Be Excellent To Each Other

Having moved out last weekend, i'm still without internet on my desktop computer.

The problem now is that i either have to buy a big ethernet cable (15m) to go around the wall of the living room or buy a wireless adapter for the desktop computer. The router is about 3-4m away from the computer on a straight line.

Obviously, going for the wireless adapter would be the cleaner, easier and also cheaper solution (10€ for the adapter vs 15€ for a 15m cable), but how much will i lose in terms of performance by doing so? My internet speed is supposedly around 25M-30M (i'm not sure).

Last night i wanted some relaxation after the whole stress of moving out and got to the realization that steam offline mode isn't reliable at all:(

Get a cable. It'll save hassle and just be better.

Well...the hassle is the main problem.

And also, my computer has some problem, that i can only resolve by uninstalling the network drivers before shutting off, because i can only have internet when windows installs the drivers fresh in a reboot. I have no idea what is the problem....but i was hoping that going wireless would solve that.

Wireless is shite.

Especially for your main computer. Fine for portable hardware, but your primary PC should be wired at the very least.

Fonarobbed.

Once assigning static IPs to all my devices I've never had any problems. Saying that, my primary computer doesn't even have an ethernet port.

Your wireless experience will be defined by how good your router and adapter is, plus a random x factor around location, walls, other wireless in the area etc...
You might get lucky and it will be fine, but it will most likely take you a fair amount of time to get it stable, and you have to buy a good router if you want to avoid random disconnects and reboots.

My desktop is wireless. Haven't had too many problems since I got a better USB stick and moved it to the back of the computer. Homeplugs are good, too.

Where the hell are you buying ethernet cable from at that price? Wherever it is, the best advice I can give you is: stop going there.

Also: fuck wireless; go wired.

I've looked for two different sources near my workplace. The prices range between 13 and 20€ depending on the brand.

i suppose i could get cheaper, but the costs in gas and parking probably wouldn't make for that.

You can't order online?

Not until he has the cable

I just got five metres of Ethernet cable for less than a quid. Also, "brand"?!

I always used to think that wired was best (and it probably is) but my sky+ can download HD streaming TV faster than it can be watched, as can my xbox, laptop and ipad. I've donwloaded torrents on my laptop at almost 2MB/s which is a limitation of my ISP rather than my wireless (I get the same speed on a wired connection).

I currently have a pc, 2 laptops, xbox, wii, apple tv, smart tv, ipod, iphone, ipad and blu ray player all connecting over wireless and don't really have any problems (and any problems are sorted by a power cycle of the router)

Malc

Where are you getting a home net connection this fast?

ETA: In fact, how could you even download something so quickly when even the theoretical max speed that 802.11n supports is only 300 Mbps? I think you might be talking bollocks...

With wifi technology that doesn't even exist!

I suspect it was a typo 2MB/s seems more likely

Well, not really.

Do I have to go through the MB/Mb thing again?!

Although I suppose 2 MB/s is perfectly doable. I'll let you off.

On my favorite gadget website (dealextreme.com) they sell it for 9,7$. The difference is not worth the wait.

Maybe i'm going to buy an adapter and if i'm not satisfied, i'll return it for the cable.

yes, pelase!

A download speed of 2 MB/s would technically mean you're downloading faster than you could watch* but if it was 2Mb/s then it's too slow.

*Based on the typical largest HD file I generally download which is ~1.5GB for a 42 minute episode of, say, House.

Go for it



Indeed, 2MB is perfectly do-able, and in context most likely correct, hence why I said 2MB 2Mbit is fuck all these days and wouldn't allow HD streaming faster than you could watch.

Yeah 2MB/s is about spot on - essentially 20Mb/s.

2Gb/s would be 200MB/s...

Are files at 60fps 2.5 times larger than those at 24 fps?

Probably not, because of the way that video compression works.

Not necessarily. If they were absolutely identical in their encoding barring the FPS, then yeah I guess...

Probably not, video codecs have compression schemes that mean each frame doesn't have to be held as a full distinct entity in the file. The last time I knew anything about this was when DivX was the big thing; in it's case it compared each frame in the source file to the next frame and if they were relatively similar it would just 'keep' the difference between the two. If both frames were massively different (i.e. you were changing to a totally different scene in the film) it would store the full new frame as a 'key' frame and then start storing only the difference between it and the subsequent frames again.

Of course it's possible that it works totally differently in modern codecs and I'm talking total pish but I'm sure someone else will be along to berate me if that's the case.

That's quite intereseting, thank you for that. Pleasingly, it's how I'd have probably done it.

File size is based on duration, resolution and quality (and codec, but that can be fit under quality)
24 fps has less frames, but those frames are on screen for longer. Being entirely logical about it, it should be possible to make a codec that is more efficient for a 24fps film due to lower rates of frame difference, but I can't think of anytime where fps has made a noticeable difference to file size? I'd be interested if anyone had built a codec like that actually!

Malcs house. Yesterday.

I did indeed mean 2MB/s and I know the difference between MB Mb Gb and GB so I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that!

Malc

Wired 1Gbs if you can

I've not used any of the newer wireless stuff as all my laptops are getting on a bit

You could try the power over ethernet plugs but that will cost more money and thinking about it need more cables

I think my broadband could stream a bluray with bandwidth to spare. Pointless and yet awesome.

I've tried wireless, I've tried homeplug, and now I've got the house wired. Only 100mbps but it's better than the other two can do - and its reliable.

Wired all the way IMO.

Wireless can work fine, and it can be a nightmare, and sometimes it can fluctuate between the two depending on far more variables than I'm prepared to introduce to my network.

Take the hit, and run some CAT-5 to where it's required in the house, it's a job you'll need to do once and once only.

1Gb/s is now standard (and has been for some time) on both NICs and routers, 100% reliable, 100% of the time.

Wireless is for Macs, iPads, and phones.

A very pedantic point, but just in case, it is CAT-5e you need, not just plain CAT-5.
I've been caught out by that in the past, took ages to find out my network issue and it was all down to a short patch cable that was only CAT-5.

The bt homehub 3 is only 100mbps - stupid when even fttc is 76mbps now, with fttp 100mbps+. Plus the 360, ps3 and airports - in fact the only gige device i have is my microserver.

I assumed that was a comment on how shockingly poor the Windows drivers and built in wireless hardware can be on Windows laptops.
My Dell was hopeless, the wireless would die at least once a day and the only way to fix it was a full reboot.

And how much Mac owners don't like wires and other 'ugly things' interfering with the aesthetics of their objects of desire

No, Trooper is right. Plus you want Cat 5E/6 or GTFO.

Cat 5 my arse.

I'm fairly sure that 1Gb/s isn't going to make any difference to the speed of the Internet connection.

Yeah but surely everyone has other devices on the network these days, copying files around, backing stuff up, that kind of thing.

Last time I rebuilt my PC I had something like 300GB of stuff to copy back to it from my NAS, even on 100Mbit wired, that took a while. The very thought of doing it over wireless makes my head spin, and my balls shrink.

My network's a total fucking disgrace (<1MB/s file copy speed between desktop and laptop), I really should start a thread sometime and throw myself on the mercy of the hive mind.

It isn't like you can't hit "go" then fuck off and do something else, though, is it? For the majority of people, they have a desktop and a laptop, and that's about it, shifting large volumes of ones and noughts about isn't high on their priorities, and, even if it were to be, it'd happen about once a year. Anything else is just shouting about numbers.

I think the era of actually storing stuff on disk doesn't really exist anymore, you only need enough capacity for a mobile device to last 4 charging cycles of entertainment before you can shunt it off, and pull the rest from the cloud. I've discovered netflix, where it seems I can et what I want, when I want on demand through a 5 meg connection, into my xbox and out via the TV, so the idea of storing anything is quite alien to me.

Ooooohkay.

Aside form the massive amount of podcasts I've just haven't had the time to listen to yet, mind you. And the music.

i'm beginning to see the flaws in my argument, here.

I could merrily pull every word on that argument to bits, but the only people here who care already know that

Lol.

Very true but for moving data to a NAS it does make a difference. You also need a decent NAS with a good disk controller and ideally CPU and RAM.

I have my Thecus N7700 Pro (£700 with no drives) and a D-Link 320 (£60 with no drives) on the same network switch.

The Thecus will copy files at 70mb or more and the best I’ve seen from the D-Link is 20mb.

I bought the D- Link for my dad, to be fair it’s a bargain and a really nice NAS, just wish the copy speeds were a bit faster.

Did I miss the bit where Ruysan talked about a NAS?

Also