Tech: Open thread

2010-07-26 11:20:53

#3801

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6951|67.222.138.85

Cleaned.

A few things

1 -

Rules wrote:
Your posts belong to you, but BF2S has non-exclusive rights to use them.

2 - This thread is not to be devolved into yet another Apple "debate" or whatever you want to call it. There have been threads made towards the purpose before. Use one of them.

3 - A thread going off topic does not give you the right to continue to take it off topic.

2010-07-26 11:26:40

#3802

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6951|67.222.138.85

I bought 555s that came in a few days ago, and I just pulled the foam to make them pretty damn close to if not 595s.

Probably as close to an eargasm as an audio ignoramus such as myself is ever going to get.

2010-07-26 11:28:17

#3803

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6032|Catherine Black

I did the exact same thing, internet brofist.

2010-07-26 11:31:14

#3804

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5481|Cleveland, Ohio

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Cleaned.

A few things

1 -
Rules wrote:
Your posts belong to you, but BF2S has non-exclusive rights to use them.
2 - This thread is not to be devolved into yet another Apple "debate" or whatever you want to call it. There have been threads made towards the purpose before. Use one of them.

3 - A thread going off topic does not give you the right to continue to take it off topic.

as the OP states:

Chat about everything and anything you find oh so sexy in the tech world...

so, why not an apple discussion?

2010-07-26 11:32:34

#3805

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6951|67.222.138.85

Because it was no longer a discussion.

2010-07-26 11:33:22

#3806

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5481|Cleveland, Ohio

says who? you? its an OPEN chat thread for tech stuff....and sorry but apple is tech stuff.

2010-07-26 11:37:21

#3807

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6951|67.222.138.85

This is not up for debate. The discussion was turning quickly from enjoyable chat thread to rehashing Apple nonsense. This is not a ban on Apple discussion from this thread categorically, this is a categorical ban on topics that quickly turn the thread into a trainwreck. Further posts on this topic and not on the topic of general tech will be deleted.

Common sense is a great thing.

2010-07-26 11:39:27

#3808

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6715

i think you'll find i was making perfect consumer-sense re: apple and the usual aggravating culprits were spouting "nonsense".

useless mods, as always.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-26 15:51:41

#3809

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6374|Carnoustie MASSIF

Wah, wah, wah. The two biggest whiners on the forum having a moan to a mod, what's new?

2010-07-26 16:06:48

#3810

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6911

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That would be nice, although impossible in most buildings. Needs better cabling than CAT6. Looks a lot like fiber...

Are there even consumer grade (aka affordable) routers/switches that can handle fiber? CAT6 should be more than adequate even if you are tapped directly to the backbone, even with your own ISP, for home use. Unless you are one of the major sites and somehow willing to pay for backbone bandwidth...

2010-07-26 16:29:14

#3811

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6658|Finland

Ilocano wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That would be nice, although impossible in most buildings. Needs better cabling than CAT6. Looks a lot like fiber...
Are there even consumer grade (aka affordable) routers/switches that can handle fiber? CAT6 should be more than adequate even if you are tapped directly to the backbone, even with your own ISP, for home use. Unless you are one of the major sites and somehow willing to pay for backbone bandwidth...

I agree that CAT6 would be more than enough for pretty much every home user with upto 200Mb/s. Usually they do CAT5 unless the building is being built right now (grand spanking new and fiber access nearby).

I don't have own knowledge about costs of the fiber routers, but simple switches should be affordable enough for home user. (I know few that have fiber directly to the apartment)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-07-26 16:43:14

#3812

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6911

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That would be nice, although impossible in most buildings. Needs better cabling than CAT6. Looks a lot like fiber...
Are there even consumer grade (aka affordable) routers/switches that can handle fiber? CAT6 should be more than adequate even if you are tapped directly to the backbone, even with your own ISP, for home use. Unless you are one of the major sites and somehow willing to pay for backbone bandwidth...
I agree that CAT6 would be more than enough for pretty much every home user with upto 200Mb/s. Usually they do CAT5 unless the building is being built right now (grand spanking new and fiber access nearby).

I don't have own knowledge about costs of the fiber routers, but simple switches should be affordable enough for home user. (I know few that have fiber directly to the apartment)

Fiber to the apartment is one thing (Verizon FIOS for example), but fiber within the home. I thought my 8 port GigaSwitch would be enough, but I got so many network enabled devices, that I've had to add another switch. And I'm not about to add a rackmount.

2010-07-26 16:52:47

#3813

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6658|Finland

Very interesting thought. But I don't think the costs are yet low enough that such a network would be worth of thinking over CAT6.

I had quick look and the slower and cheaper fiber switches (no real advantage over CAT6) are from 100 bucks to the good stuff with only sky as limit.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-07-26 17:13:16

#3814

mikkel: Member; +383|6845

I don't get the idea of voluntarily running fiber to end nodes in your home.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That would be nice, although impossible in most buildings. Needs better cabling than CAT6. Looks a lot like fiber...

Why would you need cabling better than Cat 6 to achieve 215 Mbps?

Last edited by mikkel (2010-07-26 17:13:57)

2010-07-26 18:07:23

#3815

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6658|Finland

mikkel wrote:
I don't get the idea of voluntarily running fiber to end nodes in your home.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That would be nice, although impossible in most buildings. Needs better cabling than CAT6. Looks a lot like fiber...
Why would you need cabling better than Cat 6 to achieve 215 Mbps?

While CAT6 can do a lot more in short distances (LAN), it can't deliver as much in long distances the way they are often mishandled during install.

There are cabling standards that say CAT6 guarantees upto 200mbps. It is very hard to make CAT 6 grade cabling to building. Sometime CAT6 cables are installed so poorly they hardly even manage CAT5...

Answer to your question: capable of achieving in right conditions. Most of the time IRL not.

here is a book for reference:
http://books.google.fi/books?id=tm-evHm … mp;f=false

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-07-26 18:09:15)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-07-26 18:21:21

#3816

mikkel: Member; +383|6845

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
mikkel wrote:
I don't get the idea of voluntarily running fiber to end nodes in your home.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That would be nice, although impossible in most buildings. Needs better cabling than CAT6. Looks a lot like fiber...
Why would you need cabling better than Cat 6 to achieve 215 Mbps?
While CAT6 can do a lot more in short distances (LAN), it can't deliver as much in long distances the way they are often mishandled during install.

Cat6 run to specification with existing common transceivers most certainly can't achieve anything near what's capable with existing common optical transceivers. Over any distance.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
There are cabling standards that say CAT6 guarantees upto 200mbps. It is very hard to make CAT 6 grade cabling to building. Sometime CAT6 cables are installed so poorly they hardly even manage CAT5...

Answer to your question: capable of achieving in right conditions. Most of the time IRL not.

here is a book for reference:
http://books.google.fi/books?id=tm-evHm … mp;f=false

You're kinda sorta referencing a book written in 1999. You can run 1Gbps across Cat5e. Hell it's even standardised for Cat5.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-07-26 18:22:33)

2010-07-26 18:27:36

#3817

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6658|Finland

mikkel wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
mikkel wrote:
I don't get the idea of voluntarily running fiber to end nodes in your home.

Why would you need cabling better than Cat 6 to achieve 215 Mbps?
While CAT6 can do a lot more in short distances (LAN), it can't deliver as much in long distances the way they are often mishandled during install.
Cat6 run to specification with existing common transceivers most certainly can't achieve anything near what's capable with existing common optical transceivers. Over any distance.

I did not say otherwise.

mikkel wrote:
You're kinda sorta referencing a book written in 1999. You can run 1Gbps across Cat5e. Hell it's even standardised for Cat5.

Which part of the 2009 you misread on the book second page?

Find me house cabling that can do 1Gbps on CAT5, thats right, you can't. They can do wonderful results in short couple metre distances, but its completely another story when you are talking about building size networks.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-07-26 18:30:04)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-07-26 18:38:03

#3818

mikkel: Member; +383|6845

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
mikkel wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

While CAT6 can do a lot more in short distances (LAN), it can't deliver as much in long distances the way they are often mishandled during install.
Cat6 run to specification with existing common transceivers most certainly can't achieve anything near what's capable with existing common optical transceivers. Over any distance.
I did not say otherwise.

Then what is the object of your comparison? "Cat6 can do a lot more" than what?

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
mikkel wrote:
You're kinda sorta referencing a book written in 1999. You can run 1Gbps across Cat5e. Hell it's even standardised for Cat5.
Which part of the 2009 you misread on the book second page?

Find me house cabling that can do 1Gbps on CAT5, thats right, you can't. They can do wonderful results in short couple metre distances, but its completely another story when you are talking about building size networks.

Haha, fifth edition, right. The numbers do not apply to 802.3 capacity. They're generic ANSI and EIA/TIA data rates for generic applications. Pick up any Cat5 cabling that's built to standard and you'll likely run 1000BASE-T just fine across it. Run it across Cat5e or 6 assembled to average quality and you'll get at least hundred meters out of it.

2010-07-28 11:46:42

#3819

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6032|Catherine Black

http://www.apple.com/magictrackpad/

Seriously considering one. Trackpads on Macbooks are without a doubt the nicest way I've ever scrolled around a computer, Mac or Windows.

2010-07-28 11:52:15

#3820

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6374|Carnoustie MASSIF

Finray wrote:
http://www.apple.com/magictrackpad/

Seriously considering one. Trackpads on Macbooks are without a doubt the nicest way I've ever scrolled around a computer, Mac or Windows.

You got bluetooth?

Last edited by CammRobb (2010-07-28 11:53:01)

2010-07-28 11:53:08

#3821

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6715

pure

anti-apple cuntrags will be hard pushed to criticize this device. best trackpad technology out there, imo. very useful device for journalists, office workers and that type of application that generally doesn't require tons of shortcut/hotkey buttons, e.g. gaming.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-28 11:55:23

#3822

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6374|Carnoustie MASSIF

I love using the one on my brother and mate's MBPs, they're really, really nice to use.

just checked the price; $69 or £59? How is that fucking fair

Last edited by CammRobb (2010-07-28 11:56:42)

2010-07-28 12:01:25

#3823

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6864|Mhz

Uzique wrote:
pure

anti-apple cuntrags will be hard pushed to criticize this device. best trackpad technology out there, imo. very useful device for journalists, office workers and that type of application that generally doesn't require tons of shortcut/hotkey buttons, e.g. gaming.

You're actually right there, it's useful and not over priced. My old boss would kill for one, he has arthritis in his right arm and using a mouse is a bitch for him (that and his desk usually has so much paper on it you cant move a mouse which this also solves )

_{the iPad is still shit though}

2010-07-28 12:05:39

#3824

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6983|Toronto | Canada

Wait, why wouldnt you just use a mouse? I must be missing something here...

2010-07-28 12:09:15

#3825

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6374|Carnoustie MASSIF

Winston_Churchill wrote:
Wait, why wouldnt you just use a mouse? I must be missing something here...

read moar.

BF2S Forums Tech: Open thread

Rules wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Rules wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Finray wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Board footer