Superhub : What hardware versions / revisions of the superhub are there?

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Why is the price of electricty still being debated?

I dunno but I reckon each of those posts has cost around £0.001p to make. It all adds up

[dave.m]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Except that Chrys coisted it at 13p/4 days which is £12/year which is bugger all.

A ridiculous subject to be debating.

I disagree, as it's the only device available I think it should be scrutinized in every detail so the next revamp will take note of what the customer wants.

[gba93]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Except that Chrys coisted it at 13p/4 days which is £12/year which is bugger all.

A ridiculous subject to be debating.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by dave.m

I disagree, as it's the only device available I think it should be scrutinized in every detail so the next revamp will take note of what the customer wants.

Are you real? Try scrutinising it's stability and don't worry about 18 watts. It runs on electricity, drives 4 router ports and wireless, fronts the cable network and doesn't use any more than a 75 watt equivalent lamp.

This debate is nonsensical. All revisions to the SH should be dedicated to improving stability, improving wireless, adding router functions that are currently disabled

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Are you real? Try scrutinising it's stability and don't worry about 18 watts. It runs on electricity, drives 4 router ports and wireless, fronts the cable network and doesn't use any more than a 75 watt equivalent lamp.

This debate is nonsensical. All revisions to the SH should be dedicated to improving stability, improving wireless, adding router functions that are currently disabled

While I don't actually care about the electricity use of the device myself, I don't see why it's "nonsensical" to debate it. For some people, the issues you describe aren't as important, it's all relative. Besides, why lower the bar for improvement? Why say "Only improve these issues as they're the most important" instead of "these are the most important issues, however these other issues could do with being looked at as well".
The point I'm making is that there's plenty of good reason for discussing such things and posting on a discussion board of things that shouldn't be discussed is somewhat backwards.

[gba93]

Originally Posted by Kushan

While I don't actually care about the electricity use of the device myself, I don't see why it's "nonsensical" to debate it. For some people, the issues you describe aren't as important, it's all relative. Besides, why lower the bar for improvement? Why say "Only improve these issues as they're the most important" instead of "these are the most important issues, however these other issues could do with being looked at as well".
The point I'm making is that there's plenty of good reason for discussing such things and posting on a discussion board of things that shouldn't be discussed is somewhat backwards.

If you say so

[Kushan]

Well if you don't care about the subject or simply aren't interested, you don't have to reply to anyone that is.

[Peter_]

For those worrying about the power usage of their Superhub the is always this option.

[qasdfdsaq]

There's also this option too

[qasdfdsaq]

Maybe not everyone has free choice of electricity supplier.

[dave.m]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Are you real? Try scrutinising it's stability and don't worry about 18 watts. It runs on electricity, drives 4 router ports and wireless, fronts the cable network and doesn't use any more than a 75 watt equivalent lamp.

This debate is nonsensical. All revisions to the SH should be dedicated to improving stability, improving wireless, adding router functions that are currently disabled

1. I don't leave 75 watt lights on 24/7, plus I only use low wattage fluorescent bulbs because guess what when you have 8 of them it adds up.
2. If the "superhub" managed to do all of the above really well you might have a point but it doesn't. So now the "superhub" is just a 12w oversized modem.
3. "Are you real?" - wow profound!

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Maybe not everyone has free choice of electricity supplier.

Yes - sorry I was forgetting that.

[qasdfdsaq]

I had something witty to say about this thread this morning but now I've forgotten it.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Try scrutinising it's stability and don't worry about 18 watts.

18 watts matters a lot if you're trying to run it on batteries.

[kwikbreaks]

So instead of the witty response you made the pointless one about batteries? Any UPS capable of running a PC for a worthwhile time would scoff at an extra 18w and even a £40 one would keep 18w going for a long long time.

[qasdfdsaq]

Any UPS capable of running a PC for a worthwhile amount of time would be too heavy to lug around in your backpack or attach to a lamp post as well. I should add that when my PC uses half as much power as the Superhub, you really don't need a big UPS - or batteries. When the router takes twice as much power as the PC it's feeding though, that's just plain ironic.

Back on topic though regarding the Superhub. Sure it could do with stability improvements, but in regards to power draw, half the reason it has such high power draw is bad/poor hardware design coupled with cheap-ass bottom-of-the-range parts - the deliberate choice of which I'd say is probably a contributory factor to its stability (or lack thereof).

If it weren't built on cheap-ass outdated bottom-of-the-range hardware then specifically downgraded even further for an extra-large, extra-cheap dose of super-concentrated ass, it probably wouldn't have so many stability issues to begin with. And probably would have sensible power draw.