On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
> Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
> Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a camera.

Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
Should take - what - 90 seconds?

Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 7/08/2022 8:20 pm, David Taylor wrote:
> On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
>> Case in point.  3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.  19 seconds.
>> Wifi?  1hr 30 mins.  Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
>> from a camera.
>
> Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
> Should take - what - 90 seconds?
>
> Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
>

My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.

geoff

On 07/08/2022 09:37, geoff wrote:
> On 7/08/2022 8:20 pm, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
>>> Case in point.  3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.  19 seconds.
>>> Wifi?  1hr 30 mins.  Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
>>> from a camera.
>> Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
>> Should take - what - 90 seconds?
>>
>> Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
>>
> My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.
>
> geoff

Must be the Windows Calculator I used! Better check with an Apple one....
Check Google one...

Looks like all those software suppliers are in collusion to give the wrong answer!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

In article <ZemdnYKa0KtM5HL_nZ2dnUU7-e-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >> Case in point.  3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.  19 seconds.
> >> Wifi?  1hr 30 mins.  Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
> >> from a camera.
> >
> > Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
> > Should take - what - 90 seconds?
> >
> > Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
> >
>
> My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.

your arithmetic is wrong.

3,400,000,000/37,500,000 = 90

In article <tcnsk0$fluj$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/08/2022 18:33, RichA wrote:
> > Case in point. 3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer. 19 seconds.
> > Wifi? 1hr 30 mins. Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers from a
> > camera.
>
> Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
> Should take - what - 90 seconds?

what you describe are speeds from more than a decade ago.

half-decent wifi is triple that, and decent wifi is even faster.

> Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!

he admitted that he's using 20 year old equipment.

On 7/08/2022 9:57 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <ZemdnYKa0KtM5HL_nZ2dnUU7-e-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Case in point.  3.4Gig file via optical connection transfer.  19 seconds.
>>>> Wifi?  1hr 30 mins.  Why would anyone use wifi for image transfers
>>>> from a camera.
>>>
>>> Half-decent Wi-Fi should be able to offer, say, 300+ Mb/s, so 37.5 MB/s.
>>> Should take - what - 90 seconds?
>>>
>>> Need to sort out that under-performing Wi-Fi!
>>>
>>
>> My arithmetic makes that 906 seconds, or 15 minutes-ish.
>
> your arithmetic is wrong.
>
> 3,400,000,000/37,500,000 = 90

Too late at night for all those zeros ....

geoff

In article <a4e83df3-f3af-4cf6-aaf1-df256f8cef8fn@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.

that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
equipment.

In article <e95b5b80-da88-49f6-b076-d82687a03150n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.
> > that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
> > equipment.
>
> The modem is an optical fiber-based, Sagecomm Fast 5566. Not sure of its age.

optical fiber has nothing to do with wifi.

the specs for that say 802.11n, which is *old*.

In article <769f6ee8-8767-49f7-a1be-80db86ae60f0n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> My
> main computer uses
> optical fiber

no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.

> but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.

it's only slower because it's old.

as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.

On 9 Aug 2022 at 11:57:05 BST, nospam wrote:

> In article <769f6ee8-8767-49f7-a1be-80db86ae60f0n@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My
>> main computer uses
>> optical fiber
>
> no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.
>
>> but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
>
> it's only slower because it's old.
>
> as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.

Yes of course, but how many people want to go to that expense to achieve
something they don't need? Or even can't use - not many have an internet
connection that fast - in the UK anyway.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article <tctg64$1cio7$1@dont-email.me>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

> >> My
> >> main computer uses
> >> optical fiber
> >
> > no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.
> >
> >> but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
> >
> > it's only slower because it's old.
> >
> > as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.
>
> Yes of course, but how many people want to go to that expense to achieve
> something they don't need?

what expense? an 802.11ac/wifi 5 access point is cheap, although at
this point, it would be practical to get 802.11ax/wifi 6 for a little
bit more.

he's complaining about slow wifi. the reason why it's slow is because
he's using outdated equipment. the fix is simple, and cheap.

> Or even can't use - not many have an internet
> connection that fast - in the UK anyway.

the internet connection is not relevant for transfers between devices,
which is what he's complaining about.

On 9/08/2022 4:06 pm, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 8 August 2022 at 21:53:59 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
>> In article <e95b5b80-da88-49f6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> My wifi speed at home is about 80Mbps.
>>>> that's slow as hell. it's long overdue to upgrade your ancient
>>>> equipment.
>>>
>>> The modem is an optical fiber-based, Sagecomm Fast 5566. Not sure of its age.
>> optical fiber has nothing to do with wifi.
>>
>> the specs for that say 802.11n, which is *old*.
>
> Apparently, it's capable of 5G and 600Mb/s but I would assume the computer receiving it would need suitable equipment as well, it may be outdated. My main computer uses
> optical fiber but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.

What does "My main computer uses optical fiber " mean ? That your
Internet service provision to your home is on fibre ?

That has nothing to do whatsoever with your home networking.

geoff

On 9 Aug 2022 at 12:55:54 BST, nospam wrote:

> In article <tctg64$1cio7$1@dont-email.me>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> My
>>>> main computer uses
>>>> optical fiber
>>>
>>> no it doesn't, except maybe to a tv, which is unlikely.
>>>
>>>> but the rest of the things (tablets, phones, etc) use the much slower wifi.
>>>
>>> it's only slower because it's old.
>>>
>>> as i said, modern wifi is as fast or faster than wired gigabit ethernet.
>>
>> Yes of course, but how many people want to go to that expense to achieve
>> something they don't need?
>
> what expense? an 802.11ac/wifi 5 access point is cheap, although at
> this point, it would be practical to get 802.11ax/wifi 6 for a little
> bit more.

50UKP? Not trivial, and add to that the old one probably being thrown away.

> he's complaining about slow wifi. the reason why it's slow is because
> he's using outdated equipment. the fix is simple, and cheap.
>

80Mbps isn't 'slow' for most people. Yes, if you regularly chuck around GB
files over it, it'll be a bit tedious. But only the OP can make that call,
based on their needs and alternatives. And chucking money at wifi may not be
the best option.

On which, I can't figure out what those needs are - it's a device with an
optical I/O and wifi, and a 3GB 'image' - disk image, photo etc?

>> Or even can't use - not many have an internet
>> connection that fast - in the UK anyway.
>
> the internet connection is not relevant for transfers between devices,
> which is what he's complaining about.

Indeed, but it could inform bonus aspects to the choice.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article <tcvrja$1pdkt$1@dont-email.me>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

> > he's complaining about slow wifi. the reason why it's slow is because
> > he's using outdated equipment. the fix is simple, and cheap.
> >
>
> 80Mbps isn't 'slow' for most people.

in 2022, it most certainly is.

gigabit has been standard for more than *twenty* *years*.

some computers, mostly macs, have 10g-e wired ethernet because gigabit
has become a bottleneck.

wifi 5/802.11ac is comparable to gigabit speeds, and has been available
for nearly a decade.

wifi 6/802.11ax, which have been available for a couple of years, is
faster than gigabit and why ax routers have 2.5g-e or better ethernet
ports. they're just beginning to become commonplace.

laptops, phones and tablets have at least wifi 5, some with wifi 6.

nases have had multiple bondable gigabit ports for many years because a
single gigabit port is a huge bottleneck, and have recently started to
offer 2.5g or faster ports.

the only devices where 100b-t is acceptable are low bandwidth, such as
iot devices or upses. a message to turn on a light bulb or that you're
running on battery power is a few hundred *bytes* and won't benefit
from high speed ports.

> Yes, if you regularly chuck around GB
> files over it, it'll be a bit tedious. But only the OP can make that call,
> based on their needs and alternatives. And chucking money at wifi may not be
> the best option.

he's complaining about slow speeds, so obviously it's a problem, and
the amount of money is negligible.