Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
from the phone to the laptop.

Took 75 minutes.

Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.

Took under 3 minutes

About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
10 gigs
3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
good speed for usb3?)

I guess I'm posting because it suprises me how much faster it is from
the laptop to the external drive, compared to from the phone.

Wait. I could have done it right but I had the phone plugged into the
desktop while I was backing up the photos to the laptop, on the same
local network. That was stupid. Did it slow things down? Likely to
cause errors? Or have they got the error-elimination working realllly
well now? (Stupid me, I only noticed this because when I unplugged
the phone, a message popped up on the desktop PC!)

My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
comparable to PC's? I used MyPhoneExplorer, but I think that just
formats the copy and then the copy is done the same as most other
methods would do it, right?

Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3? If not that, what? Or do
they not rate them at all?

(AOMEI backing up the whole 170gig partition with slight compression to
the same external drive only took about 35 minutes.)

micky wrote:

> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?

Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 14:34:53 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>
>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>
>Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
>but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?

LOL. Well I have a policy of doing backups much more often than 2
years. Implementing it has been backed up in committee. The
MickySenate is all for it but the MickyHouse dawdles so much you'd think
it wants me to lose my files.

I have wifi, in the phone and my local network, and MyPhoneExplorer will
connect in any of five ways, USB cable, wifi, bluetooth, fixed IP
address, or autodetect (although I don't know how auto makes its
decision. I currently had it set on auto and fwiw it's when I plug in
the cable that it asks if I want to backup photos,etc. ).

But I always thought cables were faster, or more reliable, than
wireless.

micky, 2023-12-26 14:22:

> Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
> from the phone to the laptop.
>
> Took 75 minutes.

How did you do that? Via USB cable? WiFi?

> Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
>
> Took under 3 minutes
>
> About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
> 10 gigs
> 3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
> good speed for usb3?)

That's about 63 MB per scond which is not really fast for USB3 - but it
depends on the external drive as well, how fast it can get. Wich
mechanical hard drives the transfer rate is also limited when you copy
many smaller files since the write heads need to be positioned all the time.

[...]
> My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
> not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More

It depends on what kind of connection you use.

Via USB2 and MTP you can at least expect 20-30 MB per second or up to
1800 MB per minute. So 10 GB should be possible in less than 10 minutes.

However using WiFi or even Bluetooth (which is also supported by
MyPhoneExplorer) it will be *much* slower. Using 2.4 GHz you don't get
much more than 5-10 MB per second and Bluetooth only supports 1 MB/s or
less.

The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Andy Burns, 2023-12-26 15:34:

> micky wrote:
>
>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>
> Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
> but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?

For the future I would use FolderSync and sync on a weekly basis to a
shared folder on the PC via WiFi. FolderSync will check which files
already got synced and will only transfer the missing ones.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

micky wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>>
>> Almost invariably USB2
>
> LOL.

According to this, quite a few phones are USB3.x now

<https://www.epey.co.uk/phone/usb-version/3-1-gen-1-usb-3-0/>

But maybe it needs taking with a pinch of salt, it says my Pixel 5a has
USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:32:52 +0100, Arno
Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

>Andy Burns, 2023-12-26 15:34:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>>
>> Almost invariably USB2, that'll be your bottleneck, wifi could be faster
>> but needs installing apps to do it, worth it for once eery 2 years?
>
>For the future I would use FolderSync and sync on a weekly basis to a

I don't know if I can go from every 2 years to every week. I'm afraid
the G-forces will kill me.

>shared folder on the PC via WiFi. FolderSync will check which files
>already got synced and will only transfer the missing ones.

But I will check out FolderSync, right now.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> micky wrote:
>
> > Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> >> micky wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
> >>
> >> Almost invariably USB2
> >
> > LOL.
>
> According to this, quite a few phones are USB3.x now
>
> <https://www.epey.co.uk/phone/usb-version/3-1-gen-1-usb-3-0/>
>
> But maybe it needs taking with a pinch of salt, it says my Pixel 5a has
> USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...

If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd
get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the
box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2
speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.

Theo

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno
Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

>micky, 2023-12-26 14:22:
>
>> Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
>> from the phone to the laptop.
>>
>> Took 75 minutes.
>
>How did you do that? Via USB cable? WiFi?

It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostly
for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(
>
>> Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
>>
>> Took under 3 minutes
>>
>> About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
>> 10 gigs
>> 3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
>> good speed for usb3?)
>
>That's about 63 MB per scond which is not really fast for USB3 - but it
>depends on the external drive as well, how fast it can get. Wich
>mechanical hard drives the transfer rate is also limited when you copy
>many smaller files since the write heads need to be positioned all the time.

No small files, but the files had to change trains when they got to the
wrong computer.

>[...]
>> My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
>> not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
>
>It depends on what kind of connection you use.
>
>Via USB2 and MTP you can at least expect 20-30 MB per second or up to
>1800 MB per minute. So 10 GB should be possible in less than 10 minutes.
>
>However using WiFi or even Bluetooth (which is also supported by
>MyPhoneExplorer) it will be *much* slower. Using 2.4 GHz you don't get
>much more than 5-10 MB per second and Bluetooth only supports 1 MB/s or
>less.
>
>The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.

Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.

This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
photos (PTP).
Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it
does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
it elsewhere.)

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 16:36:31 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> micky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3?
>>>
>>> Almost invariably USB2
>>
>> LOL.
>
>According to this, quite a few phones are USB3.x now
>
><https://www.epey.co.uk/phone/usb-version/3-1-gen-1-usb-3-0/>
>
>But maybe it needs taking with a pinch of salt, it says my Pixel 5a has
>USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...

Haha.

I plugged my phone into the wrong computer, but to test it with the
right computer, I don't have 10 more gigs to transfer. At the moment I
don't have anything to transfer.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on 26 Dec 2023 16:54:28 +0000 (GMT), Theo

<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd
>get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the
>box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2
>speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.
>
>Theo

I've lost track of what cable I got where. I'll pay more attention in
the future and maybe I'll buy a cable I know is USB3 (even though I'm
really not in a hurry, but I think I should do things right.)

On 12/26/2023 12:00 PM, micky wrote:
> It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostly
> for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
> transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(
Do I understand correctly: You have two computers on your LAN that
share folders. You connected you phone to one computer, and
transferred your file from the phone to computer one which saved them to
a shared drive that existed on computer one?

If so this in inherently the slowest way to accomplish the task.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:58:50 -0500, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 12/26/2023 12:00 PM, micky wrote:
>> It was usb cable, but I used a cable that was already plugged in, mostly
>> for charging the phone, and it was the wrong computer, not the one I was
>> transferring to. So I guess it was cable to wifi. ;-(
>Do I understand correctly: You have two computers on your LAN that
>share folders.

No, they don't share folders. But the cable went the computer without
the folder.

> You connected you phone to one computer, and
>transferred your file from the phone to computer one which saved them to
>a shared drive that existed on computer one?

No, I don'[t have any shared drives. I have considered them separate
computers for different uses and never ran both at the same time until
20 months ago. In this case, I thought computer one just took them in
and sent them out on wifi. But otoh, how would it know to do that?
Maybe I'm just assuming they ever went to computer one. If they went to
computer one, what would happen when they got there? Maybe they went
by wifi straight from the phone to computer 2. It's set on autodetect
and since the PC half of MyPhoneExploer was not on the PC the cable
connected to, maybe that was no connection at all, and it went by wifi
instead, straight to MyPhoneEplorer on the correct computer. ??

If so, there was no point in plugging in the phone except to charge it
for 75 minutes, instead of discharging. Maybe all that wifi would
discharge it faster than usually.

>If so this in inherently the slowest way to accomplish the task.

I'm glad I excel in something.

On 12/26/2023 8:22 AM, micky wrote:
> Finally got around to backing up 2 years of photos, mostly unimportant,
> from the phone to the laptop.
>
> Took 75 minutes.
>
> Then from the laptop to the mini-external drive.
>
> Took under 3 minutes
>
> About 440 images or videos copied. A couple videos > 1 gig each.
> 10 gigs
> 3800 MB/minute (from the PC to the external drive, that is. A
> good speed for usb3?)
>
> I guess I'm posting because it suprises me how much faster it is from
> the laptop to the external drive, compared to from the phone.
>
> Wait. I could have done it right but I had the phone plugged into the
> desktop while I was backing up the photos to the laptop, on the same
> local network. That was stupid. Did it slow things down? Likely to
> cause errors? Or have they got the error-elimination working realllly
> well now? (Stupid me, I only noticed this because when I unplugged
> the phone, a message popped up on the desktop PC!)
>
> My phone is a Xiaomi, 2 or 3 years old. Not that I'm in a rush -- I'm
> not -- but have copy times gotten faster since my phone was made? More
> comparable to PC's? I used MyPhoneExplorer, but I think that just
> formats the copy and then the copy is done the same as most other
> methods would do it, right?
>
> Do they rate phone ports as USB2 and USB3? If not that, what? Or do
> they not rate them at all?
>
>
> (AOMEI backing up the whole 170gig partition with slight compression to
> the same external drive only took about 35 minutes.)
>

If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.

10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.

10,000,000,000
--------------
75*60

MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".

Google modified the (Microsoft) specification somewhat, by defining
a slightly smaller "chunk size" of some sort, to
improve the granularity aspects of the protocol.
That's so the link would not look dead, when a
1GB video crosses the cable.

My camera, as a counter-example, uses USB mass storage protocol,
and it goes as fast as the cable or SD card can go.
It does not heave metadata around like a drunk.
That's why it goes fast.

Paul

micky, 2023-12-26 18:00:

> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno
> Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
>> The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
>
> Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
>
> This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
> more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
> As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
> choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
> photos (PTP).

PTP and MTP are very similar.

PTP - "Picture Transfer Protocol" - was originally developed to transer
images from digital cameras to a computer or printer and is therefore
not as flexible. A smartphone in this mode will appear like a camera to
the computer.

MTP - "Media Transfer Protocol" - is the successor and provides some
extensions. But when you just want to copy images from the phone to your
computer, this should be a big difference.

> Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
> files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it
> does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
> some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
> but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
> it elsewhere.)

No, maybe MTP was just not added by the manufacturer to save costs for
development and testing. For image transfer, PTP is totally sufficient
and many people don't need anything else.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Paul, 2023-12-26 21:38:

[...]
> If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
> that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
> issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
>
> 10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
>
> 10,000,000,000
> --------------
> 75*60
>
> MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".

Yes, but MTP is not *that* slow. It may be half of the possible speed.
In this case I believe it's more like using WiFi with 2.4 GHz (2-6 MB/s)
instead of USB (20-60 MB/s).

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 26.12.23 23:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Paul, 2023-12-26 21:38:
>
> [...]
>> If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
>> that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
>> issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
>>
>> 10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
>>
>> 10,000,000,000
>> --------------
>> 75*60
>>
>> MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".
>
> Yes, but MTP is not *that* slow. It may be half of the possible speed.
> In this case I believe it's more like using WiFi with 2.4 GHz (2-6 MB/s)
> instead of USB (20-60 MB/s).

Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

Theo wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> it says my Pixel 5a has USB 3.1, which it doesn't ...
>
> If the USB-C cable you're using only has the USB 2.0 pairs wired then you'd
> get USB 2.0 speeds (peak 60MB/s, likely less). The cable which came in the
> box likely doesn't have the USB 3 pairs in it, so will only work at USB 2
> speeds. You'd need a better cable to get faster data transfer.

Yes, I've got various USB4/TB4 rated cables, but I thought the SoC only
had a USB2 compatible controller.

Just used UsbTreeView and it reports as USB 3.2 Gen1, copying a 1.9 GB
firmware file from phone to laptop took 16 seconds instead of 47 seconds.

While looking at the specsheet for the snapdragon 765G, I noticed it
supports DP altmode, the phone will power my USB-C monitor, apparently
it can't drive it as a second screen :-(

In comp.mobile.android Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> micky, 2023-12-26 18:00:
>
> > In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno
> > Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> [...]
> >> The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
> >
> > Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
> >
> > This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
> > more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
> > As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
> > choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
> > photos (PTP).
>
> PTP and MTP are very similar.
>
> PTP - "Picture Transfer Protocol" - was originally developed to transer
> images from digital cameras to a computer or printer and is therefore
> not as flexible. A smartphone in this mode will appear like a camera to
> the computer.
>
> MTP - "Media Transfer Protocol" - is the successor and provides some
> extensions. But when you just want to copy images from the phone to your
> computer, this should be a big difference.
>
> > Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
> > files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it
> > does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
> > some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
> > but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
> > it elsewhere.)
>
> No, maybe MTP was just not added by the manufacturer to save costs for
> development and testing. For image transfer, PTP is totally sufficient
> and many people don't need anything else.

As far as I know, Micky has a Samsung phone.

On Samsung phones, the 'Transferring files / Android Auto' setting is
the one which (also) does MTP.

At least, when set to that setting, you can use it with File Explorer
on a Windows system and Windows does only MTP on such a connection.

They probably don't mention MTP because 1) it's not just for media,
but for any type of file and 2) the 'Transferring files / Android Auto'
already fills nearly the whole line, so there's no space to add 'MTP',

Bottom line: The 'Transferring files' setting is for ... <drum roll>
.... transferring files!

In comp.mobile.android, on 27 Dec 2023 11:40:08 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.mobile.android Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> micky, 2023-12-26 18:00:
>>
>> > In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:31:37 +0100, Arno
>> > Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> The fastest way would be to use a direct USB connection and MTP.
>> >
>> > Next time I'll do it right. (I did have the phone set at PTP.
>> >
>> > This is not important, especially to me, and I will search online some
>> > more but if you know the answer right off, I'd be interested:
>> > As to MTP, when I plug the cable into the phone, it gives three
>> > choices, No data transfer, file transfer/android auto, and Tranfer
>> > photos (PTP).
>>
>> PTP and MTP are very similar.
>>
>> PTP - "Picture Transfer Protocol" - was originally developed to transer
>> images from digital cameras to a computer or printer and is therefore
>> not as flexible. A smartphone in this mode will appear like a camera to
>> the computer.
>>
>> MTP - "Media Transfer Protocol" - is the successor and provides some
>> extensions. But when you just want to copy images from the phone to your
>> computer, this should be a big difference.
>>
>> > Wikip says " In 2011, [MTP] became the standard method to transfer
>> > files to and from Android." My phone is a from 2021 or so. How come it
>> > does't offer MTP. Or does it say PTP but means MTP? (One hit says on
>> > some phones you can choose which one you want in the Settings/Storage,
>> > but I don't even have a storage section in my settings and I can't find
>> > it elsewhere.)
>>
>> No, maybe MTP was just not added by the manufacturer to save costs for
>> development and testing. For image transfer, PTP is totally sufficient
>> and many people don't need anything else.
>
> As far as I know, Micky has a Samsung phone.

FWIW, it's a Xiaomi phone. But I'm okay. I just wanted to provide a
curiosity for you folks. And all the files actually were pictures, or
videos (the same thing?).

BTW, I had to reconnect to send some texts** and I did it the same way,
and this time I noticed that it said I was connected by wifi, not USB. I
hope I remember next time. Wait, this was next time. I hope I remember
the time after next time.

**Easier to type on the PC, full size keyboard, use two hands. Using
myphoneexplorer. It will also synchronize contacts, which iiuc for me
just means it saves my phone contacts on my computer. In case the phone
is lost, they can be copied back to the next phone.

> On Samsung phones, the 'Transferring files / Android Auto' setting is
>the one which (also) does MTP.
>
> At least, when set to that setting, you can use it with File Explorer
>on a Windows system and Windows does only MTP on such a connection.
>
> They probably don't mention MTP because 1) it's not just for media,
>but for any type of file and 2) the 'Transferring files / Android Auto'
>already fills nearly the whole line, so there's no space to add 'MTP',
>
> Bottom line: The 'Transferring files' setting is for ... <drum roll>
>... transferring files!

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:

> On 26.12.23 23:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Paul, 2023-12-26 21:38:
>>
>> [...]
>>> If the phone uses MTP protocol to transfer a flat folder,
>>> that's going to "suck like donkey balls". It is a worse
>>> issue than whether it is a USB2 or USB3 physical layer.
>>>
>>> 10 gig, 75 minutes, 2.2MB/sec. USB2 is 30MB/sec.
>>>
>>> 10,000,000,000
>>> --------------
>>> 75*60
>>>
>>> MTP design, is based on transferring "whole objects".
>>
>> Yes, but MTP is not *that* slow. It may be half of the possible speed.
>> In this case I believe it's more like using WiFi with 2.4 GHz (2-6 MB/s)
>> instead of USB (20-60 MB/s).
>
> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.

Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
USB in many cases.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
>> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
>
> Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
> USB in many cases.

180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
for a DVD.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Am 28.12.23 um 08:21 schrieb Jörg Lorenz:
> Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
>>> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
>>
>> Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
>> USB in many cases.
>
> 180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
> for a DVD.

5 Mhz would be even faster. In our big massive home with the three steel
reinforced floors this is not an option.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:21:

> Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
>>> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
>>
>> Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
>> USB in many cases.
>
> 180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
> for a DVD.

Yes - that's why I said "around 18 MB/s". And 22 is still less than 30.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:29:

> Am 28.12.23 um 08:21 schrieb Jörg Lorenz:
>> Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
>>>> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
>>>
>>> Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
>>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
>>> USB in many cases.
>>
>> 180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
>> for a DVD.
>
> 5 Mhz would be even faster. In our big massive home with the three steel
> reinforced floors this is not an option.

GHz, not MHz.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Am 28.12.23 um 13:09 schrieb Arno Welzel:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-28 08:21:
>
>> Am 28.12.23 um 02:00 schrieb Arno Welzel:
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2023-12-27 01:45:
>>>> Wifi 6 is yielding here at least 180 Megabit/s in the 2.4 GHz-band.
>>>
>>> Did you confuse megabit and megabyte? Because 180 Megabit/s is also just
>>> around 18 MB/s - yes, faster than just 2-6 MB/s but still slower than
>>> USB in many cases.
>>
>> 180 Megabit/s are 22 MB/s. 30s for a complete CD or less than 4 minutes
>> for a DVD.
>
> Yes - that's why I said "around 18 MB/s". And 22 is still less than 30.

Klugscheisser.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)