If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 3/13/19 8:04 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:32:52 -0700, T wrote: On 3/13/19 9:35 AM, Mayayana wrote: It's silly to use wireless if you don't have to. As a Radio Design engineer before doing this stuff, I can only say "well stated" I wish you guys were around when I was arging this general topic with nospam in re.photo.digital. Well now. I have had to remove folks trying to network Quickbooks with wireless and put them on wired. Anything data intensive, wireless sucks. Now from a radio design engineers standpoint, wireless was designed to be the last mile. Not a real mile, but to places where wires can't reach. So you put an access point as close as possible to the receiver. Folks misuse wireless all the time. When explaining this to my customers, I ask them how well their cell phone works. After that, I get no argument. Wireless could be designed to work properly, but no one would pay the freight. They want it cheap. Cheap is what they got. |
Ads |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
In article , wrote:
Well now. I have had to remove folks trying to network Quickbooks with wireless and put them on wired. Anything data intensive, wireless sucks. nonsense. wifi works exceptionally well, regardless of data intensity. Now from a radio design engineers standpoint, wireless was designed to be the last mile. Not a real mile, but to places where wires can't reach. So you put an access point as close as possible to the receiver. obviously, except that those access points might also be wireless, otherwise known as mesh. they also might not be particularly close, such as with cellular towers, which can be several miles away in rural areas. Folks misuse wireless all the time. very few do. When explaining this to my customers, I ask them how well their cell phone works. After that, I get no argument. then they must have very ****ty cellphones. Wireless could be designed to work properly, but no one would pay the freight. They want it cheap. Cheap is what they got. not only is wireless designed to work properly, but it actually does work properly and why billions of people rely on it worldwide for all sorts of things. it's also why landlines have been on the decline for *years*: https://infographic.statista.com/nor...2_landline_pho nes_in_the_united_states_n.jpg |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 3/13/2019 7:27 PM, T wrote:
On 3/13/19 3:27 AM, Neil wrote: I don't use OO/LO to interact with others because neither handles anything but the most simplistic documents in translation. So, I wouldn't care about that kind of use. But, to mangle their own files? I had to recreate dozens of their documents in MS-Office (at my own expense, BTW) to avoid going through that again. I have NO time for that kindÂ*ofÂ*BS. I recommend to my customer that have to send out mailings to use LO's and Word PDF export option and send as a PDF. That way even iPads can read them. By "interact with others" I'm referring to EDITABLE documents, not PDFs. Since most of the documents I create are more complex than OO/LO can import/export in .docx format, I stuck with their native formats for in-house work on computers without MS-Office until they screwed up their own documents. -- best regards, Neil |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 3/13/2019 4:29 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
I typically see connection speed of 300-700 megabits on wireless-AC. Pretty good but still not as fast as a wired gigabit connection. Doesn't make much difference for most internet use. It does make a difference when transferring large files between your PC and a local server or if your use case requires the least possible latency. Is this the number on the connection setup page? Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters 40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours? Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel? |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10 fedora
On 3/13/2019 5:20 PM, T wrote:
On 3/13/19 3:52 AM, Mike wrote: WentÂ*toÂ*fedoraÂ*websiteÂ*andÂ*downloadedÂ*theÂ*d iskÂ*creator. RanÂ*itÂ*andÂ*createdÂ*theÂ*usbÂ*liveÂ*version. TheÂ*verificationÂ*progressÂ*barÂ*hitÂ*theÂ*endÂ*a ndÂ*itÂ*justÂ*hung. SubtractÂ*1Â*fromÂ*theÂ*confidenceÂ*meter... BurnedÂ*theÂ*.isoÂ*toÂ*aÂ*DVD.Â*Â*ThatÂ*workedÂ*fi ne. LaterÂ*foundÂ*outÂ*thatÂ*theÂ*USBÂ*thumbÂ*driveÂ*w ouldÂ*boot withÂ*theÂ*sameÂ*symptomsÂ*below. 1) redownload and run the check sum against it 2) burn the USB with "dd". 3) first boot, run the integrity check retest Also, it would help if you stated which spin you downloaded. Like I said, it's the latest version on their download page last night. Furthermore, it don't matter. ALL spins should download and install without incident. This is NOT an isolated incident. It's lack of attention to detail across the whole desktop linux onion of chaos. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 2019-03-14, T wrote:
Well now. I have had to remove folks trying to network Quickbooks with wireless and put them on wired. Anything data intensive, wireless sucks. Anyone with real experience understands this. It gets even worse when you get a little distance from the access point or there are walls or other physical obstructions. (The faster 5GHz frequency range is particularly bad in those instances, the signal drops off rapidly. Throughput drops and latency rises.) The only real upside to wireless is convenience when portability is needed for accessing applications that are not data intensive. That's all the typical home user sees when crowing about how "wonderful" wifi is. (I don't concern myself with home users since I don't work with them.) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 2019-03-14, Mike wrote:
Is this the number on the connection setup page? Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters 40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours? Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel? It varies greatly depending on the environment and circumstances, which is the point. Those figures are the maximum under favorable clear-channel, single-user conditions. It goes downhill from there. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote: On 2019-03-14, Mike wrote: Is this the number on the connection setup page? Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters 40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours? Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel? It varies greatly depending on the environment and circumstances, which is the point. Those figures are the maximum under favorable clear-channel, single-user conditions. It goes downhill from there. Unless you live at nospam's house. Over there, wireless apparently works better than wired. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
nospam wrote:
In article , wrote: Well now. I have had to remove folks trying to network Quickbooks with wireless and put them on wired. Anything data intensive, wireless sucks. nonsense. wifi works exceptionally well, regardless of data intensity. In reality Quickbooks sucks on a network regardless wire/wireless, but that is beside the point. A wired connection in real life gives you a more consistent reliable signal period. A the frequency goes up to increase bandwidth the shorter the range and the more susceptible the wireless signal becomes. Just a fact. Now from a radio design engineers standpoint, wireless was designed to be the last mile. Not a real mile, but to places where wires can't reach. So you put an access point as close as possible to the receiver. obviously, except that those access points might also be wireless, otherwise known as mesh. they also might not be particularly close, such as with cellular towers, which can be several miles away in rural areas. Having really world experience with 5GHz wireless Internet can confirm that my 5-12 mbps connection could suddenly drop to 0 to 100 kbsp randomly. Being an extremely lucky rural US resident my rural electric coop company decided to pull this area out of 3-world-status and also give a Verizon the middle-finger-salute, (like they're building out any FIOS now), and I have now had a FTTP connection for the last few days. There is NO comparison for connection stability. Even when I had slow DSL the connection was more stable than this wireless. The only advantage to wireless is not have to route wires. BTW as part of the deal for deregulation 25 years ago the telcos *promised* us a fiber-optic "Information Superhighway" in less than 10 years... -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 3/14/19 11:32 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
BTW as part of the deal for deregulation 25 years ago the telcos *promised* us a fiber-optic "Information Superhighway" in less than 10 years... Let me do the math....25-10.... him that means it has been done for 15 years!! (In some homes at least). |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 03/14/2019 10:20 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: On 2019-03-14, Mike wrote: Is this the number on the connection setup page? Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters 40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours? Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel? It varies greatly depending on the environment and circumstances, which is the point. Those figures are the maximum under favorable clear-channel, single-user conditions. It goes downhill from there. Unless you live at nospam's house. Over there, wireless apparently works better than wired. Maybe its all the *hot* air at his house. Rene |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
Big Al wrote:
On 3/14/19 11:32 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW as part of the deal for deregulation 25 years ago the telcos *promised*Â* us a fiber-optic "Information Superhighway" in less than 10 years... Let me do the math....25-10.... him that means it has been done for 15 years!!Â*Â*Â* (In some homes at least). Now if you were holding your breath... -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 3/13/19 2:46 PM, Paul wrote:
[snip] And now that TV no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't already). Â*Â* Paul UHF TV channels used to go to 83. Then it was 69. Then 51. Now it's about to become 36? |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
On 3/13/19 7:07 PM, Paul wrote:
Paul wrote: And now that TV no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't already). And just like that, there's an article today about 600MHz being auctioned off. It doesn't say what channels exactly, but it could be UHF 36 through UHF 51. So more bandwidth for cell service, and moar fluffy cat photos. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/600...tion-1.5051455 Â*Â* Paul Did you know there are no TV stations on channel 37? |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10
"Paul" wrote
| And now that TV no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those | frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't | already). | | And just like that, there's an article today about | 600MHz being auctioned off. It doesn't say what channels | exactly, but it could be UHF 36 through UHF 51. Are you sure that isn't VHF? I get CH 2-68 UHF on my rabbit ears. Or maybe it's different in Canada? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|