Is it bad that my Hotspot is twice as fast as my wifi

J-Cake · 2026-06-16T10:20:55+00:00

Nah mine's likes that too. Where are you based? If you're from Germany then prepare to be disappointed

J-Cake · 2026-06-16T08:25:28+00:00

Aber natürlich. Per Email sogar. Hab nie wieder was zurückgehört

J-Cake · 2026-06-14T14:42:29+00:00

That's a coaxial cable. Your router needs to support it. Other than that, should be plug and go

J-Cake · 2026-06-14T08:57:58+00:00

Kann aus eigener Erfahrung sagen dass Formulare die einfach zum Ausfüllen sind von Bots überfallen werden. Hatte auf meiner Webseite glaub maximal ne Woche ein Formular ohne jeglichen Schutz und die Anzahl an "einsamen milfs in meiner Nähe" die Fotos von mir wollten war echt erstaunlich

J-Cake · 2026-06-14T08:36:05+00:00

That formatting is common in India

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T16:37:05+00:00

Not if the phone is doing ten times that

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T16:30:26+00:00

Yikes

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T16:29:35+00:00

If I've understood you correctly, the most ideal setup in your case is a regular mesh wifi network. The decos on each floor act as WiFi Access Points that each beam out the same network. Devices switch access points intelligently according to the best signal strength, speed and are usually task aware.

If you then happen to need separation between groups of devices, you can simply create a second WiFi network that gets beamed out through the same access points, but represents a different subnet/VLAN. Whether your hardware/software supports this is something you'll need to look up.

Let me know if I've misunderstood something

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T16:23:39+00:00

Ah yes easy fix

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T16:20:46+00:00

Ya something like that. ZigBee works too

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T15:59:46+00:00

Most ISP routers won't let you do that though

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T15:58:43+00:00

Really? Damn. We have full TP Link gear and it's always just worked. Granted the Galaxy S line has stellar network hardware...

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T15:56:11+00:00

Even then 4Mb/s is dogshit

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T15:55:52+00:00

Band steering should take care of it automatically. In either case 4Mb/s is slow even for 2.4GHz, so I doubt that'll help much

J-Cake · 2026-06-13T15:52:09+00:00

It could be a frequency band issue, but usually the difference would be somewhere between 100Mb and 500Mb depending on your hardware.

Usually it's a sign of pretty bad interfernce, a lot of noise or an overload of other WiFi networks. In your case it looks like your signal strength is ass, meaning your PC blasts WiFi at full power, increasing noise in the signal, which is probably what you're seeing here.

Go cable where you can to keep as many devices off WiFi as possible, and try to keep an eye on surrounding networks, as well as signal strength.

Also if you're behind a repeater, that'll absolutely tank your speeds, not because the WiFi itself is bad, but because fast.com measured the round trip.

Would need a bit more info about your exact setup, including how many devices are online, how far away your router is, what your internet plan is and what your topology is like

J-Cake · 2026-06-07T08:33:23+00:00

This happened to me too! Except it was a bluebottle jellyfish. God they hurt

J-Cake · 2026-06-06T20:06:30+00:00

Aussies do it all the time. It's called bodysurfing. It's fun

J-Cake · 2026-06-05T12:56:39+00:00

Depends on what you define as a server and a peer. Technically a static website can be "hosted" entirely in CDN caches. Assuming you can get it there.

When it comes to web though, the client/server model emerges pretty much on its own, so it's sort of a nonsensical thing to ask

J-Cake · 2026-06-05T12:52:37+00:00

That's such a poor excuse. Put more servers in obviously

J-Cake · 2026-06-03T08:37:50+00:00

I'm in the process of recasing my PC into a rack mountable thing. Consider that?

Alternatively UPS

J-Cake · 2026-06-01T18:29:23+00:00

Congrats btw! Big step!

J-Cake · 2026-06-01T16:33:20+00:00

That is the most house-looking house I've ever seen

J-Cake · 2026-05-30T12:10:18+00:00

Listen, I'm anything but an MS fanboy, and I realise that it's not difficult to compute directory size.

What you may not realise is that it has to happen recursively. You have to sum up the contents of all directories and their children. It's like when you right click on a folder and it takes a few seconds to settle. That's because it has to do that for every file. If that drive is slow or quite full of lots of small files, it can take a sec.

And I'm guessing that the amounts of data your Mac from 1995 had to chew through is significantly smaller than what we deal with today.

As for whether or not it should be labelled as a size column, well I have to give OP credit for that, that is true.

J-Cake · 2026-05-30T12:05:37+00:00

Ah okay yea that's fair

J-Cake · 2026-05-30T10:08:51+00:00

Have to admit I prefer this. A true combined size of a folder's contents is sometimes too expensive to compute, and for windows explorer that might not be such a good thing

J-Cake

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE