Random comment about my new router...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Hi folks,

    Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a decent
    router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact that I'd been
    using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and had absolutely no
    complaints until....

    Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one machine to
    another and elected to do it via the network. Both machines are 'wired',
    using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man it was going slowly so I
    checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!

    Further checking resulted in the discovery that the router only supports
    10/100 ethernet. Am I the only person who finds that odd in a new model that
    supports full 'n' wireless (rather than the '150n' cheapies) which is
    supposed to top out at 300Mbps and all of the computers in daily use in the
    house (most dated from 2006/7) have gigabit ethernet? Why would you make a
    router that has the fastest currently available wireless then knobble it
    with 4 ancient 10/100 ethernet ports when gigabit ethernet has been the
    standard for nearly a decade?

    Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit 'switch'
    and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh webs to it. I
    dislike running multiple devices when it's possible that one could have
    handled all that is required.

    Just stream-of-consciousness rambling, a break from endless talking about
    Dotcom.....
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <k4tibm$o39$>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >Hi folks,
    >Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a decent
    >router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact that I'd been
    >using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and had absolutely no
    >complaints until....
    >Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one machine to
    >another and elected to do it via the network. Both machines are 'wired',
    >using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man it was going slowly so I
    >checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!


    That's only a factor of 3 Shaun ... how did you notice ? :)
    I think that is the one Actrix sent me. Yes I'm new to what passes for
    broadband in NZ, but it seems plenty fast to me. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~misfit~

    Enkidu Guest

    On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > Further checking resulted in the discovery that the router only supports
    > 10/100 ethernet. Am I the only person who finds that odd in a new model that
    > supports full 'n' wireless (rather than the '150n' cheapies) which is
    > supposed to top out at 300Mbps and all of the computers in daily use in the
    > house (most dated from 2006/7) have gigabit ethernet? Why would you make a
    > router that has the fastest currently available wireless then knobble it
    > with 4 ancient 10/100 ethernet ports when gigabit ethernet has been the
    > standard for nearly a decade?
    >
    > Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit 'switch'
    > and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh webs to it. I
    > dislike running multiple devices when it's possible that one could have
    > handled all that is required.
    >

    Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you need
    to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance apart).

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Oct 9, 2012
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Enkidu wrote:
    > On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:

    [snip]
    >> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit
    >> 'switch' and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh
    >> webs to it. I dislike running multiple devices when it's possible
    >> that one could have handled all that is required.
    >>

    > Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you
    > need to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance
    > apart).


    Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using external
    HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs that the DHCP
    router allocated to them?

    Cheers,
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 9, 2012
    #4
  5. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <k4tibm$o39$>, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >> Hi folks,
    >> Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a
    >> decent router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact
    >> that I'd been using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and
    >> had absolutely no complaints until....
    >> Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one
    >> machine to another and elected to do it via the network. Both
    >> machines are 'wired', using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man
    >> it was going slowly so I checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!

    >
    > That's only a factor of 3 Shaun ... how did you notice ? :)


    LOL, I noticed when the 'copy' window said that there was 1 day and 15 hours
    remaining. ;-)

    > I think that is the one Actrix sent me. Yes I'm new to what passes for
    > broadband in NZ, but it seems plenty fast to me. :)


    It's quite a nice router - other than the speed of the ethernet ports.
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 9, 2012
    #5
  6. ~misfit~

    David Empson Guest

    ~misfit~ <> wrote:

    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Enkidu wrote:
    > > On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > [snip]
    > >> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit
    > >> 'switch' and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh
    > >> webs to it. I dislike running multiple devices when it's possible
    > >> that one could have handled all that is required.
    > >>

    > > Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you
    > > need to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance
    > > apart).

    >
    > Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using external
    > HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs that the DHCP
    > router allocated to them?


    As soon as you unplug the cable, the DHCP lease should be dropped as the
    network will have gone down.

    When you plug in using a direct connection, both PCs should recognise
    there is a valid connection, try to find the DHCP server, eventually
    give up, and use self-assigned IP addresses instead (in the
    169.254.xxx.yyy range, with the last two octets typically being derived
    from a hash of the MAC address or reassigned randomly if a conflict is
    detected).

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Oct 9, 2012
    #6
  7. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
    > On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
    >> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
    >> that the DHCP router allocated to them?

    >
    > You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
    > them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
    > grief.


    Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. :( I've been thinking about
    assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do* mean odd <g>)
    who expects DHCP.

    Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I mean,
    USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3 periphs - however I
    *do* have a couple eSATA docks.

    Cheers,
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 9, 2012
    #7
  8. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs David Empson wrote:
    > ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Enkidu wrote:
    >>> On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:

    >> [snip]
    >>>> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit
    >>>> 'switch' and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed
    >>>> teh webs to it. I dislike running multiple devices when it's
    >>>> possible that one could have handled all that is required.
    >>>>
    >>> Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you
    >>> need to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance
    >>> apart).

    >>
    >> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
    >> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
    >> that the DHCP router allocated to them?

    >
    > As soon as you unplug the cable, the DHCP lease should be dropped as
    > the network will have gone down.
    >
    > When you plug in using a direct connection, both PCs should recognise
    > there is a valid connection, try to find the DHCP server, eventually
    > give up, and use self-assigned IP addresses instead (in the
    > 169.254.xxx.yyy range, with the last two octets typically being
    > derived from a hash of the MAC address or reassigned randomly if a
    > conflict is detected).


    Thanks David, as I suspected (but, ever the optomist...), chaos would rule
    without a DHCP server.

    Cheers,
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 9, 2012
    #8
  9. ~misfit~

    Malcolm Guest

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:44:04 +1300
    "~misfit~" <> wrote:

    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
    > > On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    > >
    > >> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
    > >> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
    > >> that the DHCP router allocated to them?

    > >
    > > You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
    > > them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
    > > grief.

    >
    > Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. :( I've been thinking
    > about assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do*
    > mean odd <g>) who expects DHCP.
    >
    > Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I
    > mean, USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3
    > periphs - however I *do* have a couple eSATA docks.
    >
    > Cheers,

    Hi
    Just configure up a small range of addresses for your dhcp network eg
    xxx.xxx.xxx.240 xxx.xxx.xxx.250, set your static ip's below
    xxx.xxx.xxx.240

    Can you not configure static ip's based on MAC address in the router?


    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    openSUSE 12.2 (x86_64) Kernel 3.4.6-2.10-desktop
    up 15:31, 3 users, load average: 0.86, 0.99, 1.20
    CPU Intel i5 CPU M520@2.40GHz | Intel Arrandale GPU
     
    Malcolm, Oct 9, 2012
    #9
  10. In article <k509br$s5p$>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article <k4tibm$o39$>, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> Hi folks,
    >>> Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a
    >>> decent router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact
    >>> that I'd been using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and
    >>> had absolutely no complaints until....
    >>> Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one
    >>> machine to another and elected to do it via the network. Both
    >>> machines are 'wired', using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man
    >>> it was going slowly so I checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!

    >>
    >> That's only a factor of 3 Shaun ... how did you notice ? :)

    >
    >LOL, I noticed when the 'copy' window said that there was 1 day and 15 hours
    >remaining. ;-)


    <chortle> yeah ... that would do it. :)


    >> I think that is the one Actrix sent me. Yes I'm new to what passes for
    >> broadband in NZ, but it seems plenty fast to me. :)

    >
    >It's quite a nice router - other than the speed of the ethernet ports.


    Don't think it's going to be a problem for me any time soon ... but good to
    know ... just in case. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 9, 2012
    #10
  11. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Malcolm wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:44:04 +1300
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
    >>> On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
    >>>> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
    >>>> that the DHCP router allocated to them?
    >>>
    >>> You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
    >>> them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
    >>> grief.

    >>
    >> Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. :( I've been thinking
    >> about assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do*
    >> mean odd <g>) who expects DHCP.
    >>
    >> Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I
    >> mean, USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3
    >> periphs - however I *do* have a couple eSATA docks.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    > Hi
    > Just configure up a small range of addresses for your dhcp network eg
    > xxx.xxx.xxx.240 xxx.xxx.xxx.250, set your static ip's below
    > xxx.xxx.xxx.240
    >
    > Can you not configure static ip's based on MAC address in the router?


    Hi Malcolm,

    Yeah, I'm sure that I saw that option in the 'advanced' settings. I might
    have a poke around although they're a little tight with destructions - and
    yes, I've downloaded the pdf 'manual'. It says at the beginning that 'this
    document assumes a certain level of knowledge' or words to that effect.

    Well, it assumes far more than I have. When I was reading it I had my
    browser set to Google and spent more time on teh webs than with the manual.
    I got a headache. :-/ Was going to prioritise gaming traffic but it'll do
    as-is. ;)

    Hope you're well.
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 10, 2012
    #11
  12. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Kiwi wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:16:37 -0500, Malcolm
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Just configure up a small range of addresses for your dhcp network eg
    >> xxx.xxx.xxx.240 xxx.xxx.xxx.250, set your static ip's below
    >> xxx.xxx.xxx.240
    >>
    >> Can you not configure static ip's based on MAC address in the router?

    >
    > Hi Shaun,
    >
    > I would follow Malcolm's advice. That is the way my home network is
    > setup. All my servers and printers have static addresses and I have a
    > small DHCP scope available for our laptops and any guest machines.


    Thanks Kiwi, I'll look into it when I have a spare hour or two. :)

    I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but networking
    largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.

    Cheers,
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 10, 2012
    #12
  13. ~misfit~

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-10-10, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    >
    > I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but networking
    > largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.
    >

    It has been said that networking is like herding cats. It does have a steep
    learning curve and having a cetain mind set helps.
     
    Gordon, Oct 10, 2012
    #13
  14. ~misfit~

    bambam Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in news:k52ktc$g13$1@dont-
    email.me:

    > I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but networking
    > largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.


    Stanford University are running a free computer networking course-

    http://class.stanford.edu/

    Only problem, it's already started.

    --
    'A man's wealth is measured by what he doesn't need.' - H. D. Thoreau
     
    bambam, Oct 10, 2012
    #14
  15. ~misfit~

    Richard Guest

    On 10/10/2012 1:44 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
    >> On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
    >>> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
    >>> that the DHCP router allocated to them?

    >>
    >> You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
    >> them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
    >> grief.

    >
    > Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. :( I've been thinking about
    > assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do* mean odd <g>)
    > who expects DHCP.
    >
    > Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I mean,
    > USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3 periphs - however I
    > *do* have a couple eSATA docks.


    I ordered one hoping to put it to my port multiplier external case that
    I normally use on the desktop PC.

    Anyway, the thing runs hot and having it in the laptop makes a huge dent
    in the battery life. I got the one that is 54mm wide and has both esata
    ports recessed into the PC hoping that I could just leave it in there so
    I wouldnt use it.
     
    Richard, Oct 10, 2012
    #15
  16. ~misfit~

    Richard Guest

    On 10/8/2012 4:46 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a decent
    > router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact that I'd been
    > using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and had absolutely no
    > complaints until....
    >
    > Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one machine to
    > another and elected to do it via the network. Both machines are 'wired',
    > using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man it was going slowly so I
    > checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!
    >
    > Further checking resulted in the discovery that the router only supports
    > 10/100 ethernet. Am I the only person who finds that odd in a new model that
    > supports full 'n' wireless (rather than the '150n' cheapies) which is
    > supposed to top out at 300Mbps and all of the computers in daily use in the
    > house (most dated from 2006/7) have gigabit ethernet? Why would you make a
    > router that has the fastest currently available wireless then knobble it
    > with 4 ancient 10/100 ethernet ports when gigabit ethernet has been the
    > standard for nearly a decade?
    >
    > Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit 'switch'
    > and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh webs to it. I
    > dislike running multiple devices when it's possible that one could have
    > handled all that is required.
    >
    > Just stream-of-consciousness rambling, a break from endless talking about
    > Dotcom.....


    I am more disgusted that they are still selling routers that only
    support IPv4 - at a time when we already have ISPs performing carrier
    grade NAT to get customers online with the lack of available IPv4 addresses.

    Its getting to the stage where the only reliable way to get incoming
    connections will be over IPv6 yet there is still hardware being sold
    that doesnt support it.

    IMO leaving it out is something worthy of a big warning on the box.
     
    Richard, Oct 10, 2012
    #16
  17. ~misfit~

    JohnO Guest

    On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 22:48:16 UTC+13, Richard wrote:
    <snip>

    > I am more disgusted that they are still selling routers that only
    > support IPv4 - at a time when we already have ISPs performing carrier
    > grade NAT to get customers online with the lack of available IPv4 addresses.


    IPv4 routers are as cheap as chips. Why would anyone bother paying extra for IPv6 that the don't yet need?

    >
    > Its getting to the stage where the only reliable way to get incoming
    > connections will be over IPv6


    It is? Really?

    > yet there is still hardware being sold
    > that doesnt support it.
    >


    Who so far has been inconvenienced by this issue?

    >
    > IMO leaving it out is something worthy of a big warning on the box.
     
    JohnO, Oct 10, 2012
    #17
  18. ~misfit~

    David Empson Guest

    JohnO <> wrote:

    > On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 22:48:16 UTC+13, Richard wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    > > I am more disgusted that they are still selling routers that only
    > > support IPv4 - at a time when we already have ISPs performing carrier
    > > grade NAT to get customers online with the lack of available IPv4 addresses.

    >
    > IPv4 routers are as cheap as chips. Why would anyone bother paying extra
    > for IPv6 that the don't yet need?
    >
    > >
    > > Its getting to the stage where the only reliable way to get incoming
    > > connections will be over IPv6

    >
    > It is? Really?


    Not quite yet, but it can't be far off.

    There are no more full blocks of 16 million IPv4 addresses available to
    the Asia/Pacific region (or in other regions apart from Europe which has
    one left, if I remember right). When the remaining addresses in their
    current allocations run out, ISPs may be unable to get any more IPv4
    addresses, unless they can negotiate with someone who no longer needs a
    sufficiently large and contiguous range of addresses, which can be
    reassigned.

    Once the ISP can't get any more IPv4 addresses, new customers of the ISP
    would have to share a single public IPv4 address, with NAT routing being
    done at the ISP between several customers, and each customer being
    allocated a private IP address (or range of private addresses) by the
    ISP. It may reach the point where existing customers are forced into the
    same arrangement.

    Once the ISP is hosting NAT, it will be difficult to have open incoming
    IPv4 ports, e.g. you can't have two customers on the same NATted IPv4
    address both running HTTP servers on port 80, because there cannot be
    two of the same port number open on a single IP address. One of them
    would need to be assigned a different port number, which would
    complicate things for some protocols/applications.

    Outgoing connections would still be OK, since they use a dynamically
    assigned port number and the NAT router can pick an arbitrary unused
    port.

    The main impact will be on people who want to run some kind of server at
    home, which typically requires a port mapping rule in the NAT router.

    It may also affect some applications like video chat which use UPnP or
    similar protocols to request incoming ports from the NAT router. ISPs
    might choose not to support UPnP as it is a potential security risk, and
    that would prevent many applications working via IPv4.

    At the rate of consumption of new public IPv4 addresses, some ISPs in
    some countries are likely to strike this in less than a year.

    It may take longer in New Zealand, as Internet usage here isn't growing
    as fast as it is in some countries, and we may have a relatively large
    pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses. (I don't know if this sort of
    information is publically available - I expect it is commercially
    sensitive.)

    We will eventually reach a point where access to a public IPv4 address
    costs more (due to limited supply), and only those who are running
    servers at home and need IPv4 connections to them are likely to pay the
    extra fee.

    Most people will still have access to IPv4 addresses, but only for
    outgoing connections and possibly for dynamically allocated incoming
    connections via UPnP.

    If you have a router which supports IPv6, and your computers and other
    LAN-based devices also support IPv6, you can have both outgoing and
    incoming IPv6 connections, no matter what your arrangements are for an
    IPv4 address.

    As long as your ISP supports IPv6, of course. I don't think we're quite
    there yet with many of the local ISPs.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Oct 11, 2012
    #18
  19. On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:46:11 +1300, (David
    Empson) wrote:

    >If you have a router which supports IPv6, and your computers and other
    >LAN-based devices also support IPv6, you can have both outgoing and
    >incoming IPv6 connections, no matter what your arrangements are for an
    >IPv4 address.
    >
    >As long as your ISP supports IPv6, of course. I don't think we're quite
    >there yet with many of the local ISPs.


    There are several options if you want to do IPv6 right now. I am
    connected via a tunnel from my router to Hurricane electric, for free:

    http://www.tunnelbroker.net

    It seems they have 250 New Zealand users:

    http://www.tunnelbroker.net/usage/tunnels_by_country.php

    There are a number of other free IPv6 providers.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 11, 2012
    #19
  20. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > On 2012-10-10, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    >>
    >> I can (could?) build a mean computer from the ground up but
    >> networking largely still remains an arcane mystery to me.
    >>

    > It has been said that networking is like herding cats. It does have a
    > steep learning curve and having a cetain mind set helps.


    Yeah, I just don't have that mind-set unfortunately. I used to /sometimes/
    be able to get a home network up and running when I was using Win 98SE and
    originally had no trouble at all in doing so with XP. However, it seemed
    that as each service pack and update came out it got increasingly difficult
    (for me) to the point where I gave up.

    Now I have a couple Win 7 machines I've used theose to set up a half-arsed
    network as they seem to largely do it themselves. However not all of the XP
    machines are part of the network. <shrug> Still, that's a win for me. ;-)
    --
    /Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 11, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bad Dog

    Comment about Firefox

    Bad Dog, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    429
    Old Gringo
    Oct 2, 2005
  2. History Fan

    Firefox extensions comment

    History Fan, Nov 17, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    484
    History Fan
    Nov 17, 2005
  3. firemarsh
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
    firemarsh
    Jan 21, 2004
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    329
    Cadillac_Jones
    Feb 9, 2005
  5. Clogwog
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    454
    John Williamson
    Apr 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page