I read this article as it was linked in the power supply guide posting, which I thought (on perusing it quickly) seemed rather well done. However, this article is so attrocious (both in inaccuracies and it's horribly outdated information) that it draws into doubt the quality of the original article that brought me here. I'm not just some Joe going off on a rant without knowing a thing, and my apologies as I am sure that this was likely intended for average Joe who doesn't have a strong base in networking, but even for that, it could have been written immensely better. I don't know if the author is to blame or the technical editor.
First off, as a disclaimer, I didn't bother reading the wireless section. Stuff has been changing too rapidly the past few years to even bother, and it is ultimately so simple nowadays that you shouldn't even have to bother with the wireles options. What I did see of wireless information (such as range) was horribly inaccurate. In my experience with most indoor environments, you'll be lucky if you get a *reliable* signal at a fraction of the 150 feet he mentions.
Simple advice for wireless: Buy a dual-radio N-capable wireless router and then decide if you're going to use N-capable internal wireless cards or USB dongles for any devices you have that do not include integrated wireless. Be warned that in my experience, many wireless routers designed for home use work fine for wireless devices accessing the internet, but when attempting to transfer data between a wired and wireless device, the router will act as a bottleneck, often running at speeds lower than what standard (10 Mbps) ethernet will provide. If you plan on hooking up a device such as a home server or NAS device to your home wireless router, be careful what you pick and either fork out the money for a higher-end SOHO/SMB device or read your reviews thoroughly and ensure that you're getting exactly that device (down to the revision number even, sometimes).
This article clutters the users mind with unnecessary information and technical details which to knowledgeable persons will already be apparent, and recognized as often incorrect; and for the unknowegeable reader - incorrect and irrelevant but taken as true. To rattle off a few
-switches and hubs, while sharing some features (they're small, blockish and have multiple ports) are also different at an operational level - switches are OSI layer 2 devices, while hubs are electrical devices operating at OSI layer 1.
-Packets do not get where they need to go because of MAC addresses; frames get where they need to go thanks to MAC addresses while packets are at OSI layer 3 and utilize IP addresses for routing.
-If you want to see your MAC address via ipconfig, use ipconfig/all. ipconfig on its own will not provide you with this information.
If I wanted to take a closer read or go through it again, I'm sure I could pull out atleast as many errors as I listed above, but I've gotten enough of my steam out about someone publishing yet more outdated and erroneous technical info or advice in the realm of networking and IT. Please, if you're going to write a tech article, do it with a purpose, stay true to it, make sure you have your stuff down pat, and damn well update it if you're going to re-publish it.
No one cares about coaxial ethernet anymore, unless you're over the hill or working in some industrial environment with networked machinery, in which case I hope you're not getting your expertise from this article.
PS. I'd still like to say thanks to Tom's Hardware and that they're an invaluable resource - not just for their reviews and articles, but for the user community they have generated as well. But with that said - is it just me, or is Tom's IT site just one big stream of advertisements in the guise of articles, news stories, and white papers?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram