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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220180915333638%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58147 |
In article <pubajh$1ggd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> 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. exactly the point, and what i've been saying since the start of this. > They > would only shout about it if they offered anything faster. or slower. these days, gigabit is assumed unless stated otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a0pndf-53t.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58147 |
On 06/12/2018 15.09, Martin Brown wrote: > 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. And they would keep silent if the offered only 100. > 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. I wish they'd do that here. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubfdj$1iq9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58153 |
On 06/12/2018 14:40, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 06/12/2018 15.09, Martin Brown wrote: [snip] >> 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. > > I wish they'd do that here. Is there no equivalent of Morgan Computers in Spain or France? (there is a business opportunity here for you) They were a lot better in the past with really stunning bargains if you had the space to accomodate bulky workhorse printers. Nowadays almost everything they offer is refurbished rather than end of line. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 04:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fc5pdf-qm2.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58154 |
On 06/12/2018 16.32, Martin Brown wrote: > On 06/12/2018 14:40, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 06/12/2018 15.09, Martin Brown wrote: > [snip] >>> 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. >> >> I wish they'd do that here. > > Is there no equivalent of Morgan Computers in Spain or France? > (there is a business opportunity here for you) > > They were a lot better in the past with really stunning bargains if you > had the space to accomodate bulky workhorse printers. Nowadays almost > everything they offer is refurbished rather than end of line. There may exist, but I'm not aware of a merchant that does so. I knew of a shop or two that did in this city, but they have disappeared. I heard of auctions once. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <publta.bqg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58147 |
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 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. Note that nospam mentioned "computers, servers, etc". It's probably true for "servers", i.e. (mostly) professional use, but that's not the topic of this thread, nor of this group. The "computers" part is desktops and laptops and this (sub)thread is mainly about laptops (nospam telling Carlos what's 'wrong' with his system(s) and network). As I said, my 3 year old mid-range laptop does *not* have Gigabit Ethernet. A new comparable laptop - same (major) brand/range and similar price - *does* have Gigabit Ethernet, so AFAIC nospam's claim "made in the past decade (actually longer than that)" is way over the top. Not that that's unusual in any way, but still. (Anyway, it's a bit silly to talk about the 'neccessity' of very high *hardwired* network speed for a *mobile* device such as a laptop.) So back in the real world, mere mortals like Carlos, myself, etc. don't have nor want/need gigabit all over the place, just because nospam thinks it's a more-than-a-decade-old must-have. > Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. Exactly *corporate* *desktop* kit and it's probably being retired after only a few years, *not* "made in the past decade (actually longer than that)". > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220181135297471%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58155 |
In article <publta.bqg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > 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. > > Note that nospam mentioned "computers, servers, etc". > > It's probably true for "servers", i.e. (mostly) professional use, but > that's not the topic of this thread, nor of this group. > > The "computers" part is desktops and laptops and this (sub)thread is > mainly about laptops (nospam telling Carlos what's 'wrong' with his > system(s) and network). the computers part are also gigabit. > As I said, my 3 year old mid-range laptop does *not* have Gigabit > Ethernet. that's unusual and an exception. > A new comparable laptop - same (major) brand/range and similar > price - *does* have Gigabit Ethernet, so AFAIC nospam's claim "made in > the past decade (actually longer than that)" is way over the top. nonsense. nearly all computers, routers and other networking equipment made in the past decade or so have gigabit, many of which older than that. > Not > that that's unusual in any way, but still. (Anyway, it's a bit silly to > talk about the 'neccessity' of very high *hardwired* network speed for a > *mobile* device such as a laptop.) gigabit is not 'very high speed'. it's actually slow enough that it's a significant bottleneck. 10gig-e could be considered 'very high speed', but that's quickly changing. > So back in the real world, mere mortals like Carlos, myself, etc. > don't have nor want/need gigabit all over the place, just because nospam > thinks it's a more-than-a-decade-old must-have. another personal attack. the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt are *much* faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EfudnbAhWL9uxJTBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58156 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:061220181135297471%nospam@nospam.invalid... > the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount > of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt > are *much* faster. I would imagine that a lot of users only transfer data between various PCs and the internet (eg web browsing, sending/receiving emails, streaming movies from Netflix etc), and don't make much use of PC-to-PC transfers. For them, the most important thing is WAN speed (router to internet), so 10 Mbps may be sufficient for some people with ADSL, and 100 Mbps will be sufficient for most people with FTTC/VDSL. Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one or more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. As an aside, does USB degrade gracefully as cable length is increased? I saw a comparison of RS232 versus USB (1, 2 or 3) and it mentioned that RS232 is still better than USB where peripherals need to be a long distance from the computer that is driving them. Leaving aside the fact that Ethernet is probably better than either RS232 or USB for this, how does USB cope with long lines? If two USB3 devices or two USB2 devices are connected by a very long USB lead, will it just fail completely, or will they negotiate a lower speed (eg USB3 degrades to USB2 or USB1 speed) that the long line is capable of supporting?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220181229312009%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58159 |
In article <EfudnbAhWL9uxJTBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount > > of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt > > are *much* faster. > > I would imagine that a lot of users only transfer data between various PCs > and the internet (eg web browsing, sending/receiving emails, streaming > movies from Netflix etc), and don't make much use of PC-to-PC transfers. For > them, the most important thing is WAN speed (router to internet), so 10 Mbps > may be sufficient for some people with ADSL, and 100 Mbps will be sufficient > for most people with FTTC/VDSL. > > Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either > running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to > files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one or > more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. most people have more than 1 device and *do* transfer between them, whether it's another computer or a nas or whatever else. > As an aside, does USB degrade gracefully as cable length is increased? I saw > a comparison of RS232 versus USB (1, 2 or 3) and it mentioned that RS232 is > still better than USB where peripherals need to be a long distance from the > computer that is driving them. Leaving aside the fact that Ethernet is > probably better than either RS232 or USB for this, how does USB cope with > long lines? If two USB3 devices or two USB2 devices are connected by a very > long USB lead, will it just fail completely, or will they negotiate a lower > speed (eg USB3 degrades to USB2 or USB1 speed) that the long line is capable > of supporting? usb 1 & 2 is limited to 5 meters, less for usb3 (although no exact length specified): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Cabling> longer distances will require a hub, repeater or media converter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 04:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ch5pdf-qm2.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58161 |
On 06/12/2018 18.29, nospam wrote: > In article <EfudnbAhWL9uxJTBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY > <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>> the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount >>> of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt >>> are *much* faster. >> >> I would imagine that a lot of users only transfer data between various PCs >> and the internet (eg web browsing, sending/receiving emails, streaming >> movies from Netflix etc), and don't make much use of PC-to-PC transfers. For >> them, the most important thing is WAN speed (router to internet), so 10 Mbps >> may be sufficient for some people with ADSL, and 100 Mbps will be sufficient >> for most people with FTTC/VDSL. >> >> Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either >> running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to >> files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one or >> more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. > > most people have more than 1 device and *do* transfer between them, > whether it's another computer or a nas or whatever else. Ha. there you go with your exaggerations. I know many people that don't even know they can transfer files from computer to computer without needing to send an email via gmail. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 22:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220182245108367%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58176 |
In article <ch5pdf-qm2.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either > >> running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to > >> files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one > >> or > >> more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. > > > > most people have more than 1 device and *do* transfer between them, > > whether it's another computer or a nas or whatever else. > > Ha. there you go with your exaggerations. it's not an exaggeration. although this is just the usa, it's not unusual: <https://www.recode.net/2014/11/18/11632960/more-than-90-percent-of-u-s- households-have-three-or-more-devices> It turns out that 90 percent of U.S. households have three or more Internet-connected devices, while just under half of households have five or more devices and nearly a quarter use seven or more devices. The average number of connected devices per household is 5.2, with that number seen to be climbing in the coming years. > I know many people that don't even know they can transfer files from > computer to computer without needing to send an email via gmail. that doesn't mean everyone is like that. in many cases, people transfer content between devices without even realizing it, such as using a media server or an automated backup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z-WdnfdjmrrK9ZfBnZ2dnUU78QnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58178 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:061220182245108367%nospam@nospam.invalid... >> I know many people that don't even know they can transfer files from >> computer to computer without needing to send an email via gmail. > > that doesn't mean everyone is like that. > > in many cases, people transfer content between devices without even > realizing it, such as using a media server or an automated backup That is a good point. I do PC support for local people (often retired) so I may see a disproportionally high selection of non-computer-literate people. I know how to set up PC-to-PC access (shared drives/printers, RealVNC, SSH, SyncToy backup from a shared drive on another PC etc) and I'm never sure what proportion of other people have that sort of knowledge. Maybe I'm underestimating the number of people who can so it... I wonder how much of that traffic is actually direct PC-to-PC. A lot of things that you'd think were local actually involve transferring data to a central server and then back to the other PC that might be sitting right next to it. This is certainly true of remote-access software like TeamViewer and RealVNC. I sometimes use these to access my PC downstairs from my laptop or phone upstairs to perform tasks on the downstairs PC (as opposed to accessing shared folders from another device). And that is painfully slow because all the data that makes up the image of the screen has to go out to a central TeamViewer/RealVNC server and then back again. RealVNC requires a paid-for subscription to be able to make a direct connection between two PCs which are on the same LAN, at "you must be joking" prices. The only exception is my Raspberry Pi which comes pre-installed with a RealVNC server in the Raspbian image, so I can connect to that by a direct link - and it's a hell of a lot faster than traffic going the long way round via my very slow internet connection. 1.5 Mbps down and 0.2 Mbps up is taking the piss, but it's my parents' holiday cottage where we are living until we find a house to move to; decent FTTC internet is one of the "technology" pre-requisites in choosing a house, along with good Freeview television reception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BugHunter <bughunter@com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pudns0$155$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58176 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> schreef op Vr 7 Dec 2018 om 04:20:
> On 06/12/2018 18.29, nospam wrote:
> > In article <EfudnbAhWL9uxJTBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
> > <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount
> >>> of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt
> >>> are *much* faster.
> >>
> >> I would imagine that a lot of users only transfer data between various PCs
> >> and the internet (eg web browsing, sending/receiving emails, streaming
> >> movies from Netflix etc), and don't make much use of PC-to-PC transfers. For
> >> them, the most important thing is WAN speed (router to internet), so 10 Mbps
> >> may be sufficient for some people with ADSL, and 100 Mbps will be sufficient
> >> for most people with FTTC/VDSL.
> >>
> >> Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either
> >> running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to
> >> files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one or
> >> more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc.
> >
> > most people have more than 1 device and *do* transfer between them,
> > whether it's another computer or a nas or whatever else.
>
> Ha. there you go with your exaggerations.
>
> I know many people that don't even know they can transfer files from
> computer to computer without needing to send an email via gmail.
TeamViewer.
--
\ / http://nieuwsgroepen.tk
-------------///----------------------------------
/ \ Bye, BugHunter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0YWdnaZv3NoT85fBnZ2dnUU78RfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58181 |
"BugHunter" <bughunter@com.invalid> wrote in message news:pudns0$155$2@dont-email.me... >> I know many people that don't even know they can transfer files from >> computer to computer without needing to send an email via gmail. > > TeamViewer. Which transfers via the internet, not a direct local PC-to-PC connection, as far as I know. Likewise for RealVNC, unless you pay stupid amounts of money for a paid subscription rather than a free connection. Sometimes transferring by email. An inefficient "it just works" email method may be slow and cumbersome but sometimes it can be easier than configuring special software to do it - eg setting up an SMB with *write* permission. I store all my documents etc below the c:\users\public folder so I will have read and write permission from any other computer on the network, without having to wade through the intricacies of Windows file permissions. My eyes glaze over at that point, because I'm much more interesting in being able to *do* something rather than in being able to make sure that the wrong people can *not do* it. I really ought to take the time to swot up the proper way, with proper named and password-protected user accounts, and properly assigned permissions for each user or each group of users (read/write for some, read-only for others), rather than allowing everyone to do everything as the lazy approach :-) If I didn't trust my wife, or if we had inquisitive relations using our wifi, it would be a different matter... I suppose my approach is to have good perimeter security (physical to prevent access to PCs and Ethernet, non-trivial wifi password) and then be lax about security within the network. Good, but could be better :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pue7aq$1g2m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58183 |
On 12/7/2018 5:59 AM, NY wrote: > "BugHunter" <bughunter@com.invalid> wrote in message >> TeamViewer. > Which transfers via the internet, not a direct local PC-to-PC > connection, as far as I know. Likewise for RealVNC, unless you pay > stupid amounts of money for a paid subscription rather than a free > connection. I've used Google Drive (GD) for awhile now and it works well for ME (YMMV). I pay $2/mo US for 100GB. My GD can be accessed in several ways. For my Android devices and my Chromebook I use the Android GD app. For my 32GB storage challenged W10 tablet I access the GD site with a browser. For my W10 laptop I use GD Sync which keeps an actual GD copy synced on the local drive. > I store all my documents etc below the c:\users\public folder That folder can be mapped to Google Drive. > so I will have read and write permission from any other computer on > the network, without having to wade through the intricacies of > Windows file permissions. Making a change to GD on any device is immediately reflected to all other devices. Small changes take seconds. Large changes are slow as would be expected, but are done in the background. > I'm much more interesting in being able to *do* something rather > than in being able to make sure that the wrong people can *not do* > it. Though I doubt that any REAL person will pick my Google account out of the hundreds of millions of others to read, I do encrypt my sensitive files. > I suppose my approach is to have good perimeter security (physical > to prevent access to PCs and Ethernet, non-trivial wifi password) > and then be lax about security within the network. Good, but could > be better :-) I'm gonna let you in on one of my secrets. The password to my W10 tablet is 'P'. Yep. A ONE LETTER password. Now be honest, if you were trying to break my password would you think of trying only one letter?? What idiot would do that, right? Don't answer that... Perhaps more amazing (to me) is that the super security conscious Windows OS lets me do it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 19:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qjqqdf-o9q.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58181 |
On 07/12/2018 13.08, BugHunter wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> schreef op Vr 7 Dec 2018 om 04:20: >> On 06/12/2018 18.29, nospam wrote: >>> In article <EfudnbAhWL9uxJTBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY >>> <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount >>>>> of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt >>>>> are *much* faster. >>>> >>>> I would imagine that a lot of users only transfer data between various PCs >>>> and the internet (eg web browsing, sending/receiving emails, streaming >>>> movies from Netflix etc), and don't make much use of PC-to-PC transfers. For >>>> them, the most important thing is WAN speed (router to internet), so 10 Mbps >>>> may be sufficient for some people with ADSL, and 100 Mbps will be sufficient >>>> for most people with FTTC/VDSL. >>>> >>>> Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either >>>> running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to >>>> files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one or >>>> more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. >>> >>> most people have more than 1 device and *do* transfer between them, >>> whether it's another computer or a nas or whatever else. >> >> Ha. there you go with your exaggerations. >> >> I know many people that don't even know they can transfer files from >> computer to computer without needing to send an email via gmail. > > > TeamViewer. I know people that had a pay antivirus (I forgot which). Well, they convinced them that they needed a VPN to secure their machines and their internet, but they did not know how to install it, so they called me. I fumed. In the end I told them to call the supplier and revoke the VPN license (or they would automatically charge the credit card periodically), after explaining what it was about and realizing they did not need that complication. Privacy? What is that, when there is google, facebook and the rest? They would need a training on privacy first, then another on VPN and a technician on call... So no, they would not know how to setup TVr either. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puc3kb.c2c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58159 |
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: [...] > Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are either > running a business which has its own server to provide shared access to > files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving movies to one or > more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. You're of course free to use what you like, but realize that even with 100 (not 1000) Mbps, you can have many, many (anywhere from 10++ to 25) "computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc." streaming at HD resolution! :-) And did you note the guy is this thread (forgot who), who implied that 54Mbps was not enough for *audio*!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 04:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <296pdf-9g3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58159 |
On 06/12/2018 18.18, NY wrote: > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:061220181135297471%nospam@nospam.invalid... >> the industry thinks gigabit is a must have, especially given the amount >> of data people are managing and that nvme ssds, usb3 and thunderbolt >> are *much* faster. > > I would imagine that a lot of users only transfer data between various > PCs and the internet (eg web browsing, sending/receiving emails, > streaming movies from Netflix etc), and don't make much use of PC-to-PC > transfers. For them, the most important thing is WAN speed (router to > internet), so 10 Mbps may be sufficient for some people with ADSL, and > 100 Mbps will be sufficient for most people with FTTC/VDSL. > > Those of us who transfer data between PCs and so need 1000 Mbps are > either running a business which has its own server to provide shared > access to files used by multiple PCs, or else have a NAS for serving > movies to one or more computers, tablets, Roku boxes etc. I need eating and sleeping. I do not *need* gigabit. I like gigabit and of course I install gigabit. > As an aside, does USB degrade gracefully as cable length is increased? I > saw a comparison of RS232 versus USB (1, 2 or 3) and it mentioned that > RS232 is still better than USB where peripherals need to be a long > distance from the computer that is driving them. Leaving aside the fact > that Ethernet is probably better than either RS232 or USB for this, how > does USB cope with long lines? If two USB3 devices or two USB2 devices > are connected by a very long USB lead, will it just fail completely, or > will they negotiate a lower speed (eg USB3 degrades to USB2 or USB1 > speed) that the long line is capable of supporting? USB is very limited in the distance it can work with. Not even 10 metres. RS232 can cope with relatively long distances, and of course you can adjust or negotiate a slower speed at larger distances. Or use a current loop instead. I have not seen "fibre" rs232 but it should be possible. Or you can use a modem. I have seem "modems" for two (or was it more?) wires without a telephone service. I may have one or two stored somewhere so I can check. Ethernet can cope with distance, depending on the actual technology used. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_physical_layer> -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Te2dnWZ648oD7JfBnZ2dnUU78fPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58177 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:296pdf-9g3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > USB is very limited in the distance it can work with. Not even 10 metres. > > RS232 can cope with relatively long distances, and of course you can > adjust or negotiate a slower speed at larger distances. Or use a current > loop instead. I have not seen "fibre" rs232 but it should be possible. > Or you can use a modem. I have seem "modems" for two (or was it more?) > wires without a telephone service. I may have one or two stored > somewhere so I can check. > > Ethernet can cope with distance, depending on the actual technology > used. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_physical_layer> Are there range-extenders for connecting a USB device to a computer that is outside of range? I have a weather station which has a USB interface which makes the weather station look like an RS232 device (COM1 on Windows, /dev/ttyUSB0 on Linux). The console has to be within USB cable length of the computer that logs the data (currently a Raspberry Pi) and I've wondered whether there might be a way of connecting the two via some longer cable - maybe USB/RS232 converters and good old twisted pair RS232. Oh the joys of setting up RS232 with all its permutations of baud rate, number of stop bits, XON/XOFF or RTS/CTS flow control :-) If you connect USB3 peripheral to USB3 port on PC, using a very long cable, does it negotiate down to a lower speed such as USB1 which would work at that length, or does it just try the best that the devices will support, and then fail because if signal degradation. I know that USB3 devices will work in a USB2 or USB1 ports, and vice versa, but what about where both ends support a high speed and it is the cable that is the limiting factor?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 08:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220180831051356%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58184 |
In article <Te2dnWZ648oD7JfBnZ2dnUU78fPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Are there range-extenders for connecting a USB device to a computer that is > outside of range? yes. look for an active extension or repeater cable. you can also share a usb device on the network with most routers, although it's usually only hard drives and printers. there are network usb adapters that can work with other devices. > I have a weather station which has a USB interface which > makes the weather station look like an RS232 device (COM1 on Windows, > /dev/ttyUSB0 on Linux). The console has to be within USB cable length of the > computer that logs the data (currently a Raspberry Pi) and I've wondered > whether there might be a way of connecting the two via some longer cable - > maybe USB/RS232 converters and good old twisted pair RS232. Oh the joys of > setting up RS232 with all its permutations of baud rate, number of stop > bits, XON/XOFF or RTS/CTS flow control :-) the raspberry pi can be next to the weather station with it accessible via ethernet or wifi. > If you connect USB3 peripheral to USB3 port on PC, using a very long cable, > does it negotiate down to a lower speed such as USB1 which would work at > that length, or does it just try the best that the devices will support, and > then fail because if signal degradation. I know that USB3 devices will work > in a USB2 or USB1 ports, and vice versa, but what about where both ends > support a high speed and it is the cable that is the limiting factor? no. if the cable is too long, it won't work correctly, if at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 19:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g5rqdf-imq.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58184 |
On 07/12/2018 14.11, NY wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message > news:296pdf-9g3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > >> USB is very limited in the distance it can work with. Not even 10 metres. >> >> RS232 can cope with relatively long distances, and of course you can >> adjust or negotiate a slower speed at larger distances. Or use a current >> loop instead. I have not seen "fibre" rs232 but it should be possible. >> Or you can use a modem. I have seem "modems" for two (or was it more?) >> wires without a telephone service. I may have one or two stored >> somewhere so I can check. >> >> Ethernet can cope with distance, depending on the actual technology >> used. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_physical_layer> > > Are there range-extenders for connecting a USB device to a computer that > is outside of range? I don't know. Maybe. I google for "USB range extender" but what I find is WiFi extenders instead. Huh, I found one: <http://www.icron.com/products/icron-brand/usb-extenders/> An USB to WiFi/ethernet connection looks very interesting for your use case, though, if it exists. I have not tried it. > I have a weather station which has a USB interface > which makes the weather station look like an RS232 device (COM1 on > Windows, /dev/ttyUSB0 on Linux). The console has to be within USB cable > length of the computer that logs the data (currently a Raspberry Pi) and > I've wondered whether there might be a way of connecting the two via > some longer cable - maybe USB/RS232 converters and good old twisted pair > RS232. Oh the joys of setting up RS232 with all its permutations of baud > rate, number of stop bits, XON/XOFF or RTS/CTS flow control :-) Ah, usb-rs232 converter. So rs2332-usb-rs232---- cable ---- computer with perhaps another converter at the computer end. Wow, LOL. Tricky. > If you connect USB3 peripheral to USB3 port on PC, using a very long > cable, does it negotiate down to a lower speed such as USB1 which would > work at that length, or does it just try the best that the devices will > support, and then fail because if signal degradation. I know that USB3 > devices will work in a USB2 or USB1 ports, and vice versa, but what > about where both ends support a high speed and it is the cable that is > the limiting factor? I think it simply fails. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web