Difference between revisions of "Talk:1865: Wifi vs Cellular"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Panamax is probably a reference to [[1632]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.88|172.68.10.88]] 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC) | Panamax is probably a reference to [[1632]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.88|172.68.10.88]] 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
| − | I'm not sure that home wifi was even a thing that could be used widely by the public in the early 2000s. | + | I'm not sure that home wifi was even a thing that could be used widely by the public in the early 2000s. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 15:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:06, 19 July 2017
I'm not sure it applies in my country. While I have access to cellular internet that is somewhat faster than my home wifi, it is not nearly as reliable for important downloads and definitely several magnitudes costlier when it comes to, say, a Gigabyte of data. Xenos (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Heck, it doesn't even apply in my area of the US (rural Maine). We have no cellular connection at all (well, if you stand at a window at the farthest end of the house, sometimes you can make a call), and the Internet connection for our computers is so slow that upgrading a new-to-me laptop to Windows 10 last week took 36 hours. Now I'm trying to add several thousand jpg images to my Google Drive; that takes about 75 minutes per 100 photos. While they're uploading I don't dare visit any other website. Something about keepalive pings not being able to get to the modem, which then shuts down the link altogether. MaineGrammy (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Panamax is probably a reference to 1632. 172.68.10.88 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that home wifi was even a thing that could be used widely by the public in the early 2000s. OldCorps (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
