On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:53:26 -0400, Ben Myers
<ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote:
>Wireless is not reliable when there are 8 or 9 active wifi access points in
>range in a neighborhood (seen this twice in the last 3 months), or when line of
>sight between computer and access point has lots of metal, active microwave
>appliances, portable phones or cellphones.
>
I have this scenario and have no problems to date. Perhaps you are
not set up correctly???
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:59:53 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:53:26 -0400, Ben Myers
><ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Wireless is not reliable when there are 8 or 9 active wifi access points in
>>range in a neighborhood (seen this twice in the last 3 months), or when line of
>>sight between computer and access point has lots of metal, active microwave
>>appliances, portable phones or cellphones.
>>
>
>I have this scenario and have no problems to date. Perhaps you are
>not set up correctly???
Just to add to this post aside from set up parameters, I think(???)
I've read it could also have to do with brands of equipment in regard
to interference from certain electronics. I don't think it's a
constant (well it's not with my home which has 2 stories worth of
tv's, phones almost in almost every room, walls, etc...). My signal
does vary during the day/nite but I don't lose the signal (knock on
wood).
Come to think of it, my sister in laws (2 of them) each have a new
home (one story) in the same subdivision and both of them can't use
their cell phones in their homes most of the time (I think it has to
do with the construction of the home) so I wonder if this would
interfere with a wireless router too?? I realize tho the signals from
the cell phones and wireless router may differ. My point too is that
perhaps the construction of the home (even if old.. ie: plumbing comes
to mind) might have some effect on the signals such as you have
recently experienced??? My home is about 10 years old (2 story)
while my sister in laws' homes are about 2 years old (1 story) and I
have no problem using a cell phone in my home but they have in theirs.
These radio waves all operate in mysterious ways. I suspect voodoo or other
evil powers at work. Maybe if one wears a necklace of garlic cloves? But not
in singles bars... Ben Myers
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:11:49 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:59:53 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:53:26 -0400, Ben Myers
>><ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Wireless is not reliable when there are 8 or 9 active wifi access points in
>>>range in a neighborhood (seen this twice in the last 3 months), or when line of
>>>sight between computer and access point has lots of metal, active microwave
>>>appliances, portable phones or cellphones.
>>>
>>
>>I have this scenario and have no problems to date. Perhaps you are
>>not set up correctly???
>
>
>Just to add to this post aside from set up parameters, I think(???)
>I've read it could also have to do with brands of equipment in regard
>to interference from certain electronics. I don't think it's a
>constant (well it's not with my home which has 2 stories worth of
>tv's, phones almost in almost every room, walls, etc...). My signal
>does vary during the day/nite but I don't lose the signal (knock on
>wood).
>
>Come to think of it, my sister in laws (2 of them) each have a new
>home (one story) in the same subdivision and both of them can't use
>their cell phones in their homes most of the time (I think it has to
>do with the construction of the home) so I wonder if this would
>interfere with a wireless router too?? I realize tho the signals from
>the cell phones and wireless router may differ. My point too is that
>perhaps the construction of the home (even if old.. ie: plumbing comes
>to mind) might have some effect on the signals such as you have
>recently experienced??? My home is about 10 years old (2 story)
>while my sister in laws' homes are about 2 years old (1 story) and I
>have no problem using a cell phone in my home but they have in theirs.
> Come to think of it, my sister in laws (2 of them) each have a new
> home (one story) in the same subdivision and both of them can't use
> their cell phones in their homes most of the time (I think it has to
> do with the construction of the home) so I wonder if this would
> interfere with a wireless router too??
Not sure what you call it in the US (sheet rock?), but some varieties
of plasterboard have a foil vapour barrier that will block radio
signals.
I've noticed the wireless "land line" DECT style phones can also cause
big problems with wifi (friend of my wife couldn't get hers working
reliably, and I kept getting called in to fix it. My first question
was do the neighbours have these **** things "no"... well, after
several repeated sodding visits to try to sort it out, there's her
neighbour sat on the front step with a DECT phone (the houses are
terraced, not detached, again, not sure what you call them in the US)
>>> [Snipped, also, to get to the meat of the occult part of this]
>>Just to add to this post aside from set up parameters, I think(???)
>>I've read it could also have to do with brands of equipment in regard
>>to interference from certain electronics. I don't think it's a
>>constant (well it's not with my home which has 2 stories worth of
>>tv's, phones almost in almost every room, walls, etc...). My signal
>>does vary during the day/nite but I don't lose the signal (knock on
>>wood).
>>
>>Come to think of it, my sister in laws (2 of them) each have a new
>>home (one story) in the same subdivision and both of them can't use
>>their cell phones in their homes most of the time (I think it has to
>>do with the construction of the home) so I wonder if this would
>>interfere with a wireless router too?? I realize tho the signals from
>>the cell phones and wireless router may differ. My point too is that
>>perhaps the construction of the home (even if old.. ie: plumbing comes
>>to mind) might have some effect on the signals such as you have
>>recently experienced??? My home is about 10 years old (2 story)
>>while my sister in laws' homes are about 2 years old (1 story) and I
>>have no problem using a cell phone in my home but they have in theirs.
>These radio waves all operate in mysterious ways. I suspect voodoo or other
>evil powers at work. Maybe if one wears a necklace of garlic cloves? But not
>in singles bars... Ben Myers
A necklace of garlic beats the heck out of the alternative -
chicken blood all over your computer and wireless modem/router.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:54:21 -0400, Ogden Johnson III
<oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>These radio waves all operate in mysterious ways. I suspect voodoo or other
>>evil powers at work. Maybe if one wears a necklace of garlic cloves? But not
>>in singles bars... Ben Myers
>
>A necklace of garlic beats the heck out of the alternative -
>chicken blood all over your computer and wireless modem/router.
>
>--
>OJ III
"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:C6BF2D58AE934331A14B73FE1F1BA03A@M2010...
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Red Squirrel [mailto:invalid@thisis.invalid]
>> Posted At: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:39 PM
>> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
>> Conversation: Windows XP or Vista?
>> Subject: RE: Windows XP or Vista?
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:C5583046C67341AA8D3FE5D5667A1741@M2010:
>>
>> > Doing what? I have much less powerful machines running Vista just
>> > fine. For his parents, I'm guessing he doesn't need incredible
> power,
>> > unless his Mom is into complex FPS games.
>> >
>>
>> Just every day stuff really. It just doesn't have the snappyness of
>> XP.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Red Squirrel
>
> I guess I just have lower standards
>
XP is much faster than Vista Ultimate. I can say that for sure since I have
both, and Vista has the better hardware.
-Pete
"S.Lewis" <Gossamer@interesting.com> wrote in message
news:tGERj.24677$3v1.589@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:OtERj.3327$WS1.646@trndny04...
>> Christopher Muto wrote:
>>> "Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4UuRj.215$1m3.108@trndny02...
>>>> Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>>> "Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:NcuRj.1107$Bd1.1090@trndny09...
>>>>>> Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bob, so what are you saying, you recommend vista over xp? can you
>>>>>>> tell us why? thanks.
>>>>>> What I'm saying is that I don't NOT recommend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> i suppose you also don't not recommend xp?
>>>>> so, to answer the op's question, what would you recommend?
>>>> Go back and read my original response.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> you mean the one where you do not recommend vista on a 'budget' machine.
>>> got it. but that seems a little bit like you actually not recomending
>>> it (rather than not not recommending it).
>>
>> Here's the thing. None of us can tell him what's right for him. My main
>> point has been that most of the negativity surrounding Vista is coming
>> from people that have never tried it or have tried to run it on budget
>> systems.
>>
>> On capable hardware there's nothing wrong with it. And that's from real
>> experience trying it both ways.
>>
>> Bob
>
>
>
> 'Most of the negativity surrounding Vista is coming from people that have
> never tried it or have tried to run it on budget systems'.
>
> Uhm. No. Let us roll back the clock to little more than a year ago,
> February of 2007:
>
> (paste)
>
> For example, one February 2007 exchange (PDF, 17 pages) started with an
> e-mail to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer from board member Jon Shirley, who
> explained that he upgraded one of his computers to Windows Vista only to
> find it was experiencing compatibility problems with two of Microsoft's
> own MSN applications. Shirley wasn't upgrading his other computer because
> of a lack of hardware drivers. As many early Windows Vista users know,
> Shirley wasn't the only one experiencing those kinds of problems,
> especially in the initial months after release.
>
> In addition to some of the previously reported excerpts -- including
> executive Mike Nash's complaint that compatibility problems turned his
> $2,100 PC into nothing more than an "email machine" -- that thread led to
> a revealing message from Steven Sinofsky, then the newly installed Windows
> chief. In the message, Sinofsky offered his take on what went wrong with
> Windows Vista's launch, and how the company should change its approach in
> the future.
>
> (end)
>
> http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/m...ves/132891.asp
>
> Unless one considers an MS executive's "$2100.00" machine a budget
> machine?
>
> It was broken from the start, and it may be "better" now, but it's still
> broken. And for the apologists who attempt to suggest that the WinXP
> launch experienced "the same kind of problems" when it launched, I say,
> "********".
>
> Microsoft knew Vista was broken. So did Intel. So did all the OEM's. But
> the ship had already sailed. They put lipstick on the pig put the spin
> machine into overdrive then crossed their fingers and prayed no one would
> notice.
>
> They were wrong. What this OS does to perfectly capable hardware is
> criminal.
>
>
> Stew
>
>
I run Vista on a Dell overclocked quad core 4gb machine, and it's still not
as snappy as XP on my older machine.
Never mind what we call them. Sometimes I don't even know myself. And
different regions speak different dialects with different words for the same
things here, too, although we are all conditioned to the mostly standard
American broadcasters dialect spoken at us by the telly. We get your drift...
Ben Myers
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:46:24 +0100, Colin Wilson
<REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
>> Come to think of it, my sister in laws (2 of them) each have a new
>> home (one story) in the same subdivision and both of them can't use
>> their cell phones in their homes most of the time (I think it has to
>> do with the construction of the home) so I wonder if this would
>> interfere with a wireless router too??
>
>Not sure what you call it in the US (sheet rock?), but some varieties
>of plasterboard have a foil vapour barrier that will block radio
>signals.
>
>I've noticed the wireless "land line" DECT style phones can also cause
>big problems with wifi (friend of my wife couldn't get hers working
>reliably, and I kept getting called in to fix it. My first question
>was do the neighbours have these **** things "no"... well, after
>several repeated sodding visits to try to sort it out, there's her
>neighbour sat on the front step with a DECT phone (the houses are
>terraced, not detached, again, not sure what you call them in the US)
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:46:24 +0100, Colin Wilson
<REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
>> Come to think of it, my sister in laws (2 of them) each have a new
>> home (one story) in the same subdivision and both of them can't use
>> their cell phones in their homes most of the time (I think it has to
>> do with the construction of the home) so I wonder if this would
>> interfere with a wireless router too??
>
>Not sure what you call it in the US (sheet rock?), but some varieties
>of plasterboard have a foil vapour barrier that will block radio
>signals.
>
You're pretty smart Colin being over the pond as that is what I
told one of my sister in laws when I remembered seeing her house
constructed (Texas, USA) and they used that foil stuff on the
perimeter. Mine doesn't have it. That was the only thing I could
think of when we discussed her cell phone woes in her home.
Re: Windows XP or Vista? 
Linear Mode
