Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
On 8/6/2022 1:33 PM, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
Perhaps they are able to choose according to their needs?
If they're
transferring an image to be used in an email, it's unlikely to be 3.4gB.
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.
19 seconds.
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.optical?
19 seconds.which version of wifi?
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet, which
means the limiting factor is gigabit.
2.5/5/10gig enet would be faster. some computers and access points have that, but most do not.
cameras generally don't have the latest version of anything, including
wifi and usb.
Legacy 802.11 2.4 GHz 2 Mbps
In article <8eca6670-c62e-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.optical?
19 seconds.which version of wifi?
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet, which
means the limiting factor is gigabit.
2.5/5/10gig enet would be faster. some computers and access points have
that, but most do not.
cameras generally don't have the latest version of anything, including
wifi and usb.
On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 15:38:27 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article <8eca6670-c62e-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.optical?
19 seconds.which version of wifi?
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet, which
means the limiting factor is gigabit.
2.5/5/10gig enet would be faster. some computers and access points have
that, but most do not.
cameras generally don't have the latest version of anything, including
wifi and usb.
Legacy 802.11 2.4 GHz 2 Mbps
On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 15:38:27 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article<8eca6670-c62e-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.optical?
19 seconds.which version of wifi?
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet, which
means the limiting factor is gigabit.
2.5/5/10gig enet would be faster. some computers and access points have that, but most do not.
cameras generally don't have the latest version of anything, including
wifi and usb.
Legacy 802.11 2.4 GHz 2 Mbps
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.optical?
19 seconds.which version of wifi?
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet, which
means the limiting factor is gigabit.
2.5/5/10gig enet would be faster. some computers and access points have that, but most do not.
cameras generally don't have the latest version of anything, including wifi and usb.
Legacy 802.11 2.4 GHz 2 Mbps
You know, you get accused of trolling sometimes. Is that what this was? *2* Mbps? Really? You might as well use floppies.
In article<0001HW.289F3F2C03B12A5C30A1FD38F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.optical?
19 seconds.which version of wifi?
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a
camera.
modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet, which means the limiting factor is gigabit.
2.5/5/10gig enet would be faster. some computers and access points have that, but most do not.
cameras generally don't have the latest version of anything, including wifi and usb.
Legacy 802.11 2.4 GHz 2 Mbps
You know, you get accused of trolling sometimes. Is that what this was? *2* Mbps? Really? You might as well use floppies.
a 3.4 gig file would need to be split into ~2500 1.4mb segments...
there were 2.8 mb floppies, so i guess it could be a bit faster...
On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. >> Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
from a camera.
Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s. Should take - what - 90 seconds?
Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
On 7/08/2022 8:20 pm, David Taylor wrote:
On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. >>> Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfersHalf-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
from a camera.
Should take - what - 90 seconds?
Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
geoff
On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s. Should take - what - 90 seconds?
Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. >> Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
from a camera.
Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s. Should take - what - 90 seconds?
Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.
In article <tcmdg4$17ee$1@dont-email.me>, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
On 8/6/2022 1:33 PM, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. >>> Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a >>> camera.
Perhaps they are able to choose according to their needs?
more likely, he's using an older and outdated version of wifi.
If they're
transferring an image to be used in an email, it's unlikely to be 3.4gB.
he didn't say a 3.4gb image, nor did he mention email.
In article <ZemdnYKa0KtM5HL_nZ2dnUU7-e-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
from a camera.
Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s. >>> Should take - what - 90 seconds?
Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.
your arithmetic is wrong.
3,400,000,000/37,500,000 = 90
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
In article <tcnsk0$fluj$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s. Should take - what - 90 seconds?what you describe are speeds from more than a decade ago.
half-decent wifi is triple that, and decent wifi is even faster.
Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!he admitted that he's using 20 year old equipment.
On 8/6/2022 3:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article <tcmdg4$17ee$1@dont-email.me>, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
On 8/6/2022 1:33 PM, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds. >>> Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a >>> camera.
Perhaps they are able to choose according to their needs?
more likely, he's using an older and outdated version of wifi.
If they're
transferring an image to be used in an email, it's unlikely to be 3.4gB.
he didn't say a 3.4gb image, nor did he mention email.
What other 3.4gB file is an "image transfer(s) from a camera" (his
statement, btw)?
I mentioned email as a use for images coming out of a camera.
You could benefit from learning to read before you pointlessly argue.
In article <a4e83df3-f3af-4cf6...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
equipment.
My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.
My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
equipment.
The modem is an optical fiber-based, Sagecomm Fast 5566. Not sure of its age.
On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 13:33:28 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
I'd just like to add; Canadian companies charge some of the highest internet rates in the world and we
only rank 24th in internet speed in the world. It's been falling in relation to other countries for about 20 years.
This is what happens when liberals who run the government are in-bed with the telcos and the CRTC which
regulates everything.
In article <e95b5b80-da88-49f6...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
equipment.
The modem is an optical fiber-based, Sagecomm Fast 5566. Not sure of its age.optical fiber has nothing to do with wifi.
the specs for that say 802.11n, which is *old*.
On 9/08/2022 12:41 pm, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 13:33:28 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.
I'd just like to add; Canadian companies charge some of the highest internet rates in the world and weCity, suburban, rural, Artic ?
only rank 24th in internet speed in the world. It's been falling in relation to other countries for about 20 years.
This is what happens when liberals who run the government are in-bed with the telcos and the CRTC which
regulates everything.
What drivel.
But I guess we all know who you'd admire, and made the trains run on
time ...
geoff
My
main computer uses
optical fiber
but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
In article <769f6ee8-8767-49f7-a1be-80db86ae60f0n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
My
main computer uses
optical fiber
no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.
but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
it's only slower because it's old.
as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.
My
main computer uses
optical fiber
no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.
but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
it's only slower because it's old.
as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.
Yes of course, but how many people want to go to that expense to achieve something they don't need?
Or even can't use - not many have an internet
connection that fast - in the UK anyway.
On Monday, 8 August 2022 at 21:53:59 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article <e95b5b80-da88-49f6...@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
optical fiber has nothing to do with wifi.My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
equipment.
The modem is an optical fiber-based, Sagecomm Fast 5566. Not sure of its age.
the specs for that say 802.11n, which is *old*.
Apparently, it's capable of 5G and 600Mb/s but I would assume the computer receiving it would need suitable equipment as well, it may be outdated. My main computer uses
optical fiber but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
In article <tctg64$1cio7$1@dont-email.me>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:
My
main computer uses
optical fiber
no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.
but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
it's only slower because it's old.
as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.
Yes of course, but how many people want to go to that expense to achieve
something they don't need?
what expense? an 802.11ac/wifi 5 access point is cheap, although at
this point, it would be practical to get 802.11ax/wifi 6 for a little
bit more.
he's complaining about slow wifi. the reason why it's slow is because
he's using outdated equipment. the fix is simple, and cheap.
Or even can't use - not many have an internet
connection that fast - in the UK anyway.
the internet connection is not relevant for transfers between devices,
which is what he's complaining about.
he's complaining about slow wifi. the reason why it's slow is because
he's using outdated equipment. the fix is simple, and cheap.
80Mbps isn't 'slow' for most people.
Yes, if you regularly chuck around GB
files over it, it'll be a bit tedious. But only the OP can make that call, based on their needs and alternatives. And chucking money at wifi may not be the best option.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 163:16:17 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,510 |