Which is best dsl or cable?

rockdrummer said:
I don't think he means suck or struck.. I think he meant to say "stuck"
yes It's mistype.
 
My current cable is Adelphia but companies would change in all Comcast or Time Warner over California in this summer. Comcast and Time Warner were already bought to takeover all Adelphia cable.
 
Not always means wrong???? I think you need to re-read what I said! I said NOT ALWAYS, means sometimes DSL can be faster than Cable, I have seen and tested.

TrippLA said:
You're wrong, DSL is slower than cable does but much faster than dial-up... I just prefer to get cable over DSL because I used had DSL before and don't like it. I just switiched into cable and much better, more faster than DSL.

For fact, DSL will get more and more slower if it too far away from telephone companies.
 
This ISN'T true. Most of residential internet connections use Dynamic IP addresses. In fact most people wants Static IP address, that way they could run "business" and having the ISP losing money on your broadband, they don't want that. If you want Static IP address, sure but you halfa to pay at least 3x more. There is no way you can make it totally private. Hackers STILL can hack in DSL line anyway! It is the user end's responsiblity to protect their equipment. One way to make your IP invisible to disable the "Ping reply" in your router or your network configuration. Not 100% fool proof. There is more than just disable the ping, but it is one way to do it.

XBGMER said:
Did you know that you all using cable (hi-speed internet) which are share and merge without your privacy ip address?? Cable dont have any Dynamic IP Address for every individual. anyway, it is dangerous to you, if anyone who using cable to share/merge with others for 24/365 without escape from that, they have good chance to access as hack to break it in your computer. because they can trace your ip address is more easy than dsl.. your cable ip address is always same ip code as same-virus code forever. dsl is more ip address privacy, when you turn dsl offline and turn online. Dynamic IP Address is automatically change ip-address, but depend on various dsl packages what you looking for. Most DSL using Dynamic IP Address.
 
diehardbiker65 said:
This ISN'T true. Most of residential internet connections use Dynamic IP addresses. In fact most people wants Static IP address, that way they could run "business" and having the ISP losing money on your broadband, they don't want that. If you want Static IP address, sure but you halfa to pay at least 3x more. There is no way you can make it totally private. Hackers STILL can hack in DSL line anyway! It is the user end's responsiblity to protect their equipment. One way to make your IP invisible to disable the "Ping reply" in your router or your network configuration. Not 100% fool proof. There is more than just disable the ping, but it is one way to do it.
That's right DHB. For any broadband connection (DSL, CABLE, Microwave etc) you are "always on" so you need to protect yourself with a hardware firewall and install anti-virus software on your systems. A way to make your IP address invisible is to disable ICMP on your firewall. You can also use NAT (network address translation) which will change your address as your traffic passes through the NATting device.
 
I guess no one to read all the posts.

I need your opinion. I just want to know if it is a possible for me to set up a router and install a 100 feet? I plan to have a small screened gazebo. I like to fresh air and focus on my computer in the gazebo without anyone around me. I am not so sure if it is available power that could reach to the gazebo from my house. I am not interested to use a wireless device. Any thought?
 
webexplorer said:
I guess no one to read all the posts.

I need your opinion. I just want to know if it is a possible for me to set up a router and install a 100 feet? I plan to have a small screened gazebo. I like to fresh air and focus on my computer in the gazebo without anyone around me. I am not so sure if it is available power that could reach to the gazebo from my house. I am not interested to use a wireless device. Any thought?
Yes you can run ethernet cable up to 100 meters which is just over 300 feet. So you can run your ethernet cable from your router out to your gazebo. That should work fine.
 
rockdrummer said:
Yes you can run ethernet cable up to 100 meters which is just over 300 feet. So you can run your ethernet cable from your router out to your gazebo. That should work fine.

oh, that sounds great! I have two questions:

(1) Which one should I buy a 10/100 Mbps or a Gigabit?

(2) I am confused what is the different between a router and a network switch?

I don't remember what is my 3rd question.
 
100 feet wired ethernet to your Gazebo? I would say it is possible if my memory serves right. I think 240 feet is maximum length without any booster. I'd stay away from wireless for now.

webexplorer said:
I guess no one to read all the posts.

I need your opinion. I just want to know if it is a possible for me to set up a router and install a 100 feet? I plan to have a small screened gazebo. I like to fresh air and focus on my computer in the gazebo without anyone around me. I am not so sure if it is available power that could reach to the gazebo from my house. I am not interested to use a wireless device. Any thought?
 
Gigabit would be overkill anyway, so if Gigabit router cost much more than 10/100mbps router then forget gigabit! I don't see any value in Gigabit at this time. None of PC is fast enough to handle 1,000 MBPS, so its no point here. :)

Whats more, since cable modem handles around 5mbps, why need 1,000 mbps? You'd be fine with VP even at .5mbps

webexplorer said:
oh, that sounds great! I have two questions:

(1) Which one should I buy a 10/100 Mbps or a Gigabit?

(2) I am confused what is the different between a router and a network switch?

I don't remember what is my 3rd question.
 
diehardbiker65 said:
Gigabit would be overkill anyway, so if Gigabit router cost much more than 10/100mbps router then forget gigabit! I don't see any value in Gigabit at this time. None of PC is fast enough to handle 1,000 MBPS, so its no point here. :)

Whats more, since cable modem handles around 5mbps, why need 1,000 mbps? You'd be fine with VP even at .5mbps


Gigabit is for future-proof. Why spend money for 10/100 then spend another money for 10/100/1000 in future?

gigabit in normal desktop = to about 66-70mb/s
so almost every new computer is fast enough
100mbits LAN = 10mb/s
gigabit latency = about 256 us (less then milisecond)
100mbits latency is about 415 us
 
webexplorer said:
oh, that sounds great! I have two questions:

(1) Which one should I buy a 10/100 Mbps or a Gigabit?

(2) I am confused what is the different between a router and a network switch?

I don't remember what is my 3rd question.

Router is for share IP from WAN.

Switch just share IP from LAN. Switch work very faster than HUB.
 
Neo said:
Gigabit is for future-proof. Why spend money for 10/100 then spend another money for 10/100/1000 in future?
gigabit in normal desktop = to about 66-70mb/s
so almost every new computer is fast enough
100mbits LAN = 10mb/s
gigabit latency = about 256 us (less then milisecond)
100mbits latency is about 415 us
Right but your bottleneck is still gonna be your ISP. Even with a T3 you are only gonna get about 40Mbs. If you are not doing bandwidth intense applications within your LAN, then why spend the money assuming there is a huge cost difference. If the cost is not much more for 100\1000, then I would say to get it. If you are referring to the type of cable Web, you can go with gigabit. It should be downward compatible.
 
Well just great for LAN like lan-party, server, stream, etc.

Clipboard04.jpg
 
Neo said:
Well just great for LAN like lan-party, server, stream, etc.[\QUOTE]oh yeah.. for internal network its great if you have applications that can exploit the bandwidth.. your benchmarks show 61MB which is not even exploiting a 100MB network let alone a gigabit network... At work our LANs are gigabit with 10Gbit trunks back to the core switch. As soon as we go out to the lan, we are limited to the size of the pipe. In our case it's 4-T1's which is around 6Mbs.. So we go from gigabit down to 6Mbs when we hit the WAN. I
 
Exactly, thats why I said its overkill.

rockdrummer said:
Right but your bottleneck is still gonna be your ISP. Even with a T3 you are only gonna get about 40Mbs. If you are not doing bandwidth intense applications within your LAN, then why spend the money assuming there is a huge cost difference. If the cost is not much more for 100\1000, then I would say to get it. If you are referring to the type of cable Web, you can go with gigabit. It should be downward compatible.
 
My router is 10/100 and there is indicator on which speed the connections are, green light means 100mbps, and amber light means 10mbps, all of my computer is 100mbps complaint, so I see green lights coming on when I connect the cable from PC to router, finally when I connect the cable modem to the router, the amber light came on instead of green, so that cable modem is 10mbps, and can NOT go any faster than 10mbps, then why bother spend more money on gigabite when your bottlenecked to 10mbps?

These gigbytes routers are good *IF* you got plenty of PC in your LAN, and that you have LAN party going on. It won't make difference if your gonna to do alot of file sharing because of hard drive (IDE) speed limitation, that is another factor to why gigbytes aren't worth anything.
 
diehardbiker65 said:
My router is 10/100 and there is indicator on which speed the connections are, green light means 100mbps, and amber light means 10mbps, all of my computer is 100mbps complaint, so I see green lights coming on when I connect the cable from PC to router, finally when I connect the cable modem to the router, the amber light came on instead of green, so that cable modem is 10mbps, and can NOT go any faster than 10mbps, then why bother spend more money on gigabite when your bottlenecked to 10mbps?

These gigbytes routers are good *IF* you got plenty of PC in your LAN, and that you have LAN party going on. It won't make difference if your gonna to do alot of file sharing because of hard drive (IDE) speed limitation, that is another factor to why gigbytes aren't worth anything.

Hmm Are you make up a story?
 
Back
Top