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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NF7zWtCZ2qAcFwqZ@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #58040 |
In message <011220181026449152%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <ptu92m$115t$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive ><java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g >> >> In which case, I'd definitely cable it. > >better yet, replace it entirely. > >its ethernet port is more than likely 100bt instead of gigabit and the >rest of it is likely very out of date too. What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more than the 56M of g? I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop users won't be using that. Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, visit 255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni Vidi Vacuum [I came, I saw, It sucked] - mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk, 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptub4g$14qh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58041 |
On 01/12/2018 15:49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > > In message <011220181026449152%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >> >> In article <ptu92m$115t$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive >> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g >>> >>> In which case, I'd definitely cable it. >> >> better yet, replace it entirely. >> >> its ethernet port is more than likely 100bt instead of gigabit and the >> rest of it is likely very out of date too. Not necessarily - I have a Dell Latitude 610 that has only b/g WiFi but a gigabit ethernet port. > What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > than the 56M of g? I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop > users won't be using that. It does depend what you use it for. On my Dell Latitude 610 using WiFi, if you just want to browse the web, it's fine, but the moment you need to move files about or stream even just audio, then it's no good. > Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, > visit > 255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too. Please fix your sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <011220181130449526%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58042 |
In article <ptub4g$14qh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > >>>> My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g > >>> > >>> In which case, I'd definitely cable it. > >> > >> better yet, replace it entirely. > >> > >> its ethernet port is more than likely 100bt instead of gigabit and the > >> rest of it is likely very out of date too. > > Not necessarily - I have a Dell Latitude 610 that has only b/g WiFi > but a gigabit ethernet port. that's why i said more than likely. > > What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > > than the 56M of g? I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop > > users won't be using that. > > It does depend what you use it for. On my Dell Latitude 610 using WiFi, > if you just want to browse the web, it's fine, but the moment you need > to move files about or stream even just audio, then it's no good. exactly the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <011220181130429416%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58041 |
In article <NF7zWtCZ2qAcFwqZ@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> > My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g > >> > >> In which case, I'd definitely cable it. > > > >better yet, replace it entirely. > > > >its ethernet port is more than likely 100bt instead of gigabit and the > >rest of it is likely very out of date too. > > What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > than the 56M of g? just about everything. usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* faster (2-3 gb/s). usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is 10, 20 or 40 gb/s, also depending on version, making gigabit the bottleneck. many nases now have dual or quad gigabit ethernet ports which can be bonded together, an option until 10gb becomes mainstream. also, 802.11g throughput (ignoring the proprietary 'turbo' variants) is roughly half its theoretical maximum of 54mbit, or around 27mb/s. it's less as you get further from the base station, typically in the 20mb range, or only about twice as fast as 10bt. in other words, slow. > I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop > users won't be using that. of course they will, as they would on tablets and phones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KhFy$2AjXuAcFwJC@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #58045 |
In message <011220181130429416%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <NF7zWtCZ2qAcFwqZ@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: [] >> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more >> than the 56M of g? > >just about everything. > >usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* >faster (2-3 gb/s). > >usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is [etc.] I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what _uses_ do you have ..." >> I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop >> users won't be using that. > >of course they will, as they would on tablets and phones. Some will. A lot won't. Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, visit 255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Old soldiers never die - only young ones
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <011220181504490137%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58050 |
In article <KhFy$2AjXuAcFwJC@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > >> than the 56M of g? > > > >just about everything. > > > >usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* > >faster (2-3 gb/s). > > > >usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is > [etc.] > I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what > _uses_ do you have ..." answered in the first line: just about everything. modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. > >> I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop > >> users won't be using that. > > > >of course they will, as they would on tablets and phones. > > Some will. A lot won't. a lot will.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <chs3vkHH1vAcFwaB@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #58052 |
In message <011220181504490137%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <KhFy$2AjXuAcFwJC@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more >> >> than the 56M of g? >> > >> >just about everything. >> > >> >usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* >> >faster (2-3 gb/s). >> > >> >usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is >> [etc.] >> I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what >> _uses_ do you have ..." > >answered in the first line: just about everything. I disagree, but regardless of whether that's true or not ... > >modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a >bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. ... that isn't relevant to my point, which was that unless you have a _use_ that requires a certain speed, it doesn't really matter whether all the _hardware_ you use to support that use can go at ten or a hundred times that speed. For example: I doubt there's a _need_ for keyboards (and probably not mice or other pointing devices) to be more than USB 1.1, though I suspect they're mostly USB2. > >> >> I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop >> >> users won't be using that. >> > >> >of course they will, as they would on tablets and phones. >> >> Some will. A lot won't. > >a lot will. We're both right there. visit 255soft.uk (UK only) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. -Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 18:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <011220181829427691%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58053 |
In article <chs3vkHH1vAcFwaB@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > >> >> than the 56M of g? > >> > > >> >just about everything. > >> > > >> >usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* > >> >faster (2-3 gb/s). > >> > > >> >usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is > >> [etc.] > >> I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what > >> _uses_ do you have ..." > > > >answered in the first line: just about everything. > > I disagree, but regardless of whether that's true or not ... > > > >modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a > >bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. > > ... that isn't relevant to my point, it's *exactly* relevant. if the devices being used can each send and receive data at rates faster than gigabit, then connecting them with much slower 100bt is going to be a very, very bad choice. > which was that unless you have a > _use_ that requires a certain speed, it doesn't really matter whether > all the _hardware_ you use to support that use can go at ten or a > hundred times that speed. once again, just about everything these days does. do you really need a list? moving files or other data, streaming audio & video, gaming, screen sharing and much more. also, the more people there are on a given network, the faster it needs to be. > For example: I doubt there's a _need_ for keyboards (and probably not > mice or other pointing devices) to be more than USB 1.1, though I > suspect they're mostly USB2. they're usb 2 because usb 1.1 is obsolete, however, they probably don't run at hi speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1nvcdf-jib.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58054 |
On 02/12/2018 00.29, nospam wrote: > In article <chs3vkHH1vAcFwaB@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) > <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >>>>>> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more >>>>>> than the 56M of g? >>>>> >>>>> just about everything. >>>>> >>>>> usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* >>>>> faster (2-3 gb/s). >>>>> >>>>> usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is >>>> [etc.] >>>> I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what >>>> _uses_ do you have ..." >>> >>> answered in the first line: just about everything. >> >> I disagree, but regardless of whether that's true or not ... >>> >>> modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a >>> bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. >> >> ... that isn't relevant to my point, > > it's *exactly* relevant. > > if the devices being used can each send and receive data at rates > faster than gigabit, then connecting them with much slower 100bt is > going to be a very, very bad choice. Not at all. > >> which was that unless you have a >> _use_ that requires a certain speed, it doesn't really matter whether >> all the _hardware_ you use to support that use can go at ten or a >> hundred times that speed. > > once again, just about everything these days does. > > do you really need a list? moving files or other data, streaming audio > & video, gaming, screen sharing and much more. Not streaming video nor audio, because that's about 1M only. Unless you send it decompressed, and I have not seen that happening. Even decompressed audio - CD rate is 1,411,200 bits per second. At that speed I can send several at the same time! > > also, the more people there are on a given network, the faster it needs > to be. But there aren't :-p And not the case with proper switches. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <021220181008536387%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58063 |
In article <1nvcdf-jib.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a > >>> bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. > >> > >> ... that isn't relevant to my point, > > > > it's *exactly* relevant. > > > > if the devices being used can each send and receive data at rates > > faster than gigabit, then connecting them with much slower 100bt is > > going to be a very, very bad choice. > > Not at all. yes it is, very much so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k8vcdf-76b.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58052 |
On 01/12/2018 21.04, nospam wrote: > In article <KhFy$2AjXuAcFwJC@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) > <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >>>> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more >>>> than the 56M of g? >>> >>> just about everything. >>> >>> usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* >>> faster (2-3 gb/s). >>> >>> usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is >> [etc.] >> I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what >> _uses_ do you have ..." > > answered in the first line: just about everything. > > modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a > bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. >>>> I can only think of HD streaming, and a lot of laptop >>>> users won't be using that. >>> >>> of course they will, as they would on tablets and phones. >> >> Some will. A lot won't. > > a lot will. > We don't. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <021220181008546446%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58062 |
In article <k8vcdf-76b.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > >>>> than the 56M of g? > >>> > >>> just about everything. > >>> > >>> usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* > >>> faster (2-3 gb/s). > >>> > >>> usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is > >> [etc.] > >> I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what > >> _uses_ do you have ..." > > > > answered in the first line: just about everything. > > > > modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a > > bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. > > Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner > that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. then you're doing something wrong. usb 2 is faster than 100bt, so simply by copying files to/fro a usb 2 drive over the network, gigabit will provide a significant speed improvement. usb 3 is faster than gigabit, so 100bt would be horribly crippling. and that's just one use case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 23:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g52edf-eg9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58072 |
On 02/12/2018 16.08, nospam wrote: > In article <k8vcdf-76b.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more >>>>>> than the 56M of g? >>>>> >>>>> just about everything. >>>>> >>>>> usb 3 hard drives are roughly double that, with ssds *significantly* >>>>> faster (2-3 gb/s). >>>>> >>>>> usb 3 ports are 5 or 10gb/s, depending on version, and thunderbolt is >>>> [etc.] >>>> I didn't ask "what have you got that goes that fast", I asked "what >>>> _uses_ do you have ..." >>> >>> answered in the first line: just about everything. >>> >>> modern hardware is much faster than gigabit, so gigabit becomes a >>> bottleneck, which means using 100bt is a *really* bad idea. >> >> Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner >> that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. > > then you're doing something wrong. > > usb 2 is faster than 100bt, so simply by copying files to/fro a usb 2 > drive over the network, gigabit will provide a significant speed > improvement. > > usb 3 is faster than gigabit, so 100bt would be horribly crippling. > > and that's just one use case. I know it is faster. But the times that really matters, are not even once in a week. Rather once in a month. That I have to wait while I copy files? yes. So, what? It only really matters if it is so slow that I can not get things done - and that is never the case yet. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 17:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <021220181748079721%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58074 |
In article <g52edf-eg9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner > >> that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. > > > > then you're doing something wrong. > > > > usb 2 is faster than 100bt, so simply by copying files to/fro a usb 2 > > drive over the network, gigabit will provide a significant speed > > improvement. > > > > usb 3 is faster than gigabit, so 100bt would be horribly crippling. > > > > and that's just one use case. > > I know it is faster. that's the whole point. > But the times that really matters, are not even > once in a week. Rather once in a month. That I have to wait while I > copy files? yes. So, what? you copy files only once a month??? do you not do any sort of backup? > It only really matters if it is so slow that I can not get things done - > and that is never the case yet. then you don't do much with your computers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 05:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tcnedf-88r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58075 |
On 02/12/2018 23.48, nospam wrote: > In article <g52edf-eg9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> >>>> Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner >>>> that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. >>> >>> then you're doing something wrong. >>> >>> usb 2 is faster than 100bt, so simply by copying files to/fro a usb 2 >>> drive over the network, gigabit will provide a significant speed >>> improvement. >>> >>> usb 3 is faster than gigabit, so 100bt would be horribly crippling. >>> >>> and that's just one use case. >> >> I know it is faster. > > that's the whole point. > >> But the times that really matters, are not even >> once in a week. Rather once in a month. That I have to wait while I >> copy files? yes. So, what? > > you copy files only once a month??? > > do you not do any sort of backup? Why would it matter to me if it takes one hour or two or eight? I'm sleeping. :-P -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3egn.dus.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58076 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 02/12/2018 23.48, nospam wrote: > > In article <g52edf-eg9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>> Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner > >>>> that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. > >>> > >>> then you're doing something wrong. > >>> > >>> usb 2 is faster than 100bt, so simply by copying files to/fro a usb 2 > >>> drive over the network, gigabit will provide a significant speed > >>> improvement. > >>> > >>> usb 3 is faster than gigabit, so 100bt would be horribly crippling. > >>> > >>> and that's just one use case. > >> > >> I know it is faster. > > > > that's the whole point. > > > >> But the times that really matters, are not even > >> once in a week. Rather once in a month. That I have to wait while I > >> copy files? yes. So, what? > > > > you copy files only once a month??? > > > > do you not do any sort of backup? > > Why would it matter to me if it takes one hour or two or eight? I'm > sleeping. :-P Be gentle with nospam, will you!? Multiprogramming/multitasking is apparently an alian concept to him. But that's understandable, after all it's only some six decades or so old. In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're copying files, they just do something else. And for backup there's this thing called 'unattended backup'. I hope nospam doesn't mind that while I'm typing this, my unattended backup is running. Can't wait - oops, make that: don't have to wait - till it's finished.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iepfdf-j2i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58078 |
On 03/12/2018 14.27, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 02/12/2018 23.48, nospam wrote: >>> In article <g52edf-eg9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Modern hardware is faster, yes. But do you really *use* it in a manner >>>>>> that slower hardware wouldn't work? I don't. >>>>> >>>>> then you're doing something wrong. >>>>> >>>>> usb 2 is faster than 100bt, so simply by copying files to/fro a usb 2 >>>>> drive over the network, gigabit will provide a significant speed >>>>> improvement. >>>>> >>>>> usb 3 is faster than gigabit, so 100bt would be horribly crippling. >>>>> >>>>> and that's just one use case. >>>> >>>> I know it is faster. >>> >>> that's the whole point. >>> >>>> But the times that really matters, are not even >>>> once in a week. Rather once in a month. That I have to wait while I >>>> copy files? yes. So, what? >>> >>> you copy files only once a month??? >>> >>> do you not do any sort of backup? >> >> Why would it matter to me if it takes one hour or two or eight? I'm >> sleeping. :-P > > Be gentle with nospam, will you!? Multiprogramming/multitasking is > apparently an alian concept to him. But that's understandable, after all > it's only some six decades or so old. > > In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're > copying files, they just do something else. And for backup there's this > thing called 'unattended backup'. I hope nospam doesn't mind that while > I'm typing this, my unattended backup is running. Can't wait - oops, > make that: don't have to wait - till it's finished. > Otherwise, a donation of a fast router and fast laptop or two would be appreciated ;-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <031220181009233469%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58078 |
In article <pu3egn.dus.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're > copying files, they just do something else. they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to access the files on the server. > And for backup there's this > thing called 'unattended backup'. I hope nospam doesn't mind that while > I'm typing this, my unattended backup is running. Can't wait - oops, > make that: don't have to wait - till it's finished. missing the point entirely, as usual. copying a 2 terabyte drive (which is small these days) via usb 2 takes roughly a day (been there, done that). that would take a couple of days over 100b-t network. although copying 2tb is not an every day event, the difference in time for typical copies is significant. seconds versus minutes; minutes versus hours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 11:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dc2idf-due.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58082 |
On 03/12/2018 16.09, nospam wrote: > In article <pu3egn.dus.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg > <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > >> In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're >> copying files, they just do something else. > > they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait > until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb > stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to > access the files on the server. No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating system. > >> And for backup there's this >> thing called 'unattended backup'. I hope nospam doesn't mind that while >> I'm typing this, my unattended backup is running. Can't wait - oops, >> make that: don't have to wait - till it's finished. > > missing the point entirely, as usual. > > copying a 2 terabyte drive (which is small these days) via usb 2 takes > roughly a day (been there, done that). that would take a couple of days > over 100b-t network. Ha! My laptop doesn't have a 2 TB disk. So, again, not an issue. :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pu5o34$12np$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58093 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > nospam wrote: >> copying a 2 terabyte drive (which is small these days) via usb 2 takes >> roughly a day (been there, done that). that would take a couple of days >> over 100b-t network. > > Ha! My laptop doesn't have a 2 TB disk. So, again, not an issue. :-p Wonder how much time it would take to copy a 2 TB drive using a 3D-printer. -p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web