racketboy.com

Well that was just poor planning on your part

Negear's new Wifi 6 router has Quad-core 1.8Ghz CPU. This is mind boggling, I don't know how they compare but 10 years ago I got a computer that was was 2Ghz core2dou. It can edit video, run photoshop, full office, browse the web, play 3D games and even run virtual machines. What does a home router do with 1.8Ghz quad-core CPU?

If I took a time machine and go back to 1996 I wonder how the reaction of a Pro PC user would be when I tell him that future modems have 1.8Ghz quad-core CPUs.

For a couple of decades people have been using computers with white backgrounds, suddenly no one can live without dark mode because white backgrounds "tears their eyes".... although the extended exposure to electronic displays might have something to do with it.

RCBH928 wrote:For a couple of decades people have been using computers with white backgrounds, suddenly no one can live without dark mode because white backgrounds "tears their eyes".... although the extended exposure to electronic displays might have something to do with it.

I don't know if I have a preference between light or dark background. I prefer the default (not dark mode) because there's too many things that have a white background that you can't switch to dark mode. And switching back and forth between light and dark windows REALLY bothers my eyes, so I prefer to just keep everything light.

It’s all just about contrast and ambient lighting. People who work in dark environs will see less contrast from dark settings. People in bright environs will do better with light backgrounds. Too little or too much contrast can cause eye strain.

Not sure if I am stating the obvious, but if you are planning on expanding on your WiFi network remember that coverage>max throughput. You are really aiming at 50mbps in all areas as this speed is enough for anything, and any faster speeds is usually just to download mega big files faster. Think about installing more access points.

I fell for marketing and rave reviews of the Netgear Orbi, while I did get much faster speed in the area where the second AP is placed in truth the total coverage isn't any larger and areas with weak signal still receive from 40-80% less speeds. Orbi's dedicated 5Ghz backhaul connection with its max throughput of 800mbps+ attracted me over the cheaper option of Google Nest that shares the 2.4Ghz 400mbps for backhaul+clients, split in 2 you will still get 200mbps for your clients. The 2.4Ghz backhaul is actually an advantage because it can reach farther areas over the limited 5Ghz, which is the whole point of a mesh network.

At my current setup I have 200Mbps in one area and 30Mbps in the next. Just an advice.

A number of reviews have indicated Google Wifi actually has poorer reach and reception than Orbi. The key is ALWAYS having enough satellites and having good contact between satellites and base. Placement and numbers are key. You could always add another satellite to your Orbi setup.

Here's a good analysis of various options. I'm noticing a whole slew of new top contenders this year.

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best- ... 19-testing

Ars Technica also has some solid reviews of mesh wifi products. The long and short of it is that products are getting better every year and the top contenders keep changing as new stuff comes on the market.

marurun wrote:A number of reviews have indicated Google Wifi actually has poorer reach and reception than Orbi. The key is ALWAYS having enough satellites and having good contact between satellites and base. Placement and numbers are key. You could always add another satellite to your Orbi setup.

Here's a good analysis of various options. I'm noticing a whole slew of new top contenders this year.

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best- ... 19-testing

Ars Technica also has some solid reviews of mesh wifi products. The long and short of it is that products are getting better every year and the top contenders keep changing as new stuff comes on the market.

Networking gets complicated though, I have been compulsively tweaking the network, of the last weird and illogical things I read is that if the satellite and router are close enough you might suffer signal dropouts as they battle of airtime and hence you should lower transmission power. One would think the closer they are the stronger and better the signal is.

Would it be easier to put on the other shoe or a pair of slippers?

I saw a 4K Sony TV '43 at the store for like $500, I thought 4K was still luxury? Back in 2013 I got a '46 tv for around $1500. Is this what TVs go for now? I guess I have not been keeping up with technology. What do Expensive TVs offer more than 4K then?