Linked by Michael Pfeiffer on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 00:05 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 454566
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So true.
I have a really cheap and bad router with PPPoE support and I couldn't get it to work faster than 300 kB/s, but if I put the cable directly in my desktop computer I got speeds of 1-3mB/s. I never looked very much into that, but I sure was glad that XP had PPPoE support.
Also, a lot of people here don't have more than one computer, and usually it's a desktop, so there's no need for a router.
Edited 2010-12-23 15:09 UTC
Depends on where you live. In Romania around 70% of computers are desktop not laptop so there's no need for wifi, we use good old pppoe. I'm sure there are other countries out there in a similar position.
I'm in Ireland, where the incumbent telecoms provider still seems to think its 1995 price-wise; but every package with every telco gives you a full router. It was the same in the UK when I worked for a UK telco 4 years ago.
Irrelevant as to whether the computers are desktop are laptop, routers are just easier to work with and I'd have thought they were cheap enough that they were used everywhere. Maybe not...




Member since:
2005-06-29
WPA is very nearly there - http://haiku-os.org/blog/axeld/2010-12-14_almost_not_there_yet
PPPoE - I've not seen someone without a proper DSL router in years, seeing as most of the ancient ones don't support the speeds being provided these days. I don't see this actually being of much importance.