Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.telecom.mobile > #33472 > 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 177 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom.mobile
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> - 2018-12-04 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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <M6mdnXBZbOLOvpXBnZ2dnUU78L3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #33623 |
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:pu91hh$mju$2@gioia.aioe.org... > I have never seen any Wifi degradation like you describe that were not due > to local interference from neighbours or arc welding. I'd put it down to local interference, if the problem had not followed me when I moved house. Weird that it affects several PCs, several routers and two different locations where router channel was deliberately chosen to have no overlaps with neighbouring networks. > I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with > certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware I > have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly just > works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android phone work fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pub9nt$f8k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33629 |
On 05/12/2018 19:13, NY wrote: > "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:pu91hh$mju$2@gioia.aioe.org... >> I have never seen any Wifi degradation like you describe that were not >> due to local interference from neighbours or arc welding. > > I'd put it down to local interference, if the problem had not followed > me when I moved house. Hmm... no idea then. Might be worth trying a new router of a reputable make. > > Weird that it affects several PCs, several routers and two different > locations where router channel was deliberately chosen to have no > overlaps with neighbouring networks. > > >> I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with >> certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware >> I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly >> just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. > > Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow > web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android > phone work fine. Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. And you absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220180910074110%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33649 |
In article <pub9nt$f8k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with > >> certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware > >> I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly > >> just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. > > > > Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow > > web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android > > phone work fine. > > Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The > bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called > zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for > not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit > operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. not true. mdns is used by more than just apple and whether it works correctly is a function of the router's firmware, not the chipset used. where it's a problem is across vlans, but very few people have vlans, other than a guest wifi network which is usually set up as a vlan. > Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. > > Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. > > Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. also not true. > And you > absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubjbc$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33653 |
On 06/12/2018 14:10, nospam wrote: > In article <pub9nt$f8k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> >>>> I have known some Apple products that really don't get on at all with >>>> certain router chipsets but despite the more variation in PC hardware >>>> I have never had all that much bother with Wifi connections. It mostly >>>> just works apart from in heavily shielded parts of the house. >>> >>> Ah, that's interesting, My wife often moans that her iPad gets very slow >>> web browsing and dropped connections when my Windows laptop and Android >>> phone work fine. >> >> Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The >> bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called >> zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for >> not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit >> operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. > > not true. mdns is used by more than just apple and whether it works > correctly is a function of the router's firmware, not the chipset used. The chipset is a part of it though - for some reason the canonical firmware implementation on Atheros and Broadcom chipset based devices is considerably more Apple friendly than with other chipsets. I'm not saying you can't find a bad implementation on them only that all the reliability problems I have seen with Apple kit seem to come from routers that use certain chipsets (irrespective of their firmware). > > where it's a problem is across vlans, but very few people have vlans, > other than a guest wifi network which is usually set up as a vlan. > >> Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. >> >> Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. >> >> Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. > > also not true. If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. >> And you >> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. > > that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220181156574736%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33659 |
In article <pubjbc$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Atheros and Broadcom are chipsets of choice for Apple compatibility. The > >> bugs that cause trouble seem to be in multicastDNS variously called > >> zeroconf, Rendezvous or Bonjour. ISP supplied routers are notorious for > >> not doing it very well which leads to unreliable Apple (& Naim) kit > >> operation. If you only have PCs then it isn't a problem. > > > > not true. mdns is used by more than just apple and whether it works > > correctly is a function of the router's firmware, not the chipset used. > > The chipset is a part of it though - for some reason the canonical > firmware implementation on Atheros and Broadcom chipset based devices is > considerably more Apple friendly than with other chipsets. I'm not > saying you can't find a bad implementation on them only that all the > reliability problems I have seen with Apple kit seem to come from > routers that use certain chipsets (irrespective of their firmware). apple isn't doing anything unusual. i have a wide assortment of routers and have yet to find *any* problem with apple in particular. there are shitty routers out there, but they'll have problems with more than just apple devices. the biggest problem i've seen is that some of them have a horrible user interface, which can sometimes be remedied with alternate firmwares. > > where it's a problem is across vlans, but very few people have vlans, > > other than a guest wifi network which is usually set up as a vlan. > > > >> Some powerline devices despite using Atheros chipset have botched mDNS. > >> > >> Marvell chipset is a bit too new to be sure whether it is good or not. > >> > >> Chipsets to avoid with Apple gear are Realtek and Ralink. > > > > also not true. > > If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a > reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router > implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen > plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. i don't know what you've seen, but i've yet to see a router that has issues with only apple and nothing else. again, apple is not doing anything unusual, other than being compliant with the standards. > >> And you > >> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. > > > > that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. > > The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. no different than anything else, and break doesn't necessarily mean no functionality at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubmbe$2aq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33660 |
On 06/12/2018 16:56, nospam wrote: > In article <pubjbc$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a >> reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router >> implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen >> plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. > > i don't know what you've seen, but i've yet to see a router that has > issues with only apple and nothing else. > > again, apple is not doing anything unusual, other than being compliant > with the standards. It does seem to be less tolerant about what it accepts than some other implementations on Android and 'Doze. > >>>> And you >>>> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. >>> >>> that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. >> >> The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. > > no different than anything else, and break doesn't necessarily mean no > functionality at all. What it tends to mean is that things do work for a while and then mysteriously stop working requiring one or other of the affected devices or routers to be power cycled before the Apple will play again. Android and PC devices still work OK whilst the iP*d Wifi link is belly up. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220181243060918%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33663 |
In article <pubmbe$2aq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> If you are having problems with Apple gear and a specific router it is a > >> reasonable heuristic to take a look at. There may well be good router > >> implementations on these chipsets but I have yet to see one. I have seen > >> plenty of instances of Apple kit being tetchy about what it talks to. > > > > i don't know what you've seen, but i've yet to see a router that has > > issues with only apple and nothing else. > > > > again, apple is not doing anything unusual, other than being compliant > > with the standards. > > It does seem to be less tolerant about what it accepts than some other > implementations on Android and 'Doze. again, i have not noticed any issues specific to apple using a *wide* variety of routers and apple devices as well as apple routers and non-apple devices. there are many reasons why something might not work, which has nothing to do with who made what component. > >>>> And you > >>>> absolutely need a solid implementation of mDNS in some flavour. > >>> > >>> that part is true. mdns is *extremely* useful. > >> > >> The key being that it needs to be rock solid or things will break. > > > > no different than anything else, and break doesn't necessarily mean no > > functionality at all. > > What it tends to mean is that things do work for a while and then > mysteriously stop working requiring one or other of the affected devices > or routers to be power cycled before the Apple will play again. Android > and PC devices still work OK whilst the iP*d Wifi link is belly up. any issues with mdns would only affect mdns itself, not wifi connectivity overall. something else is going on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Graham J <graham@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu91nk$m5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33608 |
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. > > 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. The issue also affects mains wiring and plumbing. If you want to add or change mains sockets, or move a radiator, then there is significant work. It would all be much easier if there were service ducts installed as the house was being built. Some old houses in the USA which tend to feature in horror movies have service corridors which are used by the "baddies", so I suspect they are a fairly standard feature. Even business premises suffer from a lack of sensible service ducts. In some cases there are suspended ceilings and it's practical to install plumbing, power wiring, and network cable above the ceiling. Similarly some premises have false floors for the same purpose. [snip] Even in an ideal world the throughput achived using WiFi will generally not be as good as with Ethernet cable, because Wifi is a half-duplex system operating with a shared spectrum. (Remember CSMA/CD in the days of co-ax network cable?) By contrast Ethernet cables are usually operated full-duplex and the spectrum between the client device and the switch is dedicated, not shared. -- Graham J
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 12:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181237280779%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33624 |
In article <pu91nk$m5k$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J <graham@invalid.com> wrote: > Even in an ideal world the throughput achived using WiFi will generally > not be as good as with Ethernet cable, because Wifi is a half-duplex > system operating with a shared spectrum. in the real world, wifi is as fast or faster than gigabit ethernet, however, not as fast as 10gig-e (yet). the gigabit uplink of the access point is the bottleneck. <https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/asus_rtac86u/as us_rtac86u_5ghz_peak_dn.jpg>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33607 |
In article <gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > 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. except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's done copying. > The network doesn't saturate because there are proper > switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NfmdnT_sfNyoa5rBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #33610 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, but things have moved on since then. I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be wrong. It's hard to remember back to the days when Ethernet was normally 10 Mbps, and 100 Mbps was a newfangled luxury :-) But I can remember before that using Thick Ethernet and Thin Ethernet over coaxial cable, with BNC T-pieces (thin) or "stinger" transceivers and drop cables to a MIDI-type connector (or something that looked very similar). The joys of wanting to connect or disconnect a computer and having to warn everyone on that LAN segment in case it altered the reflection of the signal and people lost connections. Point-to-point RJ45 leads uses a LOT more wire in a big office, since every computer needs a cable back to the hub/switch, but it's a LOT more resilient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181129406687%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33617 |
In article <NfmdnT_sfNyoa5rBnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > > When did Gigabit become standard? roughly mid-2000s is when it was cheap enough to become widespread. 10gig-e is almost at that point now. > Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > but things have moved on since then. > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > wrong. try something more recent, or investigate why it's not working well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu9b6r$18rl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33617 |
On 05/12/2018 16:01, NY wrote: > > When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 > laptop have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and > can't use 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec > at the time, but things have moved on since then. > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could > be wrong. My two desktop P4s are both Gigabit, one on-board, the other a very cheap PCI-card when the on-board went down after a thunderstorm - can't remember for sure whether the on-board was Gigabit or not, but I think so. I can't use them at the moment, and therefore can't check, because my monitor caught fire about 6 months ago, and I haven't been able to afford replacing it since.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu9duh.b50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33617 |
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > > When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > but things have moved on since then. > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > wrong. Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181635234074%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33641 |
In article <pu9duh.b50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? > > > > > > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > > > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > > > > > > that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > > > because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > > > > When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > > have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > > 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > > but things have moved on since then. > > > > I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > > wrong. > > Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range > laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). that's unusual for a midrange product and even a bit surprising for a low end product. > FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, > out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a > selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time > not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant > Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. it's not mentioned because it's gigabit, so there's no need to mention anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubajh$1ggd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33641 |
On 05/12/2018 20:08, Frank Slootweg wrote: > NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>> how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? >>> >>> computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than >>> that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. >>> >>> that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, >>> because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. >> >> When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop >> have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use >> 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, >> but things have moved on since then. >> >> I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be >> wrong. > > Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range > laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). > > FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, > out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a > selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time > not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant > Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. That's because 10/100/1000 has pretty much become the default now. They would only shout about it if they offered anything faster. Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. https://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/product_detail/16560/Dell-Optiplex-780-Desktop-C2D-E8400-3GHz-4GB-250GB-DVD-Windows-10-Professional/ And available refurbished at very reasonable prices. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <061220180915333638%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33652 |
In article <pubajh$1ggd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > >>> that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. > >>> > >>> that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, > >>> because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. > >> > >> When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop > >> have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use > >> 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, > >> but things have moved on since then. > >> > >> I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be > >> wrong. > > > > Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range > > laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). > > > > FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, > > out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a > > selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time > > not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant > > Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. > > That's because 10/100/1000 has pretty much become the default now. exactly the point, and what i've been saying since the start of this. > They > would only shout about it if they offered anything faster. or slower. these days, gigabit is assumed unless stated otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a0pndf-53t.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #33652 |
On 06/12/2018 15.09, Martin Brown wrote: > On 05/12/2018 20:08, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>>> how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? >>>> >>>> computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than >>>> that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. >>>> >>>> that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, >>>> because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. >>> >>> When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 >>> laptop >>> have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and >>> can't use >>> 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the >>> time, >>> but things have moved on since then. >>> >>> I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I >>> could be >>> wrong. >> >> Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range >> laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). >> >> FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, >> out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a >> selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time >> not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant >> Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. > > That's because 10/100/1000 has pretty much become the default now. They > would only shout about it if they offered anything faster. And they would keep silent if the offered only 100. > Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. > > https://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/product_detail/16560/Dell-Optiplex-780-Desktop-C2D-E8400-3GHz-4GB-250GB-DVD-Windows-10-Professional/ > > > And available refurbished at very reasonable prices. I wish they'd do that here. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubfdj$1iq9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33655 |
On 06/12/2018 14:40, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 06/12/2018 15.09, Martin Brown wrote: [snip] >> Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. >> >> https://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/product_detail/16560/Dell-Optiplex-780-Desktop-C2D-E8400-3GHz-4GB-250GB-DVD-Windows-10-Professional/ >> >> >> And available refurbished at very reasonable prices. > > I wish they'd do that here. Is there no equivalent of Morgan Computers in Spain or France? (there is a business opportunity here for you) They were a lot better in the past with really stunning bargains if you had the space to accomodate bulky workhorse printers. Nowadays almost everything they offer is refurbished rather than end of line. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 04:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fc5pdf-qm2.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #33656 |
On 06/12/2018 16.32, Martin Brown wrote: > On 06/12/2018 14:40, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 06/12/2018 15.09, Martin Brown wrote: > [snip] >>> Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. >>> >>> https://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/product_detail/16560/Dell-Optiplex-780-Desktop-C2D-E8400-3GHz-4GB-250GB-DVD-Windows-10-Professional/ >>> >>> >>> >>> And available refurbished at very reasonable prices. >> >> I wish they'd do that here. > > Is there no equivalent of Morgan Computers in Spain or France? > (there is a business opportunity here for you) > > They were a lot better in the past with really stunning bargains if you > had the space to accomodate bulky workhorse printers. Nowadays almost > everything they offer is refurbished rather than end of line. There may exist, but I'm not aware of a merchant that does so. I knew of a shop or two that did in this city, but they have disappeared. I heard of auctions once. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom.mobile
csiph-web