Jump to content

RGProductions

Member
  • Posts

    3,577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RGProductions

  1. On 9/10/2021 at 6:20 PM, Alex Atkin UK said:

    The router market is a nightmare for people who ARE technically inclined, never mind those who aren't.

     

    The vast majority of routers with a Gigabit WAN port, can't do Gigabit as their CPUs are too weak.

    Some technically might be able to, but they only have a single Gigabit port into the SoC which is shared with the LAN and WAN using VLAN tagging on the internal switch, halving the speed.  NONE OF THIS IS ADVERTISED!

     

    So honestly while this is a bad product, I'm not aware of a single consumer router that advertises its NAT speed, the ACTUAL speed it can handle between LAN and WAN.  Never mind the whole WiFi situation.

    Yeah it’s a whole mess I’m glad my provided router is able to deliver 7-800mbps through the whole house because figuring all this out for an actually fast connection sucks

  2. Just now, YoungBlade said:

    That's why I spent the extra $10 to get the Archer A6. I saw the 10/100 in the title of the A5 Amazon listing and said "I'm not touching that," and went with the A6 instead. Which has been an excellent router, I might add. I even bought one for my mom as a housewarming present so she could move off her 8 year old router, and it's been great for her, too.

     

    To us enthusiasts, that makes perfect sense. Your price-to-performance is much better considering you get 10x more speed, but for some people, they'll never be able to take advantage of that speed, and that extra $8-10 is tough. That's a 22-28% increase in price to go from the $35 model up to a $43-45 one. And the sort of people shopping for a $35 router generally don't have gigabit Internet. The best Internet I can get right now is 75 Mbps and it would cost over $50 a month after taxes and fees. I would imagine you're paying over $100 a month on your gigabit Internet. (If not, kudos on having a great provider) But even for the $50 a month option, why would anyone ever pair that with a $35 router?

    That's the exact router I bought to replace it. We have xfinity and haven't had a terrible experience, and we pay around $70 a month IIRC. College is my use case, some dorms don't have wireless routers so you have to supply your own, but they do have a wired connection that can stretch up to gigabit speeds when demand is low. My perspective on internet speeds is definitely skewed, everyone I know now has speeds well in excess of 100 mb/s except people who are way out in the middle of nowhere that still only have DSL

  3. 1 minute ago, helfisk said:

    Agree - but a case could be made that this product is intended for customers with primarily wireless use.
    Nevertheless, there's a lot hinting towards a product favors the cost conscious more than performance

     

    I'll give you that - then again, if you don't understand those numbers and what they represent, it is doubtful that you would know or even need to know, what LAN and WAN speeds it's running.
    However, if it turns out that the internal switching is unable to handle anything above ~100mbit on WLAN as well, the story changes significantly.

     

    To most consumers, they just see a random number - the greater the number, the greater the product.
    Technically they could advertise 100.000kbit wan and lan speeds, and not be misleading - while, yeah, smelling a bit fishy

    totally. I would love to test the WLAN speeds, but I'm not sure this can even function as a repeater and I only own one computer lol

  4. 1 minute ago, helfisk said:

    First off - WIFI speed claims are always misleading, the speeds are based on theoretical max and not real-world examples.

    Second - the wan port is definitely a bottleneck, but only if you have an internet connection >100mbit, and as stated by @tkitch - that's uncommon in many areas.
    Third - this product could make a lot of sense for some customers, example; customer has <100mbit wan, but has a lot of LAN and WLAN activity, maybe a NAS they use for their totally legal BluRay rips

     

    As with anything, a well-informed purchase is in the end the customers responsibility 

    Agreed completely. I would have no problems with this product if they were upfront about the fact that it only has 10/100 wan but it's obvious they want to hide it. Maybe my beef lies with amazon (or whoever created the amazon listing), because it actually does not state anywhere on that page what kind of WAN speed it has, and graphics like this (created by TP-link themselves), strongly imply it is possible to get an external internet connection of speeds in excess of 100 mb/s. To tp-link's credit it does say on the box that it only has 10/100 WAN.

    image.thumb.png.492248677b2930f154ad0f32b3fc2a0a.png

  5. Just now, OhioYJ said:

     

    Haha,  Norm, no. I'm also in the US, and judging by what you say you have for options I'm guessing you must live closer to a large or larger city? 

    I'm not super close to a city but I'm definitely not far. I am on the west coast though so with the industry around here I do know that we have significantly better internet infrastructure than average

  6. 9 minutes ago, tkitch said:

    The product is fine.

     

    Most people don't have 100mbit internet, as most base packages are still 50mbps or less, so for them?  Whatever, it'll work fine.

     

    Is it actually AC Wifi?  Theoretically yes.  You'd have to test data copies across two wifi devices to find out.   

    You're totally right that it functions, but it wasn't advertised anywhere except deep into the product page on the TP link website that this only had 10/100 WAN and a router with gigabit WAN (and more features) is only about $10 more. Also, I disagree on your claim that average internet speeds are so slow. At least where I am, even on copper to get a new connection slower than 150/20 you have to specifically ask for it and it is not much cheaper than 500/50. I know this isn't the case everywhere but in a lot of places it's becoming the norm. I would avoid this router out of the principle because of the misleading claim even if my internet speeds were under 100mb/s, especially because significantly better options exist within its price bracket. 

  7. I just bought this router for a friend, but I returned it less than 25 minutes after opening the box.

     

    This router advertises itself as capable of wireless AC and speeds in excess of 867 mb/s. I have a gigabit connection and I routinely get ~500mb/s throughout my whole house on wifi. I bought this router for a friend, but I thought it would be good to set it up at my house and give it a test. To my shock, even 5 feet away from the router I could not get speeds in excess of 90 mb/s. I knew the LAN ports on this router were only 10/100, but I assumed that a router that advertised itself as capable of wireless AC (1200mb/s claim on box) speeds SURELY wouldn't have a WAN port only capable of 10/100, right? Wrong. This router doesn't even have a gigabit WAN port. This product should not exist. If it were capable of gigabit WAN this would easily be a 4 or even 5 star product. The only scenario where it is even possible to get anywhere near the advertised throughput on this router is a direct wifi to wifi transfer, such as using this product as a repeater (which I could not seem to figure out despite my knowledge) or a local file transfer across wifi on both ends. I guess this is on me for not reading the specs first, but it seems so odd, especially when better routers with gigabit WAN are only $5-10 more. I was able to return it but I'm leaving this here to hopefully dissuade anyone from buying this router who stumbles across this post. 

  8. On 6/17/2021 at 8:57 AM, Retro_R said:

    Is there anyone on this fourm with negative community reception? Like the thing on the profile that kinda corrolates with reactions n stuff. I've only seen postive ones, but im curious if theres anyone on the fourm with negative reception.

    I remember a few years back before that was a feature there was this one guy who I can’t remember who probably deserved to have one, I think he was a well known dickhead but I don’t remember anything else, I think he’s many years banned by now 

  9. 11 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

    Seems like this 5 gear transmission was not made for the freeway:
    golf_rpm.jpg

    IDK about the engine though, that rpm seems a bit too high...... (speed shows 10 kmh more than actual btw)

    i know the feeling. My TDI is not geared the way I would like it to be, 1st is useless and 75mph is like 2700 rpm+, in an engine that redlines at 5000 (I am adamant it is actually 4250 but that is an argument for another day)

  10. It's been said to death, but they're for the most part fine. Wood is actually really strong when you orient it in the right direction, and longevity isn't horrible either, probably in the range of 150 years or so (if properly maintained) before it's no longer economical to repair, and at that point building design will probably have changed enough that a new building will be more attractive anyway.

  11. 5 hours ago, flibberdipper said:

    To be fair, Retina MBP's have always had screens that are pretty goddamn killer. Comparing them to regular monitors is usually about as brutally unfair as drag racing a 2003 Grand Prix GT with a jet dragster. 😛 

    Agreed. The screen in my MacBook is just beautiful, and the fact that they’ve been doing them like that for almost a decade is incredible. It’s not the highest resolution but any more than it is in this size is just a waste, color is great, viewing angles are fantastic, brightness is good, and just giving it a good stare it looks nice to the eyes.

  12. 2 minutes ago, ryptoryx said:

    do i only need to plug in one rgb header? the cooler has one out header and one in header

    The out header is for plugging another RGB device into it so it can be controlled by the same port as well.

  13. 7 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

    Even high-end monitors have backlight bleed and IPS glow. It's just something you cannot get around no matter how high-quality your production process is. It's an inherent issue with LED-backlight-monitors.

    Interesting. My MacBook has NONE, and unless there’s something I’m not aware of it’s an IPS panel. Maybe Apple is just picky and rejects all but the best panels, or they designed it specifically to mitigate the issue

  14. 3 hours ago, AMD A10-9600P said:

    Interesting stuff, thank you for the reply! I have 5 cycles on the battery and have been using this for 5 days, mostly unplugged. Is that cause for concern or ok? The full capacity is still the same as when it was manufactured.

     

    I would assume that the power is directed straight to the components that need it when plugged in and fully charged, or at least I would hope so?

    I’d sure hope so too. Don’t sweat it too much though, These batteries don’t just magically stop working. I see no reason why, in completely normal use, a battery wouldn’t last 4 years. 

×