Wireless v wired internet

penrhyn

Some very unique posts on this thread.

Moneymaker

penrhyn wrote: »

Some very unique posts on this thread.

That's taut. It's either unique or it isn't. You don't need to say "very unique" any more than you need to say "very boiling water".

spud17

I literally died laughing at some of the posts on this thread.

splot_2

Thanks for taking the time to respond everyone. And aren't some of the responses quite......unique?!


If seems like the answer to my question is yes, as long as you use the right terminology!

Since posting, I've had a superhub 2 installed and so far there has been a small increase in download speed on the ipad using 5ghz compared to 2.4ghz.

If I chose the slowest virgin broadband if would be 60Mb (is that correct terminology?), and would save me the grand total of £3 per month so I kept the 100Mb.

John_Gray

Surely the only practical use for these faster cable speeds is to download Windows Updates more rapidly?

vacheron

I'll second "I have spoken"s post about using the 5GHz bandwidth if you can. I get 80-90Mbps using 5gig that but struggle to reach 30 in the 2.4GHz band.

I have a Virgin SuperHub 2 which allows both bands to be used simultaneously, but the SuperHub 1 only allowed one or the other which was a pain as almost every device I had could use 5 gig except my iPhone 4 which I had back then!

The only place I can get the full 158Gbps my broadband can provide is a directly wired connection, but remember that unless you have gigabit switches and LAN cards in the PC's you won't reach the full potential of any >100mbit broadband service even over a wired connection!

Personally I don't need the download speed but have it for the faster upload speed the 158Mbps service gives. Dropping to 60 would drop my upload from 10Mbps to 3... And we can't get infinity here yet.

Gratis

RumRat wrote: »

I guess it's an age thing. I doubt anyone, including you, were confused in anyway.
Nurse will be along to tuck you in soon.....;)

Well, I guess you wouldn’t mind if you were in hospital yourself, RumRat, and Nurse gave you 8 times the correct dosage of your medication because the doctor who prescribed it was a wee bit careless in using the correct terminology when he wrote it.

Still, if it was your rum ration, I imagine you would get very pleasantly confused. :beer:



But I, for one, do think precision in terminology is important.

So, I’m really grateful to Ainsley1 for setting the record straight for all of us with his authoritative posting.

And it was most illuminating. I may be old but I’m always up for discovering something new.

For example, I knew that a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in standard trim can pull 55 knots if needed, and even approach 70 knots with speed propellors fitted, but I never realised until Ainsley1 explained it for us today that this was 55 nautical miles a second.

Ainsley1 wrote: »

It may seem unnecessary to use the correct terminology but it avoids confusion.

I always cringe when I hear the likes of Top Gear presenters mention things like 'goes at a rate of knots' meaning a fast speed. Do they not realise knots (a nautical mile per second) is already a rate/speed so a 'rate of knots' is really akin to acceleration........mmm perhaps that's what they meant????

Wow! That’s 198,000 nautical miles an hour – 227,855 mph – and supersonic: indeed, it’s Mach 300. So, since 1975, The United States has had aircraft carriers that can cross the Atlantic in 58 seconds and circumnavigate the globe in 7 minutes. I never realised that. It's mightily impressive, isn't it?

I mean, just think; kwikbreaks, could pop home and play with his kiwi every lunchtime.

It does, for me, nonetheless, raise the naggingly pedantic question of how you land a Mach 2 jet on a carrier going at Mach 300, especially at night, but I expect Ainsley1 or somebody else on here will kindly explain it in due course. That's the joy of this forum.

As RumRat points out, nobody gets confused when people use the wrong terminology and measurements, do they? :huh:

RumRat

As RumRat points out, nobody gets confused when people use the wrong terminology and measurements, do they?

Not so precise in your understanding here then?
That is not what I said. Perhaps you should reconsider the educational role you have taken upon yourself. Long way to fall from that pedestal.....;)

Gratis

RumRat wrote: »

Not so precise in your understanding here then?
That is not what I said. Perhaps you should reconsider the educational role you have taken upon yourself. Long way to fall from that pedestal.....;)

Sorry; my tongue was in my cheek, rather than my Bacardi, when I wrote that one, RumRat.

Chill out. :cool:

RumRat

Very chilled thanks..:snow_laug...FWIW I treat all of your post as tongue in cheek. No one could be that serious....;)