Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #56919 > unrolled thread

Playing with the Chromecast

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-30 02:16 +0100
    Re: Playing with the Chromecast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-30 07:22 +0000
      Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-30 11:23 +0100
        Re: Playing with the Chromecast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-10-30 10:47 +0000
          Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-30 13:16 +0100
            Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-31 03:15 +0100
              Re: Playing with the Chromecast "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-10-31 11:00 +0000
                Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-31 12:37 +0100
                  Re: Playing with the Chromecast Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-31 18:03 +0000
                    Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-31 20:06 +0100
                      Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-01 02:54 +0100
                Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-31 09:09 -0400
                Re: Playing with the Chromecast Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-10-31 18:13 +0000
                  Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-31 19:56 +0100
                Re: Playing with the Chromecast Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2018-11-01 14:04 +0000
                  Re: Playing with the Chromecast Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2018-11-02 14:00 +0000
                    Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-02 16:11 +0100
                      Re: Playing with the Chromecast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-02 15:24 +0000
                      Re: Playing with the Chromecast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-02 15:42 +0000
                        Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 12:25 +0100
                          Re: Playing with the Chromecast Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-11-03 21:19 +0800
                            Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 15:08 +0100
                              Re: Playing with the Chromecast Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-11-03 22:49 +0800
                                Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 20:21 +0100
                            Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-03 11:56 -0400
                              Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 20:24 +0100
                                Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-03 18:00 -0400
                                  Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-04 04:43 +0100
                                    Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-04 00:12 -0400
                                    Re: Playing with the Chromecast Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-04 11:19 +0100
                                      Re: Playing with the Chromecast Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2018-11-04 16:22 +0100
                                      Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-04 10:44 -0400
                                        Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:11 +0100
                                          Re: Playing with the Chromecast Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:41 +0100
                                            Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:33 +0100
                                            Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 09:43 -0400
                                              Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 20:22 +0100
                                          Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 09:43 -0400
                                            Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 20:23 +0100
                                              Re: Playing with the Chromecast nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
                                                Re: Playing with the Chromecast "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 21:56 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#57090

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 12:25:55 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/11/2018 16.42, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> 
>>> I suspect it connects to the phone via bluetooth at first. 
>> 
>> Seems the newer chromecasts can connect that way, but my older one
>> doesn't have BT and the setup process goes well with just WiFi.
>
>This is the improved model, Ultra(?), which also has ethernet. The cable
>would connect to the power supply, so the power cable carries the signal
>to the device. But I do not have an ethernet socket free at the moment,
>I may need to place a switch there.

That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
stream some of my very high definition videos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57091

On 03/11/2018 14.19, Chris in Makati wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 12:25:55 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/11/2018 16.42, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect it connects to the phone via bluetooth at first. 
>>>
>>> Seems the newer chromecasts can connect that way, but my older one
>>> doesn't have BT and the setup process goes well with just WiFi.
>>
>> This is the improved model, Ultra(?), which also has ethernet. The cable
>> would connect to the power supply, so the power cable carries the signal
>> to the device. But I do not have an ethernet socket free at the moment,
>> I may need to place a switch there.
> 
> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
> stream some of my very high definition videos.

Indeed!

Sometimes with WiFi I see hiccups. But behind the TV set I have the ISP
supplied router which has 4 ethernet ports, all of them already in use.
Thus I test the Chromecast with WiFi, and someday I'll buy a switch and
put it there.

Already that place is an awful nest of cables, one box more is not
important. Gahhh!


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57092

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 15:08:04 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 03/11/2018 14.19, Chris in Makati wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 12:25:55 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/11/2018 16.42, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect it connects to the phone via bluetooth at first. 
>>>>
>>>> Seems the newer chromecasts can connect that way, but my older one
>>>> doesn't have BT and the setup process goes well with just WiFi.
>>>
>>> This is the improved model, Ultra(?), which also has ethernet. The cable
>>> would connect to the power supply, so the power cable carries the signal
>>> to the device. But I do not have an ethernet socket free at the moment,
>>> I may need to place a switch there.
>> 
>> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
>> stream some of my very high definition videos.
>
>Indeed!
>
>Sometimes with WiFi I see hiccups. But behind the TV set I have the ISP
>supplied router which has 4 ethernet ports, all of them already in use.
>Thus I test the Chromecast with WiFi, and someday I'll buy a switch and
>put it there.
>
>Already that place is an awful nest of cables, one box more is not
>important. Gahhh!

I just noticed there's an adapter available to allow an old style
Chromecast to connect via an Ethernet cable.

Ethernet Adaptor for Chromecast

https://store.google.com/gb/product/ethernet_adapter_for_chromecast

Maybe this is included as standard on the Ultra that you mentioned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57100

On 03/11/2018 15.49, Chris in Makati wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 15:08:04 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/11/2018 14.19, Chris in Makati wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 12:25:55 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/11/2018 16.42, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect it connects to the phone via bluetooth at first. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems the newer chromecasts can connect that way, but my older one
>>>>> doesn't have BT and the setup process goes well with just WiFi.
>>>>
>>>> This is the improved model, Ultra(?), which also has ethernet. The cable
>>>> would connect to the power supply, so the power cable carries the signal
>>>> to the device. But I do not have an ethernet socket free at the moment,
>>>> I may need to place a switch there.
>>>
>>> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
>>> stream some of my very high definition videos.
>>
>> Indeed!
>>
>> Sometimes with WiFi I see hiccups. But behind the TV set I have the ISP
>> supplied router which has 4 ethernet ports, all of them already in use.
>> Thus I test the Chromecast with WiFi, and someday I'll buy a switch and
>> put it there.
>>
>> Already that place is an awful nest of cables, one box more is not
>> important. Gahhh!
> 
> I just noticed there's an adapter available to allow an old style
> Chromecast to connect via an Ethernet cable.
> 
> Ethernet Adaptor for Chromecast
> 
> https://store.google.com/gb/product/ethernet_adapter_for_chromecast
> 
> Maybe this is included as standard on the Ultra that you mentioned.
> 

Very possibly, it does look the exact thing.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57096

In article <kj7rtdte0lcqpqpoqrji5gqruvqsmvp7ac@4ax.com>, Chris in
Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:

> >This is the improved model, Ultra(?), which also has ethernet. The cable
> >would connect to the power supply, so the power cable carries the signal
> >to the device. But I do not have an ethernet socket free at the moment,
> >I may need to place a switch there.
> 
> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
> stream some of my very high definition videos.

that depends on the wifi. 802.11ac is capable of faster than gigabit
ethernet speeds and is usually limited by a gigabit uplink of the
access point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57102

On 03/11/2018 16.56, nospam wrote:
> In article <kj7rtdte0lcqpqpoqrji5gqruvqsmvp7ac@4ax.com>, Chris in
> Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>>> This is the improved model, Ultra(?), which also has ethernet. The cable
>>> would connect to the power supply, so the power cable carries the signal
>>> to the device. But I do not have an ethernet socket free at the moment,
>>> I may need to place a switch there.
>>
>> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
>> stream some of my very high definition videos.
> 
> that depends on the wifi. 802.11ac is capable of faster than gigabit
> ethernet speeds and is usually limited by a gigabit uplink of the
> access point.

Obviously, but none of my routers support Wi-Fi 5.
On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57110

In article <m891bf-dgr.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
> >> stream some of my very high definition videos.
> > 
> > that depends on the wifi. 802.11ac is capable of faster than gigabit
> > ethernet speeds and is usually limited by a gigabit uplink of the
> > access point.
> 
> Obviously, but none of my routers support Wi-Fi 5.

why not? wifi 5 is 802.11ac (the new names are going to be *more*
confusing), which has been out for roughly 4 years.

> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.

that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57115

On 03/11/2018 23.00, nospam wrote:
> In article <m891bf-dgr.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> That's a much needed improvement because wi-fi is not fast enough to
>>>> stream some of my very high definition videos.
>>>
>>> that depends on the wifi. 802.11ac is capable of faster than gigabit
>>> ethernet speeds and is usually limited by a gigabit uplink of the
>>> access point.
>>
>> Obviously, but none of my routers support Wi-Fi 5.
> 
> why not? wifi 5 is 802.11ac (the new names are going to be *more*
> confusing), which has been out for roughly 4 years.

Well, the main router is provided by my ISP, and they did not provide 5
GHz ones. I don't know if they do now. Anyway, it is half a metre away
from the Chromecast; eventually, they will be connected by cable.

The second AP is on another floor and I bought it... maybe a year ago or
so, maybe two. Asus RT-N12D1, and doesn't have it. Considering that none
of my computers, tablets or phones had 5G at the time, it performs well.

Maybe the shop didn't offer them at reasonable prices.

If I search now for an AP, the 5G capability is not listed at the shops
available to me.

However, if I search for "routers" I do see a filter for "11ac", but
prices go over 200€, except some cheap ones.

So there you have the main reason: price.

Another is that 5G would have it hard to penetrate my house: two levels,
walls made of thick stone, floor made of iron beams and solid bricks
(old style, pre-war). Not wood like on your part of the world. As it is,
standard WiFi has it hard to pass, so I have two APs, one on each floor.



> 
>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
> 
> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.

Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57116

In article <lg62bf-82k.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> 
> However, if I search for "routers" I do see a filter for "11ac", but
> prices go over 200¤, except some cheap ones.
> 
> So there you have the main reason: price.

keep searching. there are 802.11ac wifi routers for less than 1/4 that
price, and for adding an access point on another floor, it would be
more than adequate.

or get a used one for even less. 

> Another is that 5G would have it hard to penetrate my house: two levels,
> walls made of thick stone, floor made of iron beams and solid bricks
> (old style, pre-war). Not wood like on your part of the world. 

there's brick, steel and concrete here too.

> As it is,
> standard WiFi has it hard to pass, so I have two APs, one on each floor.

that's where mesh makes things very easy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57123

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
>>
>> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
> 
> Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.

Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.

-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57126

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 11:19:48 +0100, Piet
<www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:

>Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
>>>
>>> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
>> 
>> Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.
>
> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
>
> -p

+1
-- 
Kees Nuyt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57127

In article <prmh41$1p34$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet
<www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:

> >>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
> >>
> >> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
> > 
> > Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.
> 
> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.

gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57159

On 04/11/2018 15.44, nospam wrote:
> In article <prmh41$1p34$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet
> <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>
>>>> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
>>>
>>> Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.
>>
>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
> 
> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.

Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57166

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> Piet wrote:
>>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
>>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
>>
>> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
>> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
> 
> Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.

Almost all of my hw does 1 Gb. Wired Gb network.
Saturated, let alone "easily"? No.
But sure enough, some will easily saturate *any* speed.

-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57168

On 05/11/2018 11.41, Piet wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> Piet wrote:
>>>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
>>>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
>>>
>>> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
>>> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
>>
>> Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.
> 
> Almost all of my hw does 1 Gb. Wired Gb network.
> Saturated, let alone "easily"? No.
> But sure enough, some will easily saturate *any* speed.

The network itself does 1 GB. But not all the gadgets connected to it
do. Printer, old TV centre, old laptop, old computers... I even have
doubts about my secondary AP. It is supposed to be 1GB, but I suspect it
isn't.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57170

In article <prp6oa$3oo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet
<www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:

> >>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
> >>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
> >>
> >> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
> >> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
> > 
> > Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.
> 
> Almost all of my hw does 1 Gb. Wired Gb network.
> Saturated, let alone "easily"? No.

wrong. very, very wrong.

usb 3.1 gen 1 is 5 gigabit and gen 2 is 10 gigabit. thunderbolt 3 is 40
gigabit (v1 & 2 are 10 & 20 gigabit), all well above gigabit speeds. 

spinning hard drives typically can do 120-130 mbyte/sec (1.3gb/s) and
will be limited by gigabit when shared on a network. internal ssds
typically can do 200-300 mbyte/sec (2-3 gb/sec), limited even further.

many nases have multiple gigabit ports which can be bonded together for
additional speed. more recent nases offer 10gig-e, either built in or
via an add-on card.

multiple slower devices on a single switch will be limited by a gigabit
uplink. even just two at 600mbit/s will do it.

gigabit is a *significant* bottleneck.

> But sure enough, some will easily saturate *any* speed.

currently it's difficult for a single user to saturate 10gig-e, but
fairly easy for enterprise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57201

On 05/11/2018 14.43, nospam wrote:
> In article <prp6oa$3oo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet
> <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
>>>>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
>>>>
>>>> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
>>>> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
>>>
>>> Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.
>>
>> Almost all of my hw does 1 Gb. Wired Gb network.
>> Saturated, let alone "easily"? No.
> 
> wrong. very, very wrong.
> 
> usb 3.1 gen 1 is 5 gigabit and gen 2 is 10 gigabit. thunderbolt 3 is 40
> gigabit (v1 & 2 are 10 & 20 gigabit), all well above gigabit speeds. 
> 
> spinning hard drives typically can do 120-130 mbyte/sec (1.3gb/s) and
> will be limited by gigabit when shared on a network. internal ssds
> typically can do 200-300 mbyte/sec (2-3 gb/sec), limited even further.
> 
> many nases have multiple gigabit ports which can be bonded together for
> additional speed. more recent nases offer 10gig-e, either built in or
> via an add-on card.
> 
> multiple slower devices on a single switch will be limited by a gigabit
> uplink. even just two at 600mbit/s will do it.
> 
> gigabit is a *significant* bottleneck.

Nay. Money *is* a significant bottleneck :-P

> 
>> But sure enough, some will easily saturate *any* speed.
> 
> currently it's difficult for a single user to saturate 10gig-e, but
> fairly easy for enterprise.

In the enterprise, waiting time means money lost. That's different.
At home, we just wait :-p


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57171

In article <3kh5bf-eds.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
> >>>>
> >>>> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
> >>>
> >>> Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.
> >>
> >> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
> >> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
> > 
> > gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
> > people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
> 
> Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.

then you're using horribly outdated hardware.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57203

On 05/11/2018 14.43, nospam wrote:
> In article <3kh5bf-eds.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.
>>>>
>>>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
>>>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
>>>
>>> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
>>> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
>>
>> Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.
> 
> then you're using horribly outdated hardware.

A donation will be appreciated ;-P


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57208

In article <g4bjm3FddpU2@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>>> On the other hand, I have gigabit Ethernet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> that's also due for an upgrade, although not quite as cheap.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dreams...  I don't forecast upgrading anytime soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some people really think "if faster is available, I need it".
> >>>> In practice they don't need it at all. Not even remotely.
> >>>
> >>> gigabit is easily saturated, making it the bottleneck, so for many
> >>> people, they *do* need to upgrade and *will* notice a difference.
> >>
> >> Not the case. Most of my hardware only do 100 Mb.
> > 
> > then you're using horribly outdated hardware.
> 
> A donation will be appreciated ;-P

next time you visit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web