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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 02:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <amhrdf-75h.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58211 |
On 07/12/2018 23.46, nospam wrote: > In article <ah8rdf-6i8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has >>>>>>> completed copying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope :-p >>>>> >>>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. >>> >>> it can be done for *some* types of files, but definitely not all. in >>> fact, very few types will allow it. it's the exception, not the rule. >>> >>>> (Hint: Linux) >>> >>> linux has absolutely nothing to do with it. >> >> Wait: are you now also a Linux expert? Wow, I didn't know that. LOL. > > the operating system is *irrelevant*. > > if there's critical data at the end of the file, then a partial file > *is* *not* *usable* until that critical data has been written. Moving the goalposts again :-p > > linux isn't going to help that. no operating system can. > > and even if linux could do magic, almost nobody uses linux on the > desktop so users are still stuck. > >> because you are showing your ignorance in this... > > nope. > > you are assuming that since you can play a partial movie, every other > partially transferred file will work that way. > > that is a very bad assumption. I' running a test now, for your enjoyment. On computer one I have a 7 GB file (N1), which I copy to computer 2, renaming it to N2: cer@Telcontar:~/tmp/nospam> date --rfc-3339=ns ; scp N1 cer@minas-tirith:/home/cer/tmp/nospam/N2 ; date --rfc-3339=ns 2018-12-08 01:42:04.304143031+01:00 N1 0% 67MB 608.7KB/s 3:06:14 ETA which is going to take about 3 hours, because I'm purposely using my slower laptop and wifi. On computer 2 I simultaneously copy that file N2 that is being copied back to computer 1, but named N3 cer@minas-tirith:~/tmp/nospam> date --rfc-3339=ns ; scp N2 cer@telcontar.valinor:/home/cer/tmp/nospam/N3 ; date --rfc-3339=ns 2018-12-08 01:45:25.816560637+01:00 Enter passphrase for key '/home/cer/.ssh/id_rsa': N2 1% 2336KB 837.4KB/s 02:27 ETA Notice that it says it is going to take 2 minutes (and growing) because the size it sees is incomplete. The output on both machines show also the exact time. Status on computer one: cer@Telcontar:~/tmp/nospam> date --rfc-3339=ns ; l 2018-12-08 01:46:10.920965115+01:00 total 6879512 drwxr-xr-x 2 cer users 26 Dec 8 01:42 ./ drwxr-xr-x 103 cer users 4096 Dec 8 01:24 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 7035582468 Dec 8 01:27 N1 -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 9027584 Dec 8 01:46 N3 cer@Telcontar:~/tmp/nospam> N1 is the full file, N3 is the partial copy this instant. Status on computer two: cer@minas-tirith:~/tmp/nospam> date --rfc-3339=ns ; l 2018-12-08 01:46:38.655890748+01:00 total 164694 drwxr-xr-x 2 cer users 72 Dec 8 01:42 ./ drwxr-xr-x 18 cer users 1160 Dec 8 01:25 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 168443904 Dec 8 01:46 N2 cer@minas-tirith:~/tmp/nospam> N1 -- copied to ---> N2 -- copied to --> N3 simultaneously. The files can be accessed at the same time they are being copied, which is what I said. Only that. Good enough for video streams. Of course, if the second copy goes faster than the first, it will reach the apparent end of file and terminate the copy. I never said that you can access the end of the file at the start. I never said that you can randomly access any place in the entire file, like a database does. That's you moving the goalposts. Can I access a zip archive while it is being copied? Yes. Can I open it and extract the contents? No. But I never said I could. But "access" for reading? Yes, certainly, and copy what I have to somewhere else, too. CQD. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220182113224663%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58215 |
In article <amhrdf-75h.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> it can be done for *some* types of files, but definitely not all. in > >>> fact, very few types will allow it. it's the exception, not the rule. > >>> > >>>> (Hint: Linux) > >>> > >>> linux has absolutely nothing to do with it. > >> > >> Wait: are you now also a Linux expert? Wow, I didn't know that. LOL. > > > > the operating system is *irrelevant*. > > > > if there's critical data at the end of the file, then a partial file > > *is* *not* *usable* until that critical data has been written. > > Moving the goalposts again :-p nope. *nothing* has moved. you are fixated on a single scenario, one which is not particularly common, while ignoring *everything* else. ... > I never said that you can access the end of the file at the start. > I never said that you can randomly access any place in the entire file, like > a database does. nor did i. > That's you moving the goalposts. nope. i said that most files can't be used until the copy is complete, which you even *confirmed* !! > Can I access a zip archive while it is being copied? Yes. and do what with it? > Can I open it and extract the contents? No. exactly the point! not being able to extract the contents confirms what i've been saying. you have to wait until the copy has finished before you can extract the contents of that zip file. the same applies for nearly all types of files. movies are an *exception* and not all movies either. as i said, there are movies that will not play until the copy has completed. > But I never said I could. in other words, you're in full agreement with what i've been saying. > But "access" for reading? Yes, certainly, and copy what I have to somewhere else, too. it's not useful if you can't extract the contents. also, 'accessing' a partial copy is meaningless and copying a partially copied file is going to result in an unusable file.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QI-dnaZx87G5fZfBnZ2dnUU78QvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58192 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:girqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >>>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has >>>> completed copying. >>> >>> Nope :-p >> >> wrong. > > I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. > > (Hint: Linux) I have done this on Windows. NextPVR recording to a ts file from a USB TV receiver. VLC media player, either on that PC or on another via an SMB shared drive, can play the file while it is still being appended to by NextPVR, and can even play it faster than real time until it hits the end of the file when it reverts to playing in real time at the point of writing (ie it plays live). I've not made that work on Ubuntu or Raspbian: on the same device or over the LAN, VLC will only play until the point that the file was at when playing began; anything that was appended after that point is "beyond the end of the file" as seen by VLC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 23:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <579rdf-539.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58203 |
On 07/12/2018 21.56, NY wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message > news:girqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >>>>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has >>>>> completed copying. >>>> >>>> Nope :-p >>> >>> wrong. >> >> I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. >> >> (Hint: Linux) > > > I have done this on Windows. NextPVR recording to a ts file from a USB > TV receiver. VLC media player, either on that PC or on another via an > SMB shared drive, can play the file while it is still being appended to > by NextPVR, and can even play it faster than real time until it hits the > end of the file when it reverts to playing in real time at the point of > writing (ie it plays live). Interesting. Wait, play faster than real life? How do you that in VLC? I know how to "wind" fast, forward or backwards, but sound is lost and it jumps a bit. If there is a method to play at, say, 105% faster with non-distorted sound, that would be very interesting (MythTV could do this). > I've not made that work on Ubuntu or Raspbian: on the same device or > over the LAN, VLC will only play until the point that the file was at > when playing began; anything that was appended after that point is > "beyond the end of the file" as seen by VLC. You mean that it stops at the byte size listed at the start? No, here it plays to the end; but I'll have to verify again. However, the slider showing the duration of the movie gets mad. I do it often with kodi (TV stream), but less with VLC. I do not use Ubuntu, though: I use openSUSE. And I do not usually share with samba, but with sshfs or nfs. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220181746430705%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58209 |
In article <579rdf-539.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > Wait, play faster than real life? How do you that in VLC? I know how to > "wind" fast, forward or backwards, but sound is lost and it jumps a bit. > If there is a method to play at, say, 105% faster with non-distorted > sound, that would be very interesting (MythTV could do this). <https://www.vlchelp.com/controlling-playback-speed-vlc-media-player/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 02:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4birdf-fvh.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58210 |
On 07/12/2018 23.46, nospam wrote: > In article <579rdf-539.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> Wait, play faster than real life? How do you that in VLC? I know how to >> "wind" fast, forward or backwards, but sound is lost and it jumps a bit. >> If there is a method to play at, say, 105% faster with non-distorted >> sound, that would be very interesting (MythTV could do this). > > <https://www.vlchelp.com/controlling-playback-speed-vlc-media-player/> Thanks, it works. To control speed of a video in VLC using shortcuts: Speed up: ] Key in keyboard Speed down: [ Key in keyboard Normal speed: = Key in keyboard The "=" doesn't work in my Spanish keyboard, though. - and + also change the speed, at a greater rate. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu65ia.814.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58093 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > 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 But even if one has a 2TB drive, one normally doesn't have to backup (note how nospam does yet another dodge-and-divert from making backup to 'copying') the whole drive. There are these concepts of differential and incremental backup. But even *if* one would make a full backup (of the in-use) part of the drive, then why on earth would one need to 'wait' for that backup to finish, before doing anything else!? Don't know about you, but my computer(s), network, drives, etc. can perfectly well do their job without me babysitting them or even being present.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951464217%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58098 |
In article <pu65ia.814.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > >> 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 > > But even if one has a 2TB drive, one normally doesn't have to backup > (note how nospam does yet another dodge-and-divert from making backup to > 'copying') the whole drive. There are these concepts of differential and > incremental backup. it's not a dodge and divert. the point you *still* miss is that with gigabit being standard, there is no point in intentionally using much slower 100bt. incremental backups does not change anything other than total time and you still have to do a full initial copy at some point anyway. > But even *if* one would make a full backup (of the in-use) part of the > drive, then why on earth would one need to 'wait' for that backup to > finish, before doing anything else!? Don't know about you, but my > computer(s), network, drives, etc. can perfectly well do their job > without me babysitting them or even being present. nobody said anything about babysitting the copy. that's *your* attempt to dodge and divert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6blldf-7lp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58113 |
On 05/12/2018 15.51, nospam wrote: > In article <pu65ia.814.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg > <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> 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 >> >> But even if one has a 2TB drive, one normally doesn't have to backup >> (note how nospam does yet another dodge-and-divert from making backup to >> 'copying') the whole drive. There are these concepts of differential and >> incremental backup. > > it's not a dodge and divert. > > the point you *still* miss is that with gigabit being standard, there > is no point in intentionally using much slower 100bt. Nononono. It is not intentionally using 100Mbit. It is keeping using hardware that work fine but don't have modern features, and are not replaced because the replacement cost money. If you so abhor we using five year old hardware, well, you can contribute with a donation. I promise to label them appropriately in your honour. ;-) And while we are in that mood, my desktop still uses USB2. I would appreciate an expansion card for USB3, because USB2 is so slowwww! -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181441015589%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58133 |
In article <6blldf-7lp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > > > the point you *still* miss is that with gigabit being standard, there > > is no point in intentionally using much slower 100bt. > > Nononono. It is not intentionally using 100Mbit. It is keeping using > hardware that work fine but don't have modern features, and are not > replaced because the replacement cost money. it's very much intentional if you don't replace outdated hardware, and you get to deal with its slowness until you do. > If you so abhor we using five year old hardware, well, you can > contribute with a donation. I promise to label them appropriately in > your honour. ;-) gigabit has been widespread for more than a decade, usually standard (not an optional extra) and available for roughly 20 years. > And while we are in that mood, my desktop still uses USB2. I would > appreciate an expansion card for USB3, because USB2 is so slowwww! so buy one. they're cheap. $13 us for a 2 port, and that's just the first that came up in a search. <https://www.amazon.com/Express-Expansion-Controller-Rosewill-RC-508/dp/ B011LZY20G>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 19:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hmrqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58139 |
On 05/12/2018 20.41, nospam wrote: > In article <6blldf-7lp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> >>> the point you *still* miss is that with gigabit being standard, there >>> is no point in intentionally using much slower 100bt. >> >> Nononono. It is not intentionally using 100Mbit. It is keeping using >> hardware that work fine but don't have modern features, and are not >> replaced because the replacement cost money. > > it's very much intentional if you don't replace outdated hardware, and > you get to deal with its slowness until you do. Here, I will tell you my paypal account so that you donate me the money to do it. 800 euros will come nicely, thank you :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 21:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QI-dnaFx87G5fZfBnZ2dnUU78QtQAAAA@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58193 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:hmrqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > On 05/12/2018 20.41, nospam wrote: >> In article <6blldf-7lp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> the point you *still* miss is that with gigabit being standard, there >>>> is no point in intentionally using much slower 100bt. >>> >>> Nononono. It is not intentionally using 100Mbit. It is keeping using >>> hardware that work fine but don't have modern features, and are not >>> replaced because the replacement cost money. >> >> it's very much intentional if you don't replace outdated hardware, and >> you get to deal with its slowness until you do. > > Here, I will tell you my paypal account so that you donate me the money > to do it. 800 euros will come nicely, thank you :-p I will replace my present PC hardware with a faster PC with gigabit LAN etc when it is possible to install Window 7 on it without having to buy a fresh copy. Sadly PCs that come bundled with Windows (as opposed to buying it from a shop) are not licensed for Windows on any other computer, even if you destroy the original copy - well, that's the *official* story, anyway. I'm not one of those people who must always have the latest hardware, just because it is new, irrespective of whether the hassle of moving is outweighed by the benefits. I would probably only notice the improved LAN speed when I was copying files over the LAN. I doubt whether I'll ever see an internet connection that can work that fast for an affordable price (or is that a "640 KB should be enough for anyone" prediction?). I can live with 100 Mbps LAN for the time being.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951484318%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58093 |
In article <dc2idf-due.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.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. you're missing the point. > >> 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 it's just one example, and i didn't say it was *in* a laptop. 2tb drives are usually external, although some laptops do have 2tb internal drives. not that it matters, since even copying 2 gig of stuff, the difference in time is significant. tl;dr - there is no reason to use a slower link when faster ones exist, which are standard on almost all hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ndlldf-7lp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58115 |
On 05/12/2018 15.51, nospam wrote: > In article <dc2idf-due.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.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. > > you're missing the point. > >>>> 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 > > it's just one example, and i didn't say it was *in* a laptop. Ok, my desktop does have gigabit. > 2tb drives are usually external, although some laptops do have 2tb > internal drives. > > not that it matters, since even copying 2 gig of stuff, the difference > in time is significant. > > tl;dr - there is no reason to use a slower link when faster ones exist, > which are standard on almost all hardware. > Yes, money! $ -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181440595493%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58134 |
In article <ndlldf-7lp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > Ok, my desktop does have gigabit. excellent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pu3lt7$loj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58078 |
On 12/3/2018 6:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > 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. Be careful. He'll charge you with an ad hominem attack, claim victimhood, and declare victory. There's absolutely no kidding with him...but wait...you aren't kidding are you... 8-O
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu40r0.fag.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58083 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > On 12/3/2018 6:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > 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. > > Be careful. He'll charge you with an ad hominem attack, claim > victimhood, and declare victory. Yup, he did that in the previous round and declared victory where victory was impossible. But heh, with a bit of silent context-snipping and some more footstamping, anything is possible, isn't it!? This time? His response was more concocted dodges/diversions, lack of imagination and a PKB "missing the point entirely, as usual" followed by yet another demonstration of not knowing how (not) to make backup. > There's absolutely no kidding with > him...but wait...you aren't kidding are you... 8-O Kidding about comments which can't be taken seriously!? Why would anyone do *that*!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <031220181400516808%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58087 |
In article <pu40r0.fag.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Be careful. He'll charge you with an ad hominem attack, claim > > victimhood, and declare victory. > > Yup, he did that in the previous round and declared victory where > victory was impossible. But heh, with a bit of silent context-snipping > and some more footstamping, anything is possible, isn't it!? false. > This time? His response was more concocted dodges/diversions, lack of > imagination and a PKB "missing the point entirely, as usual" followed by > yet another demonstration of not knowing how (not) to make backup. also false. as usual with you, you diverge from the actual topic and turn it personal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p5vcdf-76b.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58050 |
On 01/12/2018 20.49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > 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 ..." And that laptop doesn't have USB3, either, so not an issue. That's the only thing I miss. >>> 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. I use HD, and it doesn't need more than 1 M. Now 4K... But I don't have a 4K TV set. Heck, the Google Chromecast Ultra which I bought this month has eth 100, not 1000: and it does 4K. The TV decoder is also on 100M. Everything connected to my router is 100M, except the connection to the switch on the computer room which is 1G. I know because I have a proper switch there and the leds are yellow, not green (except the router itself and the line going to the computer room). Streaming video works well with my WiFi at 40M, in fact. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vvtcdf-r7a.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58041 |
On 01/12/2018 16.49, 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. > > 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. That's right. I don't need it for streaming to my chromecast ultra, and that needs the input stream from somewhere, and another stream going to the chromecast. Updates? Well, just wait a bit more. Transfer big files? Well, just wait a bit more. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web