By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U has no ethernet port

Player2 on 09 November 2012
runqvist said:
Player2 said:

Why do you want to sit so close that you need a higher resolution TV to do not be able to see the pixels? Those links doesn't say that the blue zone is wrong.

"Benefit of 1080p becomes noticeable" means that if you sit that close with a TV with lower resolution than 1080p you'll see the pixels. It isn't a recommended distance.

Do you understand what you are reading? Did you take a look only at the first chart?

The second chart is wrong because maximum viewing distance doesn't depend on resolution. It's funny because in that graphic 480p allows you to watch the TV from a further distance than 1080p in a TV with the same size, now that's an improvement :D

Minimum viewing distance does depend on pixel size, and that depends on resolution and screen size. This is where resolution helps, not in maximum viewing distance.



Around the Network
Psyberius on 09 November 2012
VGKing said:

Shane Satterfield(Gametrailers Editor-in-chief) has confirmed that the Wii U has no ethernet port. This means the only way to get online on a Wii U is through wi-fi or by purchasing some sort of dongle.


Wow stupid stupid stupid...whats it cost to put ethernet on a board..like 50 cents?  There are a TON of people who have flaky wifi or out of range.  (Or jackasses like my neighbour who bcasts 56,000 fake networks as part of protecting his own.  He has a linux program that literally broadcasts 56000 fake networks.   People in the neighbourhood that dont know how to network are totally unable to figure it out.)

In any case, wifi is FAR from being the only networking standard for people.  I'd prefer rock solid 1000mbit over wifi any day.



noname2200 on 09 November 2012
Psyberius said:


Wow stupid stupid stupid...whats it cost to put ethernet on a board..like 50 cents?  There are a TON of people who have flaky wifi or out of range.  (Or jackasses like my neighbour who bcasts 56,000 fake networks as part of protecting his own.  He has a linux program that literally broadcasts 56000 fake networks.   People in the neighbourhood that dont know how to network are totally unable to figure it out.)

In any case, wifi is FAR from being the only networking standard for people.  I'd prefer rock solid 1000mbit over wifi any day.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethernet-LAN-Adapter-Nintendo-Wii-Port/dp/B003A1KW68

*whistles*

 

Also, you're neighbor is a complete douchebag. But you already know that.



Viper1 on 09 November 2012
Turkish said:
Viper1 said:
Turkish said:
Disappointing, ethernet port is a must because my wifi is shit.


Buy the dongle.   $15 from Amazon.

I'm not gonna spend an extra €15.

Not like you're going to buy the console anyway.  So I suppose it would be pointless for you to buy the adapter with no console to connect it to.  But if you are serious about actually buying the consoel and playing online and your Wi-Fi truly is shit, then are you going to let a $15 dongle be such an issue?

Just curious but how do you feel about the PS Vita and memory cards?

KylieDog said:

1. No, online gaming is even worse, he was testing speed between router and PC.  Going between router and then to someone elses home, then across their wireless network to the host machine, then back again to all other players (which any P2P hosting game such as CoD will be doing if everyone is wireless) is three times as bad at the very least.  Downloading is just transfering data, same as gaming.

2. Houses have walls, ceilings too.

3. Yeah, happens with wireless networks often, especially if other networks are nearby, such as in an office, or on a street where more than one person has a wireless network.  From my house right now I can detect 13.  Or where microwaves or cordless phones and plenty other things than can interfere with a wifi signal are.  One of the reasons why wired is better, you see.

4. Ping is not the only thing that matters, as his data transfer proved.

5. Yeah they will be through multiple walls and/or ceilings, or else why bother with a wireless network?  Office building/house on a street, both have similar interference.  It wouldn't have been 100ft away either, the ethernet cable was 100ft, if he going through doors and twisting about in an office building then it isn't a 100ft straight line, not to meantion the slack on the cable making it a lot shorter too.

6. Why the extra cost of a basic thing passed onto consumer, and this will not help being put in games with players who default to wireless play because no other option out the box.



His video would have shown wireless to be even worse if he turned on a microwave during all three tests, since only the wireless would have suffered from it and that 3ms ping would have gone to shit

1. No, he was testing speed between his PC and the network server.  Not his router.  Downloading is most certainloy not the same as online gaming.  Download is limited only by the upload source and your download speed.   Online gaming can actually work just fine a 1 mbps connection.  I can even get 512 kbps connection to have a solid online gaming experience.   Latency is the key, not download speed.

2.  Indeed they do, but few people have houses with as many walls, wireless connections, interference and distance from rotuer as an office building does.  if you do, congrats....you live in an office building.

3. Didn't I already talk about optimisations?  yep, I sure did.  Beamforming, MIMO, channel biding, 3x3:3 arrays, etc...   Look them up.  Or don't and ignore the fact that you can focus your signal for optimum performance.

4. For online gaming, it matters very, very much.   I already told you in point 1 that you can have a solid experience with a very low speed connection so long as your latency is good.  You're still stuck in the mindframe that download speed equates to good online gamining experience.   You really need to do some homework.

5. I covered that in point 3.  Read it again.

6. I don't know why they didn't put it in at default.   Cost, board space, prevelence of Wi-Fi?  Who knows.  All 3 perhaps.  What I do know is you guys have gone overboard on the rage scale for a console you most likely had no intentions of buying to begin with over an issue easily overcome with either optimisation or a dongle.

Ah microwaves.  Unless you have a very poorly shielded microwave, your microwave sits between your router and your console or you've decided for some reason to put the microwave next to the router or the console, the imapct will be very minor it at all.  If it's really a problem, change your Wi-Fi channel.  Or given that this is 802.11 "N", use the 5 Ghz spectrum and get rid of microwave interference all together microwaves transmit at around 2.45 Ghz.  



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Player2 on 09 November 2012
noname2200 said:
Psyberius said:


Wow stupid stupid stupid...whats it cost to put ethernet on a board..like 50 cents?  There are a TON of people who have flaky wifi or out of range.  (Or jackasses like my neighbour who bcasts 56,000 fake networks as part of protecting his own.  He has a linux program that literally broadcasts 56000 fake networks.   People in the neighbourhood that dont know how to network are totally unable to figure it out.)

In any case, wifi is FAR from being the only networking standard for people.  I'd prefer rock solid 1000mbit over wifi any day.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethernet-LAN-Adapter-Nintendo-Wii-Port/dp/B003A1KW68

*whistles*

 

Also, you're neighbor is a complete douchebag. But you already know that.

Psyberius should buy it fast, they have only one in stock...



Around the Network
Viper1 on 09 November 2012
Psyberius said:


Wow stupid stupid stupid...whats it cost to put ethernet on a board..like 50 cents?  There are a TON of people who have flaky wifi or out of range.  (Or jackasses like my neighbour who bcasts 56,000 fake networks as part of protecting his own.  He has a linux program that literally broadcasts 56000 fake networks.   People in the neighbourhood that dont know how to network are totally unable to figure it out.)

In any case, wifi is FAR from being the only networking standard for people.  I'd prefer rock solid 1000mbit over wifi any day.

He's broadcasting 56,000 fake Network SSID's but he's still only transmitting 1 Wi-Fi signal.    If he were actually broadcasting 56,000 signals, the FBI's cyber crimes unit would have already kicked his door down.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Psyberius on 09 November 2012
Viper1 said:
Psyberius said:


Wow stupid stupid stupid...whats it cost to put ethernet on a board..like 50 cents?  There are a TON of people who have flaky wifi or out of range.  (Or jackasses like my neighbour who bcasts 56,000 fake networks as part of protecting his own.  He has a linux program that literally broadcasts 56000 fake networks.   People in the neighbourhood that dont know how to network are totally unable to figure it out.)

In any case, wifi is FAR from being the only networking standard for people.  I'd prefer rock solid 1000mbit over wifi any day.

He's broadcasting 56,000 fake Network SSID's but he's still only transmitting 1 Wi-Fi signal.    If he were actually broadcasting 56,000 signals, the FBI's cyber crimes unit would have already kicked his door down.

Well yes SSIDs however try figuring how to get to your own when you're new to networking.  I helped another neighbour who can't spell computer let alone effectively operate one in exchange for a case of beer.  It's funny as hell to see a never ending list of networks "IF you can see this you're too fucking stupid to network".



runqvist on 10 November 2012
Player2 said:
runqvist said:
Player2 said:

Why do you want to sit so close that you need a higher resolution TV to do not be able to see the pixels? Those links doesn't say that the blue zone is wrong.

"Benefit of 1080p becomes noticeable" means that if you sit that close with a TV with lower resolution than 1080p you'll see the pixels. It isn't a recommended distance.

Do you understand what you are reading? Did you take a look only at the first chart?

The second chart is wrong because maximum viewing distance doesn't depend on resolution. It's funny because in that graphic 480p allows you to watch the TV from a further distance than 1080p in a TV with the same size, now that's an improvement :D

Minimum viewing distance does depend on pixel size, and that depends on resolution and screen size. This is where resolution helps, not in maximum viewing distance.


That answers my question, you don't understand. Why do you even speak when you clearly have no idea?



sepoer on 10 November 2012

No problem, I already had wifi router.



Player2 on 10 November 2012
runqvist said:
Player2 said:
 

The second chart is wrong because maximum viewing distance doesn't depend on resolution. It's funny because in that graphic 480p allows you to watch the TV from a further distance than 1080p in a TV with the same size, now that's an improvement :D

Minimum viewing distance does depend on pixel size, and that depends on resolution and screen size. This is where resolution helps, not in maximum viewing distance.


That answers my question, you don't understand. Why do you even speak when you clearly have no idea?

Yeah sure. But go ahead if you want to use a chart used by movie theaters for your gaming. THX recommended distance uses a 40 degrees viewing angle. 40 degrees viewing angle is suicidal in a videogame because human eye sees like shit at 40 degrees:

Ironically the THX line in the second chart matches the data in the wikipedia article I posted.