Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
Yeah... it sucks, but what'ya gunna do?! As far as laptops, I have the old Inspiron 600m in use. HA, thought it was fully retired. It's lost its power panel and I see the MB below it. Plus, ITS SLOW, needs a format new install. But it's got me online. I miss my Inspiron 15. However, a few months ago I dropped it at the airport security. It worked well months later but it did have a crack. Ill get another one, maybe an Inspiron 17. I got it at dell outlet. Im sure Ill dell outlet it again. Ordered the rest of my parts to finish the build. RAN OUT OF for the SSD because I'm waiting on a check that has not been sent to me yet from a March invoice but in its place I grabbed a 1TB drive to get going. I'll certainly grab the 80GB or so SSD drive and reinstall OS if need be on it. Getting sick of seeing all those parts sitting here in the room. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: > Sorry to hear about the break-in. Hope they catch those thieves. > > On 5/10/2010 1:03 PM, GPL wrote: >> >> You guys have totally polluted my thread. LOL... >> >> I have all the parts here in house right now except for the HD which I >> will order today. I'm actually lucky to still have them. My house was >> broken into last week. We lost jewelry and my laptop and a few other >> little things but the stack of new PC equipment was never touched. I >> would still be crying if they took all that new stuff. >> >> The loss of family jewelry was tough enough to deal with. The laptop >> was bad too but I can always get another . It had a password so unless >> these are super hackers too I doubt they can login. I've gone through >> the whole identity theft process and insurance, police report process. >> What a nightmare. >> >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: >> >>> >>> haha I WEI on your face >>> >>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: >>> He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. > > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build > > 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 > gives > me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. > > It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high > side > > unless the GPU is not playing a role. > > On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: > >> >> Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it >> was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. >> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Bryan G. Seitz >>> >>> >> >> > >
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
Definitely a different target audience. I consider pfSense to be appropriate in many circumstances where something like a Cisco ASA (especially the 5505, 5510, and 5520 levels) would be a more traditional appliance solution--basically, a more corporate or enterprise requirement set. That explains the truly spectacular rules engine/interface, CARP (patent-free alternative to VRRP) stateful failover, WAN proxy ARP addresses, etc. The interface actually reminds me a great deal of a CheckPoint device--which I find appealing. That's clearly not the target for ClearOS, or even dd-wrt, as was previously mentioned. > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 6:58 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS > > ClearOS does look pretty cool, definitely more features and more hand > holding than pfsense but still neat if you need it. > (I use PfSense and it suits me fine, but no kids to censor! :) )
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
The bandwidth controls and access lists + time limts are genious items in it that help set it apart. Being able to do things like say, "youtube is blocked except between 12-1pm staff lunch hour" is great stuff. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Bryan Seitz Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 19:58:18 To: Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS ClearOS does look pretty cool, definitely more features and more hand holding than pfsense but still neat if you need it. (I use PfSense and it suits me fine, but no kids to censor! :) ) On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:32:26PM -0700, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: > Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and > still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my > little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB > ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the > kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, > running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to > internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers > and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) > software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still > running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I > used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card > running the home automation announcements, etc. > > lopaka > > > I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia > dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. > Sent via BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: maccrawj > Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 > To: > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than > a little > 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from > it, but > that's apples to oranges. > > On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > > Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't > > its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and > > foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing > > device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable > > those functions. > > > > You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind > > your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal > > of value in most implementations. > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM > >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > >> > >> I see. > >> > >> Very interesting. > >> > >> But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. > >> I would have to just use it as an AP right? > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > >> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart > >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM > >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > >> > >> pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded > >> features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to > >> smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less > >> quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar > > interface and > >> either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > >>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM > >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >>> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > >>> > >>> What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
Sometimes I think these guys have another list where they figure all this stuff out. On 5/10/2010 6:52 PM, DSinc wrote: Lopaka, UDAMan, Bro! No. I do not wish to know where you learn all this stuff? Happy that you did it! Very nice reads. Best, Duncan On 05/10/2010 18:32, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc. lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2866 - Release Date: 05/10/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
ClearOS does look pretty cool, definitely more features and more hand holding than pfsense but still neat if you need it. (I use PfSense and it suits me fine, but no kids to censor! :) ) On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:32:26PM -0700, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: > Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and > still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my > little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB > ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the > kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, > running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to > internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers > and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) > software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still > running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I > used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card > running the home automation announcements, etc. > > lopaka > > > I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia > dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. > Sent via BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: maccrawj > Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 > To: > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than > a little > 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from > it, but > that's apples to oranges. > > On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > > Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't > > its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and > > foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing > > device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable > > those functions. > > > > You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind > > your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal > > of value in most implementations. > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM > >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > >> > >> I see. > >> > >> Very interesting. > >> > >> But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. > >> I would have to just use it as an AP right? > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > >> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart > >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM > >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > >> > >> pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded > >> features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to > >> smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less > >> quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar > > interface and > >> either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > >>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM > >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >>> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > >>> > >>> What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
Lopaka, UDAMan, Bro! No. I do not wish to know where you learn all this stuff? Happy that you did it! Very nice reads. Best, Duncan On 05/10/2010 18:32, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc. lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc. lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't > its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and > foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing > device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable > those functions. > > You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind > your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal > of value in most implementations. > >> -Original Message- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs >> >> I see. >> >> Very interesting. >> >> But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. >> I would have to just use it as an AP right? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com >> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs >> >> pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded >> features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to >> smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less >> quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar > interface and >> either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar >>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >>> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs >>> >>> What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
Sorry to hear about the break-in. Hope they catch those thieves. On 5/10/2010 1:03 PM, GPL wrote: You guys have totally polluted my thread. LOL... I have all the parts here in house right now except for the HD which I will order today. I'm actually lucky to still have them. My house was broken into last week. We lost jewelry and my laptop and a few other little things but the stack of new PC equipment was never touched. I would still be crying if they took all that new stuff. The loss of family jewelry was tough enough to deal with. The laptop was bad too but I can always get another . It had a password so unless these are super hackers too I doubt they can login. I've gone through the whole identity theft process and insurance, police report process. What a nightmare. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: haha I WEI on your face On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high side unless the GPU is not playing a role. On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't > its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and > foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing > device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable > those functions. > > You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind > your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal > of value in most implementations. > >> -Original Message- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs >> >> I see. >> >> Very interesting. >> >> But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. >> I would have to just use it as an AP right? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com >> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs >> >> pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded >> features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to >> smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less >> quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar > interface and >> either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar >>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >>> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs >>> >>> What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
OK, did not know that about WEI not that I rely on it as a benchmark. Just ripped & compressed 50% with DVDFAB7, 14min. Of course if were talking handbrake I found it drags ass for some reason. On 5/9/2010 10:54 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high side unless the GPU is not playing a role. On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
Ah man that's big time fraked up! Probably meth heads on a run for stuff that sells quick. With any luck the jewelry will lead the police to the pawn shop where they offload it. The identity theft thing is major good idea as are rotating any passwords that might be remembered by the laptop since you don't have to log in to get it's data assuming no encryption. Scum of the earth, lower than lawyers and telemarketers! On 5/10/2010 11:03 AM, GPL wrote: You guys have totally polluted my thread. LOL... I have all the parts here in house right now except for the HD which I will order today. I'm actually lucky to still have them. My house was broken into last week. We lost jewelry and my laptop and a few other little things but the stack of new PC equipment was never touched. I would still be crying if they took all that new stuff. The loss of family jewelry was tough enough to deal with. The laptop was bad too but I can always get another . It had a password so unless these are super hackers too I doubt they can login. I've gone through the whole identity theft process and insurance, police report process. What a nightmare. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: haha I WEI on your face On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high side unless the GPU is not playing a role. On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
GPL, So sorry to hear of your loss. This now hardens me to even harder security! Damnit! What is wrong with America? Best, Duncan On 05/10/2010 14:03, GPL wrote: You guys have totally polluted my thread. LOL... I have all the parts here in house right now except for the HD which I will order today. I'm actually lucky to still have them. My house was broken into last week. We lost jewelry and my laptop and a few other little things but the stack of new PC equipment was never touched. I would still be crying if they took all that new stuff. The loss of family jewelry was tough enough to deal with. The laptop was bad too but I can always get another . It had a password so unless these are super hackers too I doubt they can login. I've gone through the whole identity theft process and insurance, police report process. What a nightmare. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: haha I WEI on your face On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high side unless the GPU is not playing a role. On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
You guys have totally polluted my thread. LOL... I have all the parts here in house right now except for the HD which I will order today. I'm actually lucky to still have them. My house was broken into last week. We lost jewelry and my laptop and a few other little things but the stack of new PC equipment was never touched. I would still be crying if they took all that new stuff. The loss of family jewelry was tough enough to deal with. The laptop was bad too but I can always get another . It had a password so unless these are super hackers too I doubt they can login. I've gone through the whole identity theft process and insurance, police report process. What a nightmare. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: > > haha I WEI on your face > > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: >> He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >> > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj >> > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM >> > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> > Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build >> > >> > 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives >> > me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. >> > >> > It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high >> side >> > unless the GPU is not playing a role. >> > >> > On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: >> > > Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it >> > > was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. >> > > -- > > Bryan G. Seitz >
Re: [H] Powerline adapter (rather than wireless N)
I've used a few a scrapped all of them. Very slooow and intermittently glitchy. I still have a couple sitting at home somewhere. lopaka From: Anthony Q. Martin To: The Hardware List Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 6:22:18 AM Subject: [H] Powerline adapter (rather than wireless N) Since I have both Tivo and a Blu-ray player downstairs, I'm think that perhaps a powerline adapter would be a better option. That way, I could connect both devices over a powerline network rather than using a special adapter for Tivo and nothing for the Blu-ray. And, if I get an XBox or something like that, I have a ready solution for networking. From some reading, the logic goes that a wired ethernet connection is best, followed by a powerline connect, and then a wireless connection. Is that true? I live in a two story house, so one wondering if the wiring is truly connected between the levels. Anyone played with one? I guess I can be the tester... - So I hear that Tivo now has an 802.11n wireless adapter. I get spoiled watching HD movies from Amazon on my Tivo XL. Having the speed of 802.11n would make the transfers faster. But my laptops are 802.11b and g. Will they work on an 802.11n system? Are the backward compaticable? Would my new phone (Droid Incredible), when I get it, be able to use 802.11n on its WiFi? What about an iPad? Is everything new these days 802.11n ready? I just read the descriptions of two different products on Amazon and neither of them mentioned backwards compatibility. That makes me think it's not there. If it is there, which router is best?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > I see. > > Very interesting. > > But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. > I would have to just use it as an AP right? > > > > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded > features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to > smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less > quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and > either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. > > > -Original Message- > > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > > > What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? > > > > > >
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
haha I WEI on your face On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: > He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7. > > > -Original Message- > > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build > > > > 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives > > me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. > > > > It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high > side > > unless the GPU is not playing a role. > > > > On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: > > > Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it > > > was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. > -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 01:07:25AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: > I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N "router" (which I use as > nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have to run dual > frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. > > I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or > firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut will > allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements. Agreed. And I just use mine as a wireless bridge anyway, I don't care what it runs. If I used it as a router in a public place or some other specialized situation I would definitely want dd-wrt. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? > >
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? > >
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:00 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs 1. That's why I run the N in N-only mode and have another b/g WAP in a non-overlapping channel. Same basic concept as dual radio. Point remains that you can exceed 100mbit on N gear fairly easily. 2. Yes, compared to the features, robustness, and performance of pfSense, dd-wrt based appliances are garbage. To suggest otherwise is "loony". > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:23 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > 1. If you don't run a 2 radio setup, then non-N devices will kill the 240mb > speed. > 2. Garbage, LOL, OK next loony please! > > > On 5/9/2010 11:07 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: > > I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N "router" (which I > > use as nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have > > to run dual frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. > > > > I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or > > firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut > > will allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
1. That's why I run the N in N-only mode and have another b/g WAP in a non-overlapping channel. Same basic concept as dual radio. Point remains that you can exceed 100mbit on N gear fairly easily. 2. Yes, compared to the features, robustness, and performance of pfSense, dd-wrt based appliances are garbage. To suggest otherwise is "loony". > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:23 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs > > 1. If you don't run a 2 radio setup, then non-N devices will kill the 240mb > speed. > 2. Garbage, LOL, OK next loony please! > > > On 5/9/2010 11:07 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: > > I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N "router" (which I > > use as nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have > > to run dual frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. > > > > I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or > > firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut > > will allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements.
Re: [H] Powerline adapter (rather than wireless N)
All of the wifi bridges I have seen just support one device on the other end...and I'm not sure it would really solve the problems with wireless dropping out (I don't know if it is a tivo problem or a wireless problem, as the tivo will drop while the wireless PC are still going)...that's half the problem...and the other is just lack of speed on HD downloads (amazon) and file transfers from tivo to PC. Dropping a wire down through a wall into a crawl space on the other end of the house and then running under the house is a major pain. I did that for my rear speakers in my big room, but that was just across one room and the crawl space there is easy to get to. There is much less room on the computer end of the house...Powerline adapters, if they work, is more than a sufficient solution. If they work, which we'll see soon enough. On 5/10/2010 8:30 AM, maccrawj wrote: A wifi bridge is just that and there are more than a few out there. AFAIK, take an old WRT54G(S) w/ dd-wrt & it can be setup to work in reverse as a client/bridge instead of an AP/Router. Don't know if that's going to work better than simply putting the devices on the wifi directly though. IMHO it does not take major construction to run a single drop across a basement & up through the floor in most houses, YMMV. 99% of the time that's what I wold do, the other 1% I simply run wire around edges of room! ;) Let us know how it works out On 5/10/2010 4:54 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: What I really need (if the powerline is no good) is a wireless link down there and then that out to ethernet portsis there a product that does that? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2864 - Release Date: 05/09/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] Powerline adapter (rather than wireless N)
A wifi bridge is just that and there are more than a few out there. AFAIK, take an old WRT54G(S) w/ dd-wrt & it can be setup to work in reverse as a client/bridge instead of an AP/Router. Don't know if that's going to work better than simply putting the devices on the wifi directly though. IMHO it does not take major construction to run a single drop across a basement & up through the floor in most houses, YMMV. 99% of the time that's what I wold do, the other 1% I simply run wire around edges of room! ;) Let us know how it works out On 5/10/2010 4:54 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: What I really need (if the powerline is no good) is a wireless link down there and then that out to ethernet portsis there a product that does that?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
1. If you don't run a 2 radio setup, then non-N devices will kill the 240mb speed. 2. Garbage, LOL, OK next loony please! On 5/9/2010 11:07 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N "router" (which I use as nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have to run dual frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut will allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I hate to be a hater...but I seriously don't want to get any more apple stuff over my lifetime. I have too many ipods as it is and I just don't like how they keep it all locked down. And since they got in bed with AT&T and locked me out of an iPhone upgrade, I'm going to become a loyal Android fan...I'll get the Incredible Phone and whatever slate computer that comes out with the Android OS...that'll show em! I have a feeling I'll be better offuntil, of course, it comes time to be hatein on Google (I hope that time is not now)... On 5/10/2010 12:41 AM, maccrawj wrote: Make sure you read up on it vs. the linksys WRT610's! Oh, and screw apple anything for various reason even if they poop gold eggs! On 5/9/2010 5:24 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil& Gas Division Oil& Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more "proper". On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, "Too bad the storage is so slow, though." ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer& better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.c
Re: [H] Powerline adapter (rather than wireless N)
This stuff ought to be here by Wednesday, so I'll test it out and give a report in terms of performance. I certainly don't expect it to be a good as Gb Ethernet, but it cost way less in a house built in 1988. And my experience with wireless has not be stellar...too many drops on the wireless to the tivo, even when the PC wireless network is working. I'm hoping for both an improvement in speed and reliability with the wired powerline network. If the legs aren't connected then I'll know quickly and just return the parts to amazon. When I'll just get the new wireless N Tivo adapter, though that is not at all a good solution since the other items will not have 'net access. What I really need (if the powerline is no good) is a wireless link down there and then that out to ethernet portsis there a product that does that? On 5/10/2010 12:28 AM, maccrawj wrote: I just looked quickly and did not find a definitive answer as to which conductor carries the signal. Neutral being tied to earth ground at the SE would likely eat the signal IMO. From what I've seen over the past 30 years with X10 "carrier current operated switches" they have the Achilles heel that signals do not travel between the two "legs" of power feed without an active 220V device running or a signal coupler added at the mains service panel to join the legs. PNA's would not be a panacea given that line noise would be an issue, this has been very true of X10 remote control systems. Best bet is still a single CAT 6 or 5E drop terminating at Gb Ethernet switch to feed the devices. Of course it really depends on how much throughput you need and if latency plays a role as to if power line or wireless bridge makes more sense. On 5/8/2010 6:46 AM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, Your wiring should be; IF you only have a single breaker panel/load center. I am not familiar with powerline adapters. I would hope that it uses the AC Neutral (white) power line because all the white wires should be tied together at the commoning bus. JMHO. Best, Duncan No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2864 - Release Date: 05/09/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build
This box is running Vista not Win7 so the score only goes up to 5.9 tops. On 5/9/2010 11:33 PM, maccrawj wrote: 5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1. It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high side unless the GPU is not playing a role. On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote: Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance. CoolNQuiet is enabled and AMD Turbo Core may or may not work as I've not placed that big a load on it yet. I'm crunching down a 7.5 gig DVD movie to 700 MB's and it's ETA is 27 minutes. All 6 cores are being used and processor usage is around 50 %. Default vcore is 1.2750 at 2.8 GHz and I haven't tried overclocking because frankly I'm not interested. It's fast enough as it is but most people are reporting 4.2 GHz stable on air cooling with 1.5 or 1.55 volts. Real nice so far and I couldn't be more pleased.
