Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Slow down of network?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian Gaff
Jul 4, 2011, 6:35:50 AM7/4/11
to
Anyone know the prime reasons for a small office network to slow down both
in accessing each computer and the internet. It seems to be some bog
standard wired 3 computer network on a BT box , but you can boil a cup of
tea while waiting for IE to open the home page and getting files is jerky
and slow from anywhere to anywhere and the machines seem to be jerky when
doing anything on the network. even when its a background task.
in accessing each computer and the internet. It seems to be some bog
standard wired 3 computer network on a BT box , but you can boil a cup of
tea while waiting for IE to open the home page and getting files is jerky
and slow from anywhere to anywhere and the machines seem to be jerky when
doing anything on the network. even when its a background task.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
SixStringStu
Jan 20, 2012, 10:32:17 AM1/20/12
to
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ius526$1ai$1...@dont-email.me...
comming to this post.
My experiance with Internet Explorer and it's tendancy to hang up on load up
has to do with all of the tool bars and add ons. Once I removed and disabled
these , on my system , the problem stopped.
YMMV
Brian Gaff
Jan 21, 2012, 4:19:55 AM1/21/12
to
No in this case its also in other software as well, including file transfer
using Explorer.
My guess is that the various real time file checking going on on anti
virus software is getting in the way.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"SixStringStu" <hawkinnc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jfc1e9$831$1...@dont-email.me...
using Explorer.
My guess is that the various real time file checking going on on anti
virus software is getting in the way.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
news:jfc1e9$831$1...@dont-email.me...
Brian Gaff
Jan 25, 2012, 3:51:10 AM1/25/12
to
Another issue I've encountered is if one of the machines on the network or
indeed all are wireless connected. At least here there are now so many
people attempting to use Wireless routers that its becoming unreliable and
slow due to the system keeping on trying to get a better signal with no
interference. I found for example yesterday when one wireless machine kept
losing connection that there were 15 networks within range, and this was the
problem.
indeed all are wireless connected. At least here there are now so many
people attempting to use Wireless routers that its becoming unreliable and
slow due to the system keeping on trying to get a better signal with no
interference. I found for example yesterday when one wireless machine kept
losing connection that there were 15 networks within range, and this was the
problem.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jfdvvn$ogg$1...@dont-email.me...
SixStringStu
Jan 25, 2012, 12:38:31 PM1/25/12
to
Apologies for top posting, but that seems to be the format in this thread.
I have a wireless router here in the house, but it is attached to a modem
that gets it's connectivity through cable. When I first got the router I had
problems with people jumping on my network and killing my bandwidth. Then I
learned how to password protect the router.
I get pretty good speeds now.
I have a wireless router here in the house, but it is attached to a modem
that gets it's connectivity through cable. When I first got the router I had
problems with people jumping on my network and killing my bandwidth. Then I
learned how to password protect the router.
I get pretty good speeds now.
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jfofps$bd6$1...@dont-email.me...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jan 25, 2012, 3:14:28 PM1/25/12
to
In message <jfpemq$hen$1...@dont-email.me>, SixStringStu
that makes the posts he's replying to look like part of his signature.)
>I have a wireless router here in the house, but it is attached to a modem
>that gets it's connectivity through cable. When I first got the router I had
>problems with people jumping on my network and killing my bandwidth. Then I
>learned how to password protect the router.
>I get pretty good speeds now.
In UK, most routers now come with encryption turned on (and/or wireless
turned off); certainly, if you live in an area where there are a lot of
people, it's worth making sure you have wireless set up to use one of
the access control methods. It's not just people killing your bandwidth
- they may also access something undesirable, from terrorism to child
pornography, that will appear to be you if anyone follows up who is
accessing it - not to mention them possibly also hacking into your
computer as well.
>"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jfofps$bd6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Another issue I've encountered is if one of the machines on the network or
>> indeed all are wireless connected. At least here there are now so many
>> people attempting to use Wireless routers that its becoming unreliable and
>> slow due to the system keeping on trying to get a better signal with no
>> interference. I found for example yesterday when one wireless machine kept
>> losing connection that there were 15 networks within range, and this was
>> the problem.
>> Brian
If it is repeatedly trying to get a better signal, that would be it
being set to select channel (there are 11 or 13 such channels available)
automatically; it might be worth you telling it to stay on one channel
(try each in turn until you find the one that gives the best results).
Alternatively, if your router is _not_ set to AUTO for channel choice,
it might be worth trying it. Or at least trying other than the one it's
on.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver
<hawkinnc...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Apologies for top posting, but that seems to be the format in this thread.
(Only Brian Gaff. He not only top-posts, but uses a signature separator
>Apologies for top posting, but that seems to be the format in this thread.
that makes the posts he's replying to look like part of his signature.)
>I have a wireless router here in the house, but it is attached to a modem
>that gets it's connectivity through cable. When I first got the router I had
>problems with people jumping on my network and killing my bandwidth. Then I
>learned how to password protect the router.
>I get pretty good speeds now.
turned off); certainly, if you live in an area where there are a lot of
people, it's worth making sure you have wireless set up to use one of
the access control methods. It's not just people killing your bandwidth
- they may also access something undesirable, from terrorism to child
pornography, that will appear to be you if anyone follows up who is
accessing it - not to mention them possibly also hacking into your
computer as well.
>"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jfofps$bd6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Another issue I've encountered is if one of the machines on the network or
>> indeed all are wireless connected. At least here there are now so many
>> people attempting to use Wireless routers that its becoming unreliable and
>> slow due to the system keeping on trying to get a better signal with no
>> interference. I found for example yesterday when one wireless machine kept
>> losing connection that there were 15 networks within range, and this was
>> the problem.
>> Brian
being set to select channel (there are 11 or 13 such channels available)
automatically; it might be worth you telling it to stay on one channel
(try each in turn until you find the one that gives the best results).
Alternatively, if your router is _not_ set to AUTO for channel choice,
it might be worth trying it. Or at least trying other than the one it's
on.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver
Brian Gaff
Feb 5, 2012, 12:38:22 AM2/5/12
to
I'd second that as when I looked at logs when I inadvertently left the
wireless on and unprotected for a couple of days, two unknown connections
had logged in.
Incidentally, it must depend on the news reader as only you seems to notice
anything wrong with my sig line or how the quoting works. In most blind
groups I've visited top posting is the norm.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8Gu$8UGkKG...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
wireless on and unprotected for a couple of days, two unknown connections
had logged in.
Incidentally, it must depend on the news reader as only you seems to notice
anything wrong with my sig line or how the quoting works. In most blind
groups I've visited top posting is the norm.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8Gu$8UGkKG...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Feb 5, 2012, 12:47:29 AM2/5/12
to
In message <jgl4ke$p28$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
only one who notices. As for top or bottom posting, top isn't that
common among the 'groups I take, but they may be older 'groups, but it
isn't the top posting as such, it's the fact that you top post but you
use a signature separator (the line containing "-- ") that is designed
for bottom posting. It's the combination of those two.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Britain is still a class-ridden society. As soon as a man opens his mouth, we
can tell in what sort of school he missed his education. (George Mikes, "How to
be Decadent" [1977].)
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>I'd second that as when I looked at logs when I inadvertently left the
>wireless on and unprotected for a couple of days, two unknown connections
>had logged in.
Glad you agree. Where were these logs you were looking at?
>I'd second that as when I looked at logs when I inadvertently left the
>wireless on and unprotected for a couple of days, two unknown connections
>had logged in.
>
> Incidentally, it must depend on the news reader as only you seems to notice
>anything wrong with my sig line or how the quoting works. In most blind
>groups I've visited top posting is the norm.
> Brian
>
It might be only me that actually comments, but I'm sure I'm not the
> Incidentally, it must depend on the news reader as only you seems to notice
>anything wrong with my sig line or how the quoting works. In most blind
>groups I've visited top posting is the norm.
> Brian
>
only one who notices. As for top or bottom posting, top isn't that
common among the 'groups I take, but they may be older 'groups, but it
isn't the top posting as such, it's the fact that you top post but you
use a signature separator (the line containing "-- ") that is designed
for bottom posting. It's the combination of those two.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Britain is still a class-ridden society. As soon as a man opens his mouth, we
can tell in what sort of school he missed his education. (George Mikes, "How to
be Decadent" [1977].)
John Doe
Feb 5, 2012, 1:06:57 AM2/5/12
to
I do not read Gilliver, but considering his weird formatting, he
should not be complaining about top posting. Even if he knew
anything about properly formatting a UseNet post, he should know
that how you write all depends on your audience. Any half decent
writer knows that.
I can guess that most of you all have good enough memories to
remember what was said in the prior post. And you're probably
better off not messing with a computer program trying to sort out
quoting. And your signature delimiter is in standard UseNet
format.
But you can't stop anyone from doing whatever they want to do, or
complaining about whatever they want to complain about, here on
UseNet. So I won't try any harder.
should not be complaining about top posting. Even if he knew
anything about properly formatting a UseNet post, he should know
that how you write all depends on your audience. Any half decent
writer knows that.
I can guess that most of you all have good enough memories to
remember what was said in the prior post. And you're probably
better off not messing with a computer program trying to sort out
quoting. And your signature delimiter is in standard UseNet
format.
But you can't stop anyone from doing whatever they want to do, or
complaining about whatever they want to complain about, here on
UseNet. So I won't try any harder.
John Doe
Feb 5, 2012, 1:18:07 AM2/5/12
to
A signature marker is not meant for bottom posting. It's meant for
separating the meat of your post from stuff that isn't necessary
to read. A signature marker could be especially useful if screen
reader newsreaders (or whatever is used) stop reading when they
get to a signature marker, or at least speak that marker so that
the person can stop reading at that point.
You complaining about someone else's formatting is strange,
considering the fact that you use formatting I have never seen
used by anyone else on UseNet in at least 15 years. Using weird
formatting and cited groups might be okay, but IMO doing so here
is strange. And then there is your signature. You should learn
how to write for your audience.
By the way... I'm not going to clutter this thread with
back-and-forth argument about the subject.
separating the meat of your post from stuff that isn't necessary
to read. A signature marker could be especially useful if screen
reader newsreaders (or whatever is used) stop reading when they
get to a signature marker, or at least speak that marker so that
the person can stop reading at that point.
You complaining about someone else's formatting is strange,
considering the fact that you use formatting I have never seen
used by anyone else on UseNet in at least 15 years. Using weird
formatting and cited groups might be okay, but IMO doing so here
is strange. And then there is your signature. You should learn
how to write for your audience.
By the way... I'm not going to clutter this thread with
back-and-forth argument about the subject.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Feb 5, 2012, 1:39:54 AM2/5/12
to
In message <4f2e1f1f$0$27870$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>, John
any of the text of the post to which he is replying, because it is all
below his separator.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver
Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> writes:
>A signature marker is not meant for bottom posting. It's meant for
>separating the meat of your post from stuff that isn't necessary
>to read. A signature marker could be especially useful if screen
>reader newsreaders (or whatever is used) stop reading when they
>get to a signature marker, or at least speak that marker so that
>the person can stop reading at that point.
If you read one of Brian's posts with such software, you will not get
>A signature marker is not meant for bottom posting. It's meant for
>separating the meat of your post from stuff that isn't necessary
>to read. A signature marker could be especially useful if screen
>reader newsreaders (or whatever is used) stop reading when they
>get to a signature marker, or at least speak that marker so that
>the person can stop reading at that point.
any of the text of the post to which he is replying, because it is all
below his separator.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver
Brian Gaff
Feb 5, 2012, 7:07:18 AM2/5/12
to
Chuckle, don't worry I always wind him up when he mentions it, I come from a
long line of trolls. I was on these groups before the web was actually
invented. I have non toxic fireproof overalls, you needed them in the net
guru years when we home users were just upstarts.
Brian
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:4f2e1c81$0$2825$c3e8da3$2e00...@news.astraweb.com...
long line of trolls. I was on these groups before the web was actually
invented. I have non toxic fireproof overalls, you needed them in the net
guru years when we home users were just upstarts.
Brian
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:4f2e1c81$0$2825$c3e8da3$2e00...@news.astraweb.com...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Feb 5, 2012, 9:34:13 AM2/5/12
to
In message <jglrd8$gei$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
matter of course; there's no ill-feeling. (I rib Brian about his quoting
the previous poster below his signature delimiter, he ribs me about my
sometimes odd formatting.) I too have been at this lark since the days
of teletype terminals (I mean ones where the "screen" was a roll of
paper), though I didn't actually know of this particular 'group then.
Learnt on a computer with 16 memory locations; I remember paying about
70 pounds to get my first own computer (built from chip level, with
soldering iron) up from 1K to 8K of memory. And started home use with a
75/1200 baud MoDem.
--
J. P. Gilliver
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>Chuckle, don't worry I always wind him up when he mentions it, I come from a
>long line of trolls. I was on these groups before the web was actually
>invented. I have non toxic fireproof overalls, you needed them in the net
>guru years when we home users were just upstarts.
>
>Brian
>
Yes, we've known each other here for years, and wind each other up as a
>Chuckle, don't worry I always wind him up when he mentions it, I come from a
>long line of trolls. I was on these groups before the web was actually
>invented. I have non toxic fireproof overalls, you needed them in the net
>guru years when we home users were just upstarts.
>
>Brian
>
matter of course; there's no ill-feeling. (I rib Brian about his quoting
the previous poster below his signature delimiter, he ribs me about my
sometimes odd formatting.) I too have been at this lark since the days
of teletype terminals (I mean ones where the "screen" was a roll of
paper), though I didn't actually know of this particular 'group then.
Learnt on a computer with 16 memory locations; I remember paying about
70 pounds to get my first own computer (built from chip level, with
soldering iron) up from 1K to 8K of memory. And started home use with a
75/1200 baud MoDem.
--
J. P. Gilliver
SixStringStu
Feb 5, 2012, 9:52:47 AM2/5/12
to
news:n+d5Ckbl...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
I have been computing and a home user almost as long.
Somebody else mentioned ARPNet, been there. Someone mentioned BBSs, done
that.
Haven't been in it since folks were hard wiring chips to a breadboard, but
not long afterwards.
And btw, "I come from a long line of trolls" is probably the worst claim one
can make on USENET. lol
Somebody else mentioned ARPNet, been there. Someone mentioned BBSs, done
that.
Haven't been in it since folks were hard wiring chips to a breadboard, but
not long afterwards.
And btw, "I come from a long line of trolls" is probably the worst claim one
can make on USENET. lol
0 new messages