Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 17:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 11:57 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-28 14:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 10:52 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 16:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 16:21 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 18:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:30 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 22:50 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 17:44 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-30 08:48 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 03:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-12-01 08:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:21 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-08 12:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 12:48 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:50 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:34 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 15:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 16:10 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:32 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:26 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 18:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 23:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-29 23:05 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 04:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:28 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:26 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 15:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 19:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 21:29 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 23:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 17:48 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 13:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:59 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 10:09 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 11:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-04 12:23 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-04 11:45 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 18:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 10:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:10 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 16:05 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 15:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:09 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> - 2018-12-12 21:39 -0800
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 09:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:10 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:56 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:43 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Graham J <graham@invalid.com> - 2018-12-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:08 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 16:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:15 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-06 15:40 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 15:32 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 16:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-06 17:18 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 22:45 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries BugHunter <bughunter@com.invalid> - 2018-12-07 13:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:26 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 20:17 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:33 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 13:11 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 08:31 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:36 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:25 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:17 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:11 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:25 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:45 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 21:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-03 09:33 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 18:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:00 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:58 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 17:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-01 09:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:31 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-02 12:38 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:49 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-02 15:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-30 13:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:46 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-01 11:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 12:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 13:14 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131220180913412787%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58367 |
In article <2ZidnUpeGq4ebYzBnZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@supernews.com>, +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> wrote: > > > > cat5 is obsolete. cat6 or better should be installed in renovations and > > new construction to support 10gig. > > Which no-one is ever likely to need, so it won't happen. 10GbE over > copper is power hungry and pointless for home users, and Cat6 cable is > more expensive and irritating to install and terminate correctly. nonsense. gigabit is currently a bottleneck even for home users and cat6 does not require any additional effort to install nor does it need termination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puuhpd$77q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58372 |
On 13/12/2018 14:13, nospam wrote: > In article <2ZidnUpeGq4ebYzBnZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@supernews.com>, +++ATH0 > <news@ringpiece.local> wrote: > >>> >>> cat5 is obsolete. cat6 or better should be installed in renovations and >>> new construction to support 10gig. >> >> Which no-one is ever likely to need, so it won't happen. 10GbE over >> copper is power hungry and pointless for home users, and Cat6 cable is >> more expensive and irritating to install and terminate correctly. > > nonsense. > > gigabit is currently a bottleneck even for home users and cat6 does not > require any additional effort to install nor does it need termination. > This is why I say install ducts. I've got Cat5E between my house and my man cave - and I haven't even bothered to get a gig-capable switch for the end. (It's on the shopping list... just after the NAS...) Maybe in 10 years time I'll pull a fibre. Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 19:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131220181904591530%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58403 |
In article <puuhpd$77q$1@dont-email.me>, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > gigabit is currently a bottleneck even for home users and cat6 does not > > require any additional effort to install nor does it need termination. > > This is why I say install ducts. conduit. > I've got Cat5E between my house and my man cave - and I haven't even > bothered to get a gig-capable switch for the end. (It's on the shopping > list... just after the NAS...) why not? they're cheap. > Maybe in 10 years time I'll pull a fibre. most likely sooner than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu91hh$mju$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58107 |
On 05/12/2018 10:27, NY wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message > news:gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another >> computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper >> switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. > > That depends on having all the right infrastructure. Ethernet is great > for connecting static computers, and I would never use wifi (especially > for fast PC-to-PC transfers that don't involve the internet) if I had > the option of Ethernet instead, but installing the cable is the big > problem because you need to drill holes through walls or door frames to > take it from one room to another. My own working PCs and system printer are hard wired networked but my portables and another printer are over Wifi. I seldom see any glitches although I have made sure I am on the least contested channel. > > No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is > already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing > it, and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less > intrusive than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down > the side of carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip > that divides one carpet from another. I also do that but only because I CBA to run another ethernet cable or configure the second switch I have already bought to allow multiple hardwired ethernet devices in the living room. TV and radio now each want their own streaming feed and Wifi signal is too weak there. > > The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and > sockets in every room, the better. That is a bit overkill. A couple near the TV aerial sockets would be handy though. > When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will > take over, but I've found it to be unreliable. I get spontaneous > disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be > disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens > when a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or > TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops > may claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely > get a wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's > the raw connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even > before you try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a > problem, but I've had it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi > network - on *any* channel. My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about > 40 Mbps when talking to a Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N > (slower than theoretical max of 54 or 900 respectively), but then that > link speed gradually degrades over an hour or so until it ends up at > about 5 Mbps. I have never seen any Wifi degradation like you describe that were not due to local interference from neighbours or arc welding. I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. > Even for a newly-rebooted laptop which is next to the router and with no > other wifi on any channel, or any other device talking to the router, > the time to copy a 1 GB video file increases by an order of magnitude > when using wifi rather than Ethernet for a PC-to-PC transfer - and > that's with one of the two computers connected by Ethernet, so it's not > a problem of the traffic from PC A to the router "interfering" with > traffic from the router to PC B. I expect it is a problem with limited buffer space in the router. I have seen some funny things when one link is much faster than the other with wired connections. One of my old routers had a fault where some 1000M capable devices got given a 10M link speed. > > But for low-volume traffic where speed isn't critical, such as web > browsing and sending/receiving email, wifi is great for portable devices > like phones and tablets. Just don't rely on it for streaming video from > "server" PC to a Plex client etc. I have had it work OK for streaming when there is enough signal. My internet connection is so slow that it is by far the limiting factor. Even slowest Wifi available today would be an order of magnitude faster. > But all of this is getting off the subject, which was the comparison of > mobile internet versus ADSL/VDSL. The subject line of the thread > misleadingly equates "wifi" with "xDSL", but then that's because it's > quoting an article which does the same :-) Working a 3G mobile node I can easily get a 20Mbps connection at quiet times of day that is 4x faster than my carefully tuned landline and 10x faster than the average ADSL landline service in this area. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <M6mdnXBZbOLOvpXBnZ2dnUU78L3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58124 |
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:pu91hh$mju$2@gioia.aioe.org... > I have never seen any Wifi degradation like you describe that were not due > to local interference from neighbours or arc welding. I'd put it down to local interference, if the problem had not followed me when I moved house. Weird that it affects several PCs, several routers and two different locations where router channel was deliberately chosen to have no overlaps with neighbouring networks. > I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with > certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware I > have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly just > works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android phone work fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pub9nt$f8k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58130 |
On 05/12/2018 19:13, NY wrote: > "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:pu91hh$mju$2@gioia.aioe.org... >> I have never seen any Wifi degradation like you describe that were not >> due to local interference from neighbours or arc welding. > > I'd put it down to local interference, if the problem had not followed > me when I moved house. Hmm... no idea then. Might be worth trying a new router of a reputable make. > > Weird that it affects several PCs, several routers and two different > locations where router channel was deliberately chosen to have no > overlaps with neighbouring networks. > > >> I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with >> certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware >> I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly >> just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. > > Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow > web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android > phone work fine. Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. And you absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220180910074110%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58146 |
In article <pub9nt$f8k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with > >> certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware > >> I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly > >> just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. > > > > Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow > > web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android > > phone work fine. > > Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The > bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called > zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for > not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit > operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. not true. mdns is used by more than just apple and whether it works correctly is a function of the router's firmware, not the chipset used. where it's a problem is across vlans, but very few people have vlans, other than a guest wifi network which is usually set up as a vlan. > Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. > > Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. > > Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. also not true. > And you > absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubjbc$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58148 |
On 06/12/2018 14:10, nospam wrote: > In article <pub9nt$f8k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> >>>> I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with >>>> certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware >>>> I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly >>>> just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. >>> >>> Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow >>> web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android >>> phone work fine. >> >> Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The >> bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called >> zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for >> not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit >> operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. > > not true. mdns is used by more than just apple and whether it works > correctly is a function of the router's firmware, not the chipset used. The chipset is a part of it though - for some reason the canonical firmware implementation on Atheros and Broadcom chipset based devices is considerably more Apple friendly than with other chipsets. I'm not saying you can't find a bad implementation on them only that all the reliability problems I have seen with Apple kit seem to come from routers that use certain chipsets (irrespective of their firmware). > > where it's a problem is across vlans, but very few people have vlans, > other than a guest wifi network which is usually set up as a vlan. > >> Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. >> >> Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. >> >> Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. > > also not true. If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. >> And you >> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. > > that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220181156574736%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58157 |
In article <pubjbc$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The > >> bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called > >> zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for > >> not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit > >> operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. > > > > not true. mdns is used by more than just apple and whether it works > > correctly is a function of the router's firmware, not the chipset used. > > The chipset is a part of it though - for some reason the canonical > firmware implementation on Atheros and Broadcom chipset based devices is > considerably more Apple friendly than with other chipsets. I'm not > saying you can't find a bad implementation on them only that all the > reliability problems I have seen with Apple kit seem to come from > routers that use certain chipsets (irrespective of their firmware). apple isn't doing anything unusual. i have a wide assortment of routers and have yet to find *any* problem with apple in particular. there are shitty routers out there, but they'll have problems with more than just apple devices. the biggest problem i've seen is that some of them have a horrible user interface, which can sometimes be remedied with alternate firmwares. > > where it's a problem is across vlans, but very few people have vlans, > > other than a guest wifi network which is usually set up as a vlan. > > > >> Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. > >> > >> Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. > >> > >> Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. > > > > also not true. > > If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a > reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router > implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen > plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. i don't know what you've seen, but i've yet to see a router that has issues with only apple and nothing else. again, apple is not doing anything unusual, other than being compliant with the standards. > >> And you > >> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. > > > > that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. > > The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. no different than anything else, and break doesn't necessarily mean no functionality at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubmbe$2aq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58158 |
On 06/12/2018 16:56, nospam wrote: > In article <pubjbc$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a >> reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router >> implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen >> plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. > > i don't know what you've seen, but i've yet to see a router that has > issues with only apple and nothing else. > > again, apple is not doing anything unusual, other than being compliant > with the standards. It does seem to be less tolerant about what it accepts than some other implementations on Android and 'Doze. > >>>> And you >>>> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. >>> >>> that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. >> >> The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. > > no different than anything else, and break doesn't necessarily mean no > functionality at all. What it tends to mean is that things do work for a while and then mysteriously stop working requiring one or other of the affected devices or routers to be power cycled before the Apple will play again. Android and PC devices still work OK whilst the iP*d Wifi link is belly up. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220181243060918%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58162 |
In article <pubmbe$2aq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a > >> reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router > >> implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen > >> plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. > > > > i don't know what you've seen, but i've yet to see a router that has > > issues with only apple and nothing else. > > > > again, apple is not doing anything unusual, other than being compliant > > with the standards. > > It does seem to be less tolerant about what it accepts than some other > implementations on Android and 'Doze. again, i have not noticed any issues specific to apple using a *wide* variety of routers and apple devices as well as apple routers and non-apple devices. there are many reasons why something might not work, which has nothing to do with who made what component. > >>>> And you > >>>> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. > >>> > >>> that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. > >> > >> The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. > > > > no different than anything else, and break doesn't necessarily mean no > > functionality at all. > > What it tends to mean is that things do work for a while and then > mysteriously stop working requiring one or other of the affected devices > or routers to be power cycled before the Apple will play again. Android > and PC devices still work OK whilst the iP*d Wifi link is belly up. any issues with mdns would only affect mdns itself, not wifi connectivity overall. something else is going on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Graham J <graham@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu91nk$m5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58107 |
NY wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message > news:gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another >> computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper >> switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. > > That depends on having all the right infrastructure. Ethernet is great > for connecting static computers, and I would never use wifi (especially > for fast PC-to-PC transfers that don't involve the internet) if I had > the option of Ethernet instead, but installing the cable is the big > problem because you need to drill holes through walls or door frames to > take it from one room to another. > > No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is > already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing > it, and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less > intrusive than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down > the side of carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip > that divides one carpet from another. > > The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and > sockets in every room, the better. The issue also affects mains wiring and plumbing. If you want to add or change mains sockets, or move a radiator, then there is significant work. It would all be much easier if there were service ducts installed as the house was being built. Some old houses in the USA which tend to feature in horror movies have service corridors which are used by the "baddies", so I suspect they are a fairly standard feature. Even business premises suffer from a lack of sensible service ducts. In some cases there are suspended ceilings and it's practical to install plumbing, power wiring, and network cable above the ceiling. Similarly some premises have false floors for the same purpose. [snip] Even in an ideal world the throughput achived using WiFi will generally not be as good as with Ethernet cable, because Wifi is a half-duplex system operating with a shared spectrum. (Remember CSMA/CD in the days of co-ax network cable?) By contrast Ethernet cables are usually operated full-duplex and the spectrum between the client device and the switch is dedicated, not shared. -- Graham J
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 12:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181237280779%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58125 |
In article <pu91nk$m5k$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J <graham@invalid.com> wrote: > Even in an ideal world the throughput achived using WiFi will generally > not be as good as with Ethernet cable, because Wifi is a half-duplex > system operating with a shared spectrum. in the real world, wifi is as fast or faster than gigabit ethernet, however, not as fast as 10gig-e (yet). the gigabit uplink of the access point is the bottleneck. <https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/asus_rtac86u/as us_rtac86u_5ghz_peak_dn.jpg>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58101 |
In article <gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else > (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another > computer. except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's done copying. > The network doesn't saturate because there are proper > switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NfmdnT_sfNyoa5rBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58110 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, but things have moved on since then. I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be wrong. It's hard to remember back to the days when Ethernet was normally 10 Mbps, and 100 Mbps was a newfangled luxury :-) But I can remember before that using Thick Ethernet and Thin Ethernet over coaxial cable, with BNC T-pieces (thin) or "stinger" transceivers and drop cables to a MIDI-type connector (or something that looked very similar). The joys of wanting to connect or disconnect a computer and having to warn everyone on that LAN segment in case it altered the reflection of the signal and people lost connections. Point-to-point RJ45 leads uses a LOT more wire in a big office, since every computer needs a cable back to the hub/switch, but it's a LOT more resilient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181129406687%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58117 |
In article <NfmdnT_sfNyoa5rBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > > When did Gigabit become standard? roughly mid-2000s is when it was cheap enough to become widespread. 10gig-e is almost at that point now. > Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > but things have moved on since then. > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > wrong. try something more recent, or investigate why it's not working well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu9b6r$18rl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58117 |
On 05/12/2018 16:01, NY wrote: > > When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 > laptop have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and > can't use 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec > at the time, but things have moved on since then. > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could > be wrong. My two desktop P4s are both Gigabit, one on-board, the other a very cheap PCI-card when the on-board went down after a thunderstorm - can't remember for sure whether the on-board was Gigabit or not, but I think so. I can't use them at the moment, and therefore can't check, because my monitor caught fire about 6 months ago, and I haven't been able to afford replacing it since.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu9duh.b50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58117 |
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > > When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > but things have moved on since then. > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > wrong. Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181635234074%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58142 |
In article <pu9duh.b50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > > > > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > > > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > > > > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > > > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > > > > When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > > have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > > 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > > but things have moved on since then. > > > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > > wrong. > > Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range > laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). that's unusual for a midrange product and even a bit surprising for a low end product. > FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, > out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a > selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time > not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant > Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. it's not mentioned because it's gigabit, so there's no need to mention anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubajh$1ggd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58142 |
On 05/12/2018 20:08, Frank Slootweg wrote: > NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>> how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? >>> >>> computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than >>> that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. >>> >>> that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, >>> because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. >> >> When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop >> have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use >> 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, >> but things have moved on since then. >> >> I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be >> wrong. > > Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range > laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). > > FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, > out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a > selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time > not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant > Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. That's because 10/100/1000 has pretty much become the default now. They would only shout about it if they offered anything faster. Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. https://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/product_detail/16560/Dell-Optiplex-780-Desktop-C2D-E8400-3GHz-4GB-250GB-DVD-Windows-10-Professional/ And available refurbished at very reasonable prices. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web