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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu64pk.814.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58094 |
Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote: > 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. I'm sure nospam's printer does at least several pages per second. After all, anything less than that "would be horribly crippling".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu65oi.814.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58097 |
A bit earlier, I wrote: > Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote: > > 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. > > I'm sure nospam's printer does at least several pages per second. > After all, anything less than that "would be horribly crippling". Oops! Didn't notice the '3D' bit. I had been thinking about what nospam would be using for (normal) printing, so I assumed that you were talking about that as well. Mea culpa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iPOdndgvpoJF9ZvBnZ2dnUU78efNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58093 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:dc2idf-due.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > 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. A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. Also, if you do a big file copy over a slow network connection (Ethernet or wifi) you may restrict the throughput available to other network users - unless the source and destination computers are on the same LAN segment, separated from the rest of the LAN by a switch which keeps that traffic off the rest of the LAN. I remember saturating the LAN in our office when I was testing restoring PCs to a factory state using a Ghost image stored on a server: Ghost originally ran flat-out, using as much bandwidth as the LAN and LAN cards could manage. I was instrumental in getting Norton to add a "throttle" switch to Ghost so the server could set a maximum bandwidth for serving PC disk images - obviously it then takes longer to transfer the image, but you maintain some LAN bandwidth for other users. After unwittingly "killing" the LAN, I very quickly got a switch and connected the server and test PC to a "private" segment that could still access the rest of the company LAN but which could talk between themselves without slowing down the rest of the LAN. In the same way, a big PC to PC file copy of a recorded TV programme has the potential to affect other PCs which are streaming from one of those computers or even from an unrelated computer on the LAN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu675s.eco.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58095 |
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message > news:dc2idf-due.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > > 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. > > A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and > don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus > Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to > access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you > will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to > disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. The copying to an USB stick or external disk drive scenario was just another of nospam's dodge-and-divert evasions, when he was unable to give a specific answer to John's question "What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more than the 56M of g?" But more to the point is my question (see above) *why* 'wait'? I don't know about you, but if some operation takes some time - even minutes - and I have/want something else to do, I just do it and hence don't 'wait'. [BTW, Linux, MacOs and Windows all fall in the category "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system", with Windows probably the worst of the lot.] > Also, if you do a big file copy over a slow network connection (Ethernet or > wifi) you may restrict the throughput available to other network users - > unless the source and destination computers are on the same LAN segment, > separated from the rest of the LAN by a switch which keeps that traffic off > the rest of the LAN. I remember saturating the LAN in our office when I was > testing restoring PCs to a factory state using a Ghost image stored on a > server: Ghost originally ran flat-out, using as much bandwidth as the LAN > and LAN cards could manage. I assume that was kind of a cold-boot over the LAN without much if any (network) load balancing in bootloader(s)? Yes, we also had such scenarios at my employer (some tiny 150K employee IT company). But it helped we had been doing networking from the (very) early 70s, so we knew a few things about network topology. :-) Anyway, such a scenario and network topology are less likely for the home user on hir NATted LAN, i.e. the topic of this (non-)discussion. > I was instrumental in getting Norton to add a > "throttle" switch to Ghost so the server could set a maximum bandwidth for > serving PC disk images - obviously it then takes longer to transfer the > image, but you maintain some LAN bandwidth for other users. > > After unwittingly "killing" the LAN, I very quickly got a switch and > connected the server and test PC to a "private" segment that could still > access the rest of the company LAN but which could talk between themselves > without slowing down the rest of the LAN. > > In the same way, a big PC to PC file copy of a recorded TV programme has the > potential to affect other PCs which are streaming from one of those > computers or even from an unrelated computer on the LAN. There QoS features of the 'router' come into play.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 18:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58100 |
On 04/12/2018 15.40, Frank Slootweg wrote: > NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message >> news:dc2idf-due.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >>> 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. >> >> A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and >> don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus >> Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to >> access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you >> will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to >> disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. > > The copying to an USB stick or external disk drive scenario was just > another of nospam's dodge-and-divert evasions, when he was unable to > give a specific answer to John's question > > "What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > than the 56M of g?" Yep. Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. And if I'm imaging the laptop, or doing an offline full backup, I start it then use another machine or go to sleep - this is home, not an office where it pays to do things fast. Time is money, etc. > But more to the point is my question (see above) *why* 'wait'? I don't > know about you, but if some operation takes some time - even minutes - > and I have/want something else to do, I just do it and hence don't > 'wait'. Right. > [BTW, Linux, MacOs and Windows all fall in the category "proper > multitasking and multiuser operating system", with Windows probably the > worst of the lot.] Right. It is not common at homes for people to use a remote desktop on a Windows machine, thus have two human users working at the same computer - but Windows is of course multiuser and multitasking, different processes can run from different users. Just have a look at the list of processes any given time. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 10:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c96dnZs5xqtrOprBnZ2dnUU78c3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58101 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else > (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another > computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper > switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. That depends on having all the right infrastructure. Ethernet is great for connecting static computers, and I would never use wifi (especially for fast PC-to-PC transfers that don't involve the internet) if I had the option of Ethernet instead, but installing the cable is the big problem because you need to drill holes through walls or door frames to take it from one room to another. No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing it, and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less intrusive than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down the side of carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip that divides one carpet from another. The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and sockets in every room, the better. When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will take over, but I've found it to be unreliable. I get spontaneous disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens when a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops may claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely get a wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's the raw connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even before you try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a problem, but I've had it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi network - on *any* channel. My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about 40 Mbps when talking to a Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N (slower than theoretical max of 54 or 900 respectively), but then that link speed gradually degrades over an hour or so until it ends up at about 5 Mbps. Even for a newly-rebooted laptop which is next to the router and with no other wifi on any channel, or any other device talking to the router, the time to copy a 1 GB video file increases by an order of magnitude when using wifi rather than Ethernet for a PC-to-PC transfer - and that's with one of the two computers connected by Ethernet, so it's not a problem of the traffic from PC A to the router "interfering" with traffic from the router to PC B. But for low-volume traffic where speed isn't critical, such as web browsing and sending/receiving email, wifi is great for portable devices like phones and tablets. Just don't rely on it for streaming video from "server" PC to a Plex client etc. But all of this is getting off the subject, which was the comparison of mobile internet versus ADSL/VDSL. The subject line of the thread misleadingly equates "wifi" with "xDSL", but then that's because it's quoting an article which does the same :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 15:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mq4ldf-v0f.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58107 |
On 05/12/2018 11.27, NY wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message > news:gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another >> computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper >> switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. > > That depends on having all the right infrastructure. Ethernet is great > for connecting static computers, and I would never use wifi (especially > for fast PC-to-PC transfers that don't involve the internet) if I had > the option of Ethernet instead, but installing the cable is the big > problem because you need to drill holes through walls or door frames to > take it from one room to another. Oh, I have those holes :-) I did the cabling myself. Took some effort. > No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is > already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing > it, and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less > intrusive than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down > the side of carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip > that divides one carpet from another. As I started as a HAM, I refused to install that bastardy thing. > The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and > sockets in every room, the better. Yes! But it will not benefit older buildings, like mine. Here (Spain) there is a cabling regulation that mandates that buildings have the ducts and infrastructure to lay the cabling for at least 3 ISPs, but only to the door of each flat: from that point, it only regulates a box inside. We have ducts to lay telephone wires to several rooms (main room, kitchen and dorms), but nobody has changed the regulation to add Ethernet cabling. So modern houses have the ducts, but not the cables. Even installing the switch at the box can be a problem. > When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will > take over, but I've found it to be unreliable. I get spontaneous > disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be > disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens > when a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or > TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. Yes. My Googlechrome device one day said it could not connect to the WiFi spot that was sitting half a metre from it. I had to redo the configuration. Wire is so much reliable. ... > But all of this is getting off the subject, which was the comparison of > mobile internet versus ADSL/VDSL. The subject line of the thread > misleadingly equates "wifi" with "xDSL", but then that's because it's > quoting an article which does the same :-) Well, in my case often "mobile is faster than wi-fi" ;-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <123456@123456.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pu90fi$dqe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58109 |
On 12/5/2018 7:44 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Oh, I have those holes :-) I did the cabling myself. Took some > effort. In my last house I had lots of holes also...but more for antennas. > As I started as a HAM... I'm a ham too, licensed in 57. Was CW only for many years but like Usenet the old CW ops were dying off. And the new young hams operated like CBers. (A license free radio service in the US.) My current house has an HOA...no antennas allowed. I tried being incognito by running 50 watts to a hair-wire antenna over the roof, and it worked OK (40, 30, and 20 Meters), but the interference to my electronic devices was intolerable, especially my heater/AC with it's fancy WiFi control. Also I imagine I was doing a number on my neighbors stuff as well though I doubt they had a clue what was causing it. But they got even without knowing about it. Their electronics often put an S9+ buzzsaw onto my receiver so I finally gave it up. Fortunately The Internet has pretty well filled the gap. So OM 73... And back to our normally scheduled programming...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181217409509%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58122 |
In article <pu90fi$dqe$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <123456@123456.com> wrote: > > My current house has an HOA...no antennas allowed. they can only restrict modifications to the structure, not antennas, as per fcc regulations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <L6udnTGdDb4Lv5XBnZ2dnUU78QPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58123 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:051220181217409509%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <pu90fi$dqe$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <123456@123456.com> > wrote: > >> >> My current house has an HOA...no antennas allowed. > > they can only restrict modifications to the structure, not antennas, as > per fcc regulations. Different countries have different regulations. When my house in the UK was built, there was a builder's covenant which was part of the title deeds for each house which said no external aerials. So everyone had humungous aerials with amplifiers in the loft. Later on, when that covenant lapsed, n years after the houses had been built and the builder's publicity photos had been taken, there was no problem with some people then having satellite dishes on the front (south-facing) wall. I'm not sure how legally binding the original builder's restriction was, but everyone abided by it: it just meant a slightly more expensive aerial, and initially no dish for those people who wantred Sky rather than Freeview.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fklldf-50q.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58128 |
On 05/12/2018 20.10, NY wrote: > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:051220181217409509%nospam@nospam.invalid... >> In article <pu90fi$dqe$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <123456@123456.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> My current house has an HOA...no antennas allowed. >> >> they can only restrict modifications to the structure, not antennas, as >> per fcc regulations. > > Different countries have different regulations. When my house in the UK > was built, there was a builder's covenant which was part of the title > deeds for each house which said no external aerials. So everyone had > humungous aerials with amplifiers in the loft. Later on, when that > covenant lapsed, n years after the houses had been built and the > builder's publicity photos had been taken, there was no problem with > some people then having satellite dishes on the front (south-facing) wall. > > I'm not sure how legally binding the original builder's restriction was, > but everyone abided by it: it just meant a slightly more expensive > aerial, and initially no dish for those people who wantred Sky rather > than Freeview. Wow :-) You could emigrate to Spain, before the Brexit, we have an accommodating law for HAM antennas ;-) (the community board for an apartment building can not oppose a HAM placing antennas on the roof, for instance) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181440585449%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58128 |
In article <L6udnTGdDb4Lv5XBnZ2dnUU78QPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > In article <pu90fi$dqe$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <123456@123456.com> > > wrote: > >> My current house has an HOA...no antennas allowed. > > > > they can only restrict modifications to the structure, not antennas, as > > per fcc regulations. > > Different countries have different regulations. yep. 123456789 is in the usa, where fcc regulations apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <123456@123456.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pu9lj8$nk5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58128 |
On 12/5/2018 12:10 PM, NY wrote: >> 123456789 <123456@123456.com> wrote: >> My current house has an HOA...no antennas allowed. > Different countries have different regulations. When my house in the > UK was built, there was a builder's covenant which was part of the > title deeds for each house which said no external aerials. I signed such a document (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions) when I bought my current house. It is quite restrictive on many subjects, not just antennas. Some people hate them. But I moved from an HOA free neighborhood where I previously lived for 30 years and it was getting to look pretty bad. Course I suppose my neighbors there didn't think my ham antennas were a beautiful sight either... > So everyone had humungous aerials with amplifiers in the loft. Our local TV station transmitting antennas are located on a nearby 1200 foot mountain so in most cases rabbit ears propped on top of the set will work. But with my cable TV service that became unnecessary. > there was no problem with some people then having satellite dishes > on the front (south-facing) wall. Satellite dishes are allowed here but the installation details must be approved by the HOA. > I'm not sure how legally binding the original builder's restriction > was, but everyone abided by it My HOA has the power to assess fines for violations. If the fines are unpaid they can put a lien on the house. Or take you to court. It can become very unpleasant for those who resist... 8-O
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r6kldf-qun.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58122 |
On 05/12/2018 18.04, 123456789 wrote: > On 12/5/2018 7:44 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Oh, I have those holes :-) I did the cabling myself. Took some >> effort. > > In my last house I had lots of holes also...but more for antennas. > >> As I started as a HAM... > > I'm a ham too, licensed in 57. Was CW only for many years but like > Usenet the old CW ops were dying off. And the new young hams operated > like CBers. (A license free radio service in the US.) I started, but I abandoned. Studies interfered, and life... and computers. :-) But something remains, like trying to not broadcast interference. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951423988%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58107 |
In article <c96dnZs5xqtrOprBnZ2dnUU78c3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is > already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing it, > and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less intrusive > than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down the side of > carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip that divides > one carpet from another. very few use homeplug because wifi works great in nearly every situation. > The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and > sockets in every room, the better. cat5 is obsolete. cat6 or better should be installed in renovations and new construction to support 10gig. > When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will > take over, but I've found it to be unreliable. wifi is *extremely* reliable. > I get spontaneous > disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be > disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens when > a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or > TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops may > claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely get a > wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's the raw > connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even before you > try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a problem, but I've had > it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi network - on *any* channel. > My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about 40 Mbps when talking to a > Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N (slower than theoretical max of > 54 or 900 respectively), but then that link speed gradually degrades over an > hour or so until it ends up at about 5 Mbps. something is *very* wrong with your equipment and/or setup. > Even for a newly-rebooted laptop which is next to the router and with no > other wifi on any channel, or any other device talking to the router, the > time to copy a 1 GB video file increases by an order of magnitude when using > wifi rather than Ethernet for a PC-to-PC transfer - and that's with one of > the two computers connected by Ethernet, so it's not a problem of the > traffic from PC A to the router "interfering" with traffic from the router > to PC B. something is very wrong. do not assume that's how it is for everyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LaudnRWph6ddb5rBnZ2dnUU78S3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58112 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:051220180951423988%>> I get spontaneous >> disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be >> disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens >> when >> a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or >> TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops may >> claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely get a >> wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's the >> raw >> connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even before >> you >> try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a problem, but I've >> had >> it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi network - on *any* >> channel. >> My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about 40 Mbps when talking to a >> Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N (slower than theoretical max >> of >> 54 or 900 respectively), but then that link speed gradually degrades over >> an >> hour or so until it ends up at about 5 Mbps. > > something is *very* wrong with your equipment and/or setup. I've seen this phenomenon with three different laptops (Acer - Win XP; HP - Win Vista; Samsung - Win 7) talking to a variety of Netgear and TP-Link routers: the reported link speed is considerably slower than the theoretical maximum of the wifi technology used by the router, and gradually diminishes the longer the laptop is powered up. And that's in several different locations, so it's unlikely to be interference from something nearby that a wifi scan with InSSIDer wouldn't show up; the first thing I checked was wifi networks on the same or adjacent channels, but I can't check for interference from non-wifi devices. The spontaneous disconnection is less common with the Samsung laptop / TP-Link router combination, but I've still had a few cases where the laptop has had to be rebooted (or at least, disable/enable wireless adaptor) when a connection has been lost. I wouldn't want to trust it for a PC that I had to access remotely, where you cannot disable and re-enable wifi once you've lost the remote connection to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181129396629%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58116 |
In article <LaudnRWph6ddb5rBnZ2dnUU78S3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> I get spontaneous > >> disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be > >> disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens > >> when > >> a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or > >> TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops may > >> claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely get a > >> wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's the > >> raw > >> connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even before > >> you > >> try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a problem, but I've > >> had > >> it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi network - on *any* > >> channel. > >> My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about 40 Mbps when talking to a > >> Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N (slower than theoretical max > >> of > >> 54 or 900 respectively), but then that link speed gradually degrades over > >> an > >> hour or so until it ends up at about 5 Mbps. > > > > something is *very* wrong with your equipment and/or setup. > > I've seen this phenomenon with three different laptops (Acer - Win XP; HP - > Win Vista; Samsung - Win 7) talking to a variety of Netgear and TP-Link > routers: the reported link speed is considerably slower than the theoretical > maximum of the wifi technology used by the router, and gradually diminishes > the longer the laptop is powered up. And that's in several different > locations, so it's unlikely to be interference from something nearby that a > wifi scan with InSSIDer wouldn't show up; the first thing I checked was wifi > networks on the same or adjacent channels, but I can't check for > interference from non-wifi devices. > > The spontaneous disconnection is less common with the Samsung laptop / > TP-Link router combination, but I've still had a few cases where the laptop > has had to be rebooted (or at least, disable/enable wireless adaptor) when a > connection has been lost. I wouldn't want to trust it for a PC that I had to > access remotely, where you cannot disable and re-enable wifi once you've > lost the remote connection to it. i've not seen anything remotely close to that, with numerous laptops, desktops, tablets, phones and routers from a variety of manufacturers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <123456@123456.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pu90ff$dqe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58116 |
On 12/5/2018 8:46 AM, NY wrote: > The spontaneous [WiFi] disconnection is less common... I've had the single device WiFi disconnection. Only ONE device out of the 10 or so gadgets I've got connected decides to quit working. The first time it happened I spent a lot of time cussing and messing with the affected device. Blew my mind. I finally figured out it was the wireless router and rebooted it. Now when it happens I just automatically reboot the wireless router. As I've often said, those damn things operate on black magic... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lbkldf-qun.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58116 |
On 05/12/2018 16.46, NY wrote: > The spontaneous disconnection is less common with the Samsung laptop / > TP-Link router combination, but I've still had a few cases where the > laptop has had to be rebooted (or at least, disable/enable wireless > adaptor) when a connection has been lost. I wouldn't want to trust it > for a PC that I had to access remotely, where you cannot disable and > re-enable wifi once you've lost the remote connection to it. In that case you can run a watchdog process on the remote machine, that resets the connection when it fails to ping somewhere. Or even reboots. I do that to my router. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 21:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ZidnUpeGq4ebYzBnZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58112 |
On 2018-12-05 06:51, nospam wrote: > > cat5 is obsolete. cat6 or better should be installed in renovations and > new construction to support 10gig. Which no-one is ever likely to need, so it won't happen. 10GbE over copper is power hungry and pointless for home users, and Cat6 cable is more expensive and irritating to install and terminate correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web