA (vs no real SLA for Vivid 200)

Having said that I also do a lot of file replication between locations for resiliency purposes and the increased download certainly helps with that.

Those are of real value to me so I'm not just "waisting [sic] my money".

It's horses for courses, if you're happy with your Vivid 200, just go ahead and enjoy it.

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 28
  • 0
  • 0
tmonaghan
Tuning in
248 Views
Message 15 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

Thanks for the input, it is not that VIVID200 is best or worse.. Instead it is that one would never make use of the potential that brings VIVID350/500 because downloading stuff over the Internet will never reach 350Mb/s or 500Mb/s until software has been developed to take advantage of that fast speed. So why paying for VIVID350/500 now when VIVID200 would be most suited for everyday's need unless you require a higher upload bandwidth?
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 28
  • 0
  • 0
tmonaghan
Tuning in
245 Views
Message 16 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

Sorry forgot to mention Internet services that would take advantage of that hight speed of VIVID350/500
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 56
  • 0
  • 8
zhen7
On our wavelength
230 Views
Message 17 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500


@tmonaghan wrote:

I think someone is missing the point!

If it takes 30Mb/s to stream a 4K movie, beside browsing the Internet and downloading a 4.5gb ISO file you would be wasting your money if you upgraded to VIVID500. Likewise for ViVID350. No server in the world would allow you to download any files at the full speed. The max you would be downloading at would be no more than 3Mb/s if you are lucky. So why wasting your money on VIVID350/500 when VIVID200 would be most suited for today's need... Don't even talk about 1Gb/s. That's is why I would downgrade from VIVID350 TO VIVID200 otherwise it would be a waste of your hard-earned money.. Of course if the household is comprised of four people, we just need to multiple by four, and yet VIVID200 would still cope with such demand.


 

Wait what????

 

What you’re saying that just because YOU are happy with 200 then no one else needs faster?

there are servers around the world that easily max out my 350Mb. 

Tell me,

Downloading a game these days is 80-90-100-100-110-120-130+GB. 

How long does it take to download a 130GB game on 200, 350, 500 and 1GB connections?

 

Too long, that’s how long!

Imagine getting a new Console or formatting your PC or just buying a new game. 

Before - you would wait an AGE to download one song. 

Now it’s less than a second. 

 

Now, we wait an age for Movies and Games to download. 

 

Progress means this wont be the case for much longer. 

Your points are not valid when I download at 45MB/sec and my friends are at 130MB/sec or thereabouts. 

This is meaningful when you start needing to download hundreds of GB. 

Faster will always be better, Instant will always be best. 

 

I cannot wait to go from 350 to 500 when it’s avai standalone. 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 28
  • 0
  • 0
tmonaghan
Tuning in
220 Views
Message 18 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

Hi zhen7,

I hear you, I am not ignorant lol

You seem to have specific needs, hence needing more bandwidth. However most people don't need to upgrade above VIVID200. If you read my other posts you would know that I included gaming to benefit from VIVID350/500. People should be taught to assess how much bandwidth they need at peak times before they upgrade for VIVID350/500 because most of us would be wasting money on broadband packages that would be unnecessary when VIVID200 is just good enough unless you play games over the internet, torrenting, working remotely from home

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 56
  • 0
  • 8
zhen7
On our wavelength
201 Views
Message 19 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500


@tmonaghan wrote:

Hi zhen7,

I hear you, I am not ignorant lol

You seem to have specific needs, hence needing more bandwidth. However most people don't need to upgrade above VIVID200. If you read my other posts you would know that I included gaming to benefit from VIVID350/500. People should be taught to assess how much bandwidth they need at peak times before they upgrade for VIVID350/500 because most of us would be wasting money on broadband packages that would be unnecessary when VIVID200 is just good enough unless you play games over the internet, torrenting, working remotely from home


 

What you describe, even regular ADSL connection would suffice. 

But, the internet is more widely used across the household, especially with WiFi devices. 

If someone is paying the premium for Virgin Media, chances are, whatever tier they are on, they will be utilising. 

I don’t need 350Mb 24/7, but, when the time comes to download those huge files, I want the fastest connection available. 

500Mb is nothing groundbreaking. 

Hyperoptic charges £47 for 1Gb. 

Virgin Media, will probably charge £50-65 pm for half that. 

 

The UK is really lagging behind other countries and it’s just a shame to see. 

Im glad I have access to VM at least, because unless you luck out and get HyperOptic or someone similar, your options are limited. 

Until maybe 5G becomes widespread. 

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Hyperiontec
Joining in
190 Views
Message 20 of 22
Flag for a moderator

Re: vivid 500

so with my upgrading experience. 

i currently have my brother living with me and we download games regularly. hence the requirement for faster broadband. 

to my horror to find out that i cannot upgrade to the maximum package, of which i have been able to do since 100mbps. with only broadband and phone. before today i had no requirement for a TV licence, of which now, to get the very best speed i have had to buy a TV licence. 

i may use the TV package and the mobile sim coming my way. but has left a bitter taste in my mouth, might see what EE bring to the table with 5G and have gigabit internet when its released. (if virgin don't drop the damn price...)

 

I'm not hitting on the total cost of the package, as to be fair it seems reasonable. it is that it is a REQUIREMENT... 

0 Kudos
Reply