Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

kxrider85

Member
  • Content Count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About kxrider85

  • Title
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

878 profile views
  1. I've tried this, as well as running in incognito mode (which runs chrome in a more basic extension-free mode). I have the same extensions on my other computer, which has not had issues.
  2. I should already be on the 64 bit version. According to Chrome, I'm on Version 85.0.4183.102 (Official Build) (64-bit).
  3. For about as long as I can remember, I've had issues with Google Chrome lagging on my laptop. I have tried all of the generic advice out there online like reinstalling, disabling hardware acceleration, smooth scrolling. Incognito mode is barely any faster, so I doubt it has anything to do with my Chrome extensions. Other browsers work just fine. It is only Chrome. I haven't noticed anything unusual about hardware usage. Chrome isn't pegging the cpu or hogging the ram any more than one would usually expect. Also, Chrome runs much better on my old i5 4690k build, so I doubt it has anything to do with hardware, but here are the specs on my Dell XPS 15 9570: Intel Core i7 8750H @ 2.20 GHz (4 GHz turbo) GTX 1050 Ti max q 16 GB DDR4 @ 2667 MHz (4k 15 inch display) I think I included all of the relevant details, but feel free to let me know if y'all need to know anything else. I'm super curious if y'all have any ideas. Thanks in advance. EDIT: it is worth noting, the lag is not "uniform." For example, lttstore.com lags a lot worse than linustechtips.com, but there is no evidence that my hardware resources are unable to keep up with more lively webpages.
  4. How does the switch know what computer to send data to if it never reaches the router? I will probably just wire it the way you guys are talking about anyway. I will have plenty of extra cable. I'm just curious how it works at this point. >_<
  5. Okay I think I am starting to understand what you're saying. Suppose there were three computers in the top picture trying to access another computer at 1Gbps. You're saying they should all be able to have access to 1Gbps speeds, but don't they all have to simultaneously communicate with the router over one cable at 1Gbps first in order to send information to the computer in question, or does it not work that way?
  6. But wouldn't this be a problem that everyone has? I'm sorry, I'm a networking noob, but my current understanding is that if you have a router capable of 1Gb/s, then everything connected to it is sharing that 1Gb/s connection, and there is no different or better way you can set things up to solve this. As far as I know, the normal thing to have is a single modem connected to a single Gb router, connected to a single switch, connected to a patch panel, and finally connected to wall plates in the rooms that need internet. The setup you described sounds completely equivalent to what I am talking about. Technically speaking, I'm not understanding what the difference is between these two. It sounds like you are saying this is better than this: I'm just curious why that is if thats what you meant....
  7. But at the end of the day, all bandwidth has to go through the one wire that connects my router to the switch that runs to the bedrooms. So the bottleneck is between the router and the switch, not between the switch and the rooms, if you know what I mean.... That was kind of the motivation for the second question, because I'm not sure running a second ethernet cable to another switch would solve it. It seems like it would be 1Gb/s per router, not 1Gb/s per port on the router, but I don't know. In other words, if I have a three port router, then do I get 3Gb/s or do I get 1Gb/s shared between all three ports? I thought it was the latter, in which case it doesn't matter how you run the cable, because you are always limited to the 1Gb/s coming from the router. Ah okay. This is definitely more sophisticated than what I am trying to do.
  8. I am going to be wiring my house with ethernet soon, and when looking at tutorials, I have noticed that a lot of people opt to run more than one wire to a room, so that they have >2 ethernet ports coming through one wall plate. What is the point of this? Why not just run one wire to each room, and then buy a 5 port switch for the room if that isn't enough. One other thing. My plan is to run a single CAT6 cable from my router at the far end of my house to the laundry closet in my hallway nearby two bedrooms I want to wire. That cable will connect to a switch, and split off into two other cables that will run to each bedroom. My second question is: Is it okay for all of that internet bandwidth to ultimately travel through a single CAT6 cable, or would it make a difference if I ran two cables that connect to two different ports on my router. I know this won't matter for my measly two bedroom setup, but for the sake of future expansion, I'd rather not have to run another wire all the way across my home through the attic again.
  9. I ended up going with SFTP on WinScp. I port forwarded ssh and created a public/private key pair for authentication. Everything has been working fine. My friends can access the server terminal, and as long as my friends don't give out the private key, everything should be fine... The only thing I have noticed is that I cannot edit text files in winscp and for some reason starting a putty terminal from a winscp session always times out.
  10. Linus made a video addressing this. They aren't pirated. Linus just stopped activating windows because frequent hardware changes messed with the validation. As far as anyone is concerned, windows 10 is free if you don't mind the watermark and not having access to a few customization features.
  11. Thanks lol. Its just a random gif I saw on a discord server a while back. Yeah Massdrop has had a lot of QC issues for some reason. I don't think it is quite as bad with the HD 6xx and HD 58x Jubilee since they are made along with the 660s at Sennheiser's manufacturer in Ireland. I have a CTRL keyboard arriving tomorrow though and I'm a little nervous... At least their customer service seems alright.
  12. @Dackzy You are right. The 58x jubilees are 150 dollars. My bad. I don't want to turn this into a big Zeos argument, but the fact is, he has listened to more headphones, speakers, amps, and DACs than either of us will probably touch in a lifetime. There are not very many credible reviews of the HD 58x Jubilee (yet), and he is the only person I know of who has reviewed modded 58x Jubilees. Whether the 58x jubilees are like the 660s or not, the bigger picture is that the 58x jubilees do not sound like a 150 dollar pair of headphones. Given reviews that implicitly compare the 58x jubilees and the HD 600, 110 dollars doesn't sound like that good of a deal. That's the only point I was trying to make. With that said, it doesn't matter anymore. The 58x sold out.
  13. What's an example of something that triggers your anger?
  14. No. They are different The 58x Jubilees on massdrop are the only headphones I can recommend at this point. They are 125 dollars, and sound basically like the HD 660s (a 500 dollar pair of headphones), an improvement upon the HD 600 and HD 650 of the past. Like the 660s, the 58x jubilees are 150 ohm headphones so they are pretty easy to drive on smartphones. The 58x jubilee drivers are extremely similar to the 660s drivers. The main difference in sound is produced by a foam pad between the grill and driver. It gives the 58x slightly more subdued highs and slightly more bass. If you take the foam out of the headphones though, you should basically have an HD 660s for a fourth of the cost... Here is a good video to watch about this: So is it worth 110 dollars to get an HD 600? 110 dollars may be a good price for the HD 600, but why have an HD 600 when you can have (what is practically) a 660s for 15 dollars more?
  15. uninstall and reinstall drivers maybe? EDIT: list everything you have tried.
×