Vanilla 1.1.5a is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
traci. some approximate connection speeds (for comparison):
dial-up = 56 kbps
standard dsl = 150-300 kbps
cable = 3 mbps
fiber in provo = 10 mbps
local area wireless connection = 54 mbps or less (most are 11...)
local area network (connecting my computer to another one with an ethernet cable) = 100 mbps
usb 2 (direct connection) = 480 mbps
if you've got dsl that's faster than a local area network, you're getting a freekin' good deal. unfortunately, you'll need to get a special card so you can hook your computer into it. because your laptop isn't equipped to handle anything over 100 mbps.
wow. so in other words...quit complaining?
Um... I believe he was being a bit sarcastic there. In other words, the best internet connection I have seen yet in the US is 10mbps. If somebody made you believe that you were going to get 150mbps, they were lying to you. A lot.
My guess is that your DSL is 1.5mbps download and 500k or 750kbps upload. In any case, the bottleneck will not be with your wireless connection at 54mbps, it will be with your internet connection.
And finally, 54mbps wireless connection if 802.11g, the most common standard. Unless both your wireless router and your wireless card are rockstars (meaning pre-N... aka expensive) you are only supposed to be getting 54mbps.
Is that making any sense? Let this picture illustrate.
Laptop -------54mbps(fast)------------router-------------1.5mbps(40x slower)--------Internet
um. not a picture, buzz.
now i'm just confused. honestly, i'm not too concerned with the connection speed...when i'm connected. the biggest problem is that the wireless connection keeps dropping, and i think it's because i bought a cheap router back in the day. so...um...thanks for the input? [Emoticon not found]
nice new avatar....
glad you approve [Emoticon not found]
bobthecow:cable = 3 mbps
Doesn't cable go up to 6 mbps?
popthestack:bobthecow:cable = 3 mbps
Doesn't cable go up to 6 mbps?
some of it does... average speed is still three mbps, i think.
Well, if you want to get technical... cable is more than capable of handling bandwidth > 100 mbps. It is basically being artificially limited (and only a small portion of that is reserved for TV use) for other reasons.
Anyway, Traci, there could be a number of reasons your connection drops. I would recommend trying to bribe some poor college computer nerd into helping you out.
i'm going to see if i can get a good wireless router cheap at an after thanksgiving sale. (:shudders at thought of rabid crowds[Emoticon not found] and i think my wireless card is part of the problem too. so we'll see what happens after i get a new router.
and for future reference, my choice of bribe will be pie. an entire deep-dish homemade apple pie. just so you know. [Emoticon not found]
how come when i add a new user to my computer as a "limited" account, they can't access many of the programs on the c drive? (microsoft office, adobe photoshop specifically.) any ideas on how to fix this? the guest account does the same thing
Just off the top of my head, I don't know. What does it do when you try to run those?
word starts asking for the installation disks, but when you put them in, of course, it then says that you don't have the rights to install programs. photoshop says you don't have the rights to install programs as well. (which is silly because the programs are already installed)
It's probably file permissions. Limited accounts are pretty much useless in Winblows XP.
It might want to write temp files, or not be installed for all users.
Part of the problem is lazy application writers who assume you can do whatever you want and that there's only a single user with admin access always enabled.
speck is most likely right.
temporarily upgrade the limited account to a full account, run all the apps you want enabled, then put it back to limited.
k. thanks!
the user account permission stuff has apparently been fixed in Vista... though I haven't actually used Vista so I don't really know.
Maybe, but device driver support still sucks.
That's funny coming from someone who uses Linux...
It's a good point though. Why pay >$160 for buggy drivers when Linux is free?
Solutions to common problems for common platforms are more likely to show up in Linux
Not to mention the fact that Linux has more device driver support out-of-the box than any other OS there is. Plus, if there isn't a driver, you can write your own! (Or just find someone else who did)
Buzz:Not to mention the fact that Linux has more device driver support out-of-the box than any other OS there is. Plus, if there isn't a driver, you can write your own! (Or just find someone else who did)
Linux has more device driver support out-of-the box than any other OS?
Is that why it was a total pain to get Ubuntu to recognize my monitor? Oh wait, I gave up and deleted my linux partition.
Besides, most of the issues with Windows Vista have been resolved (which were mostly 3rd parties not releasing updates), or so I hear on the podcasts I listen to. I still haven't used it.
Write your own driver? haha. That's funny. And people wonder why the masses aren't flocking to Linux.
popthestack:Linux has more device driver support out-of-the box than any other OS?
I haven't seen many "boxed" copies of Linux, but Buzz is right about more driver support on the install disks. All sorts of random drivers are crammed onto those disks, whereas you'd need to pull out your hardware specific driver discs to get most boxes functional in any version of Windoze.
fanboy.
bobthecow:fanboy.
Isn't the new internet-lingo "fanboi", with an 'i'? I never understood that. Too 1337 for me I guess.
popthestack:Linux has more device driver support out-of-the box than any other OS?
Yep. Oh, and SpecK, out-of-the-box is a figure of speech. It's all determined in the kernel. You can compile it in, compile as a module to be linked in when needed, or exclude it. You should build your own kernel, it's kind of fun!
popthestack:Is that why it was a total pain to get Ubuntu to recognize my monitor? Oh wait, I gave up and deleted my linux partition.
I have both XP and Vista, and they both recognized one of my monitors, but not the other. Linux got both of them. [Emoticon not found]
popthestack:Besides, most of the issues with Windows Vista have been resolved (which were mostly 3rd parties not releasing updates), or so I hear on the podcasts I listen to. I still haven't used it.
So what's the problem. VERY few 3rd parties release anything for Linux. Most of it is homebrew stuff. Which, if you ask me, is 100 times better. That way you get rid of all the crappy device-driver restrictions that proprietary drivers place on hardware. One of my computer pet-peeves is software that limits hardware. So backwards and stupid....
popthestack:Write your own driver? haha. That's funny. And people wonder why the masses aren't flocking to Linux.
Some are not that hard. But you do have to know what you are doing. It's actually quite fun! But, most people will choose the other option, find somebody else who did it. I have only come across 2 pieces of hardware I was unable to get to work with Linux (which, ironically, didn't work in Vista either)