Forums online, news to follow


Recommended Posts

Happy with the new Host ?

Think I saw Neobond say the old host where charging Neowin for extra bandwidth used.

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Should look like this:

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109

ing statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms

Hmm.. :/

ping 63.28.242.201

Pinging 63.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 63.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

ping 67.19.41.49

Pinging 67.19.41.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=241

Reply from 67.19.41.49: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=241

Ping statistics for 67.19.41.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 166ms, Maximum = 281ms, Average = 201ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=115

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=115

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 323ms, Maximum = 327ms, Average = 325ms

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 342ms, Maximum = 393ms, Average = 360ms

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Should look like this:

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=242
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 24ms

inging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109
eply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=109

ing statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 57ms

Did you mean 66.28.242.201 and not 63.28.242.201, because I get Request Timed Out on 63.28.242.201, and I noticed you used 66.28.242.201 in your ping results. :p

Anyway, here are my results.

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 88ms

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 135ms, Average = 68ms

Heh. I woke up to find Neowin still on my computer screen. (it was a thread I left open. lol. I closed it and re-open it to get fresh tthreads or news but got told the servers were down. lol.

btw I am now known as ozgeek, not mr.roberts. (ozgeek stands for Australian geek).

and timdorr how do I ping for you? is it ping via cmd?

Hmmm... I can go to neowin.net/forum, yet all the links inside point to neowin5.net/forum/whatever... Kind of strange... Is this still a result of the DNS servers or what?

Hey I just noticed that now I know how many stars I have to go to reach the end :D Just 3 left...

Mine ...

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=239

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 179ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 181ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=112

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=112

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 166ms

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=236
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=236
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=237
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 131ms, Average = 125ms


Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=113
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=113

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 120ms, Maximum = 122ms, Average = 120ms

Last login: Tue Nov 29 20:55:27 on ttyp1

Welcome to Darwin!

nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$ ping 67.19.42.49

PING 67.19.42.49 (67.19.42.49): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=49.703 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=59.904 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=84.557 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=47.258 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=48.742 ms

64 bytes from 67.19.42.49: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=52.378 ms

^C

--- 67.19.42.49 ping statistics ---

6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 47.258/57.090/84.557/12.945 ms

nicholas-pachecos-mac-mini:~ Nicholas$

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=243
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 102ms, Average = 99ms 

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=105

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 130ms, Average = 118ms

No, I'm personally not. This is on a Cogent powered network. You will notice slower network transfer speeds and higher latency because it's a cheaper provider. The frigging connection between Dallas and Chicago was only 180Kb/s! What the hell is that?

On the upside, there's a bit better hardware available to us now and the codebase is up to the latest version, which has some things that should stop a lot of the freezing that was happening in MySQL before.

Also, I fixed the sync between the two webserver filesystems. I think we'll have to add another webserver soon and then start thinking about MySQL clustering (which gets interesting, to say the least...). These new servers are nice, but there's always room for Jello!

Actually, I'm curious to see how much slower the connection is for everyone. Can you ping these two addresses and post the results? 63.28.242.201 and 67.19.42.49

Timdorr, Other than ping time the thing interests me is the number of hops inside the network look at the number of hops once I get inside the cogentco network.

traceroute to neowin.net (66.28.242.203), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177)  0.335 ms  0.202 ms  0.258 ms
 2  10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129)  0.357 ms  0.389 ms  0.259 ms
 3  Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21)  12.936 ms  12.972 ms  12.984 ms
 4  10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86)  32.545 ms  12.983 ms  12.982 ms
 5  10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42)  13.234 ms  13.208 ms  13.17 ms
 6  i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101)  161.363 ms  161.335 ms  161.353 ms
 7  unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166)  160.962 ms  160.91 ms  160.872 ms
 8  unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66)  160.952 ms  160.934 ms  160.844 ms
 9  p6-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.209)  162.04 ms  162.152 ms  162.201 ms
10  p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78)  163.916 ms  163.649 ms  163.72 ms
11  p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5)  195.383 ms  195.381 ms  195.81 ms
12  p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106)  223.775 ms  223.66 ms  223.736 ms
13  p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34)  234.876 ms  235.536 ms  234.794 ms
14  p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154)  234.369 ms  234.337 ms  234.413 ms
15  p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42)  235.05 ms  234.902 ms  234.985 ms
16  g3-1.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.30)  234.651 ms  234.532 ms  234.636 ms
17  StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250)  234.951 ms  234.965 ms  235.292 ms
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

Here's my ping times:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 42ms

and

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=114

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 69ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 110ms

That second server's not as fast to respond...

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=233

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=232

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 121ms

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=107

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=107

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 124ms, Average = 123ms

Pretty adverage ping times for me.

Keep up all the good work <3

Whoops, yep, I meant 66.28.242.201. Sorry about that. Just curious, though. No biggie :)

and for that IP still a lot of hops insde that network

traceroute to 66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  vlan250.lon-service6.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.2.177)  0.339 ms  0.358 ms  0.24 ms
 2  10GigabitEthernet9-0.win-core1.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.79.129)  0.341 ms  0.281 ms  0.389 ms
 3  Pos-Channel2.ken-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.21)  13.067 ms  12.866 ms  12.965 ms
 4  10GigabitEthernet3-0.pad-core4.Sydney.telstra.net (203.50.6.86)  12.923 ms  13.025 ms  12.967 ms
 5  10GigabitEthernet2-2.syd-core02.Sydney.net.reach.com (203.50.13.42)  13.213 ms  13.205 ms  13.21 ms
 6  i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com (202.84.144.101)  161.414 ms  161.362 ms  161.34 ms
 7  unknown.net.reach.com (202.84.251.166)  246.252 ms  160.911 ms  160.839 ms
 8  unassign.net.reach.com (134.159.63.66)  160.858 ms  160.93 ms  160.977 ms
 9  p15-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.213)  161.429 ms  161.372 ms  161.707 ms
10  p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78)  163.94 ms  163.584 ms  163.764 ms
11  p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5)  195.505 ms  196.641 ms  195.494 ms
12  p13-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.106)  223.754 ms  223.725 ms  223.642 ms
13  p5-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.34)  235.219 ms  234.752 ms  234.889 ms
14  p12-0.core03.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.154)  234.494 ms  234.479 ms  234.522 ms
15  p2-0.core01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.42)  235.082 ms  235.106 ms  234.924 ms
16  g3-2.hc01.ord04.atlas.cogentco.com (204.6.150.34)  235.012 ms  235.066 ms  235.036 ms
17  StardockCorporation.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.15.250)  234.916 ms  234.771 ms  234.756 ms
18  66.28.242.201 (66.28.242.201)  234.784 ms  236.982 ms  234.748 ms

From the UK...

Pinging 66.28.242.201 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=114
Reply from 66.28.242.201: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 66.28.242.201:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 114ms, Maximum = 116ms, Average = 115ms

Pinging 67.19.42.49 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=245
Reply from 67.19.42.49: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=245

Ping statistics for 67.19.42.49:
	Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 161ms, Maximum = 164ms, Average = 162ms

Edit: ooooo, quick edit is niiiiice

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Passkeys: Think of them like a broken heart necklace. Imagine one of those heart necklaces that breaks into two matching pieces. One person keeps one half, and the other person keeps the other half. With passkeys, the website has one half, and you have the other half. If the website gets hacked and someone steals its half, that stolen piece is useless by itself. It cannot unlock your account without your matching half. This particular heart necklace is one of a kind, there is only one in existence. Your half of the necklace has to be stored somewhere. It might be stored on your phone, tablet, computer, security key, or a password manager that can sync it between all your devices. A security key is a small physical device that you keep with you, kind of like a house key, car key, or flash drive. I would not usually recommend a security key as the first option for the average person. For most people, it is easier to use their phone, computer, or a password manager that can sync passkeys between their devices. A security key is more like a spare key you keep in a safe place, just in case you lose access to your other devices or your password manager. Some security keys plug into your computer. Some plug into your phone or tablet. Some do not plug in at all and instead get tapped against your device. The idea is simple: a security key can hold another passkey for the same website. Think of it like creating a second one-of-a-kind heart necklace for the same account. One necklace could be paired with your password manager, while another necklace could be paired with your security key. That means the website has more than one matching half on file. One half matches the passkey in your password manager. Another half matches the passkey stored on your security key. So, if you lose access to your phone, computer, or password manager, you would still be able to log in using the passkey stored on your security key. Think of it like keeping an extra special necklace piece on a tiny keychain, stored somewhere safe. The website still has the matching half for that security key, but your half is safely stored inside the little key. A passkey does not automatically exist on every device you own. It lives wherever you save it. If your half is stored on one device, then that device is the one that has the matching piece. For example, if you create the passkey on your Windows computer and it is only saved to that computer, your iPhone does not automatically have that same half. If you create it on your iPhone and it only stays on that iPhone, your Android phone does not automatically have it either. That is where password managers come in. A password manager can act like a protected jewelry box for your passkeys. Instead of your half of the necklace being locked to only one device, the password manager can securely sync that half to your other approved devices. For example, Apple Passwords and iCloud Keychain can sync passkeys between your Apple devices. Google Password Manager can sync passkeys with your Google account. But password managers such as 1Password and Bitwarden can sync passkeys between everything, your phones, tablets and computers. Now, you might ask: “What happens if I lose access to the device that has my passkey?” That depends on where your passkey was saved and what recovery options the website gives you. If your passkey was synced through a password manager, you may be able to sign in from another device that has access to that same password manager. For example, if your passkey is saved in iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, 1Password, or Bitwarden, another approved device may still have access to it. If your passkey was saved only on one phone, computer, or security key, and you lose that device, then you may not have your half of the necklace anymore. In that case, you would usually need to use the website’s backup login or account recovery options. A lot of websites that support passkeys still let you fall back to your regular password. So if you lose access to your passkey, the site may still let you log in with your password, a code sent to your email, a text message, a recovery code, or some other account recovery process. That is convenient, but it is also important to understand: if the website still allows password login, then your password still matters. Passkeys are safer than passwords, but if your account still has a password as a backup, you should still use a strong, unique password and turn on two-factor authentication if the website offers it. This is why it is a good idea to have more than one safe way back into important accounts. For example, you might keep your passkey in a syncing password manager, add a second trusted device, save recovery codes somewhere safe, or set up a backup security key. A passkey is very secure, but just like a real key, you need a backup plan in case you lose access to it. Now, you might ask: “What stops a hacker from copying my half of the necklace?” That’s the important part: your half is protected. It is not something you type in, and it is not something the website gets to keep. Think of your half as being locked inside a tiny safe on your phone, computer, security key, or password manager. That safe only opens when you approve it with your fingerprint, face, PIN, or device password. When you log in, the website does not need to see your half. It only needs proof that your half matches its half. Your actual half is not handed over to the website. This is different from a password. With a password, you type the secret into the website. If you type it into a fake website, the hacker now has it. With a passkey, you are not typing your secret into the website. Your device is proving you have the matching half without giving the half away. That also helps protect you from fake websites. If someone makes a fake login page that looks like the real site, your device can tell it is not the real match. It will not use your passkey there. Now, could someone use your passkey if they stole your device, got into your password manager, or somehow unlocked the safe that holds your half? Yes, that is why your device password, PIN, fingerprint, face unlock, and password manager security still matter. But a hacker cannot just steal your passkey from the website or trick you into typing it into a fake page like they can with a password. That is why passkeys are safer than passwords. The two matching pieces have to come together, like two lovebirds who were once separated and are finally reunited.
    • Newegg offers insane combo deal on Amazon Prime Day 2026 that beats Steam Machine by Sayan Sen Building a PC is undoubtedly difficult nowadays but with this epic combo deal, Newegg is trying to make it as easy for you as it is possible. If you are making a new one or even upgrading an old system to a new Windows 11 device, this combo bundle is truly unmissable as you get AMD's Ryzen 9800X3D, a compatible X870 motherboard, a 240mm AIO liquid cooler and finally a Samsung 990 PRO SSD all for under $1000 (purchase link under the specs table down below). This should beat out the newly launched Steam Machine from Valve in terms of performance and performance per dollar especially if you are willing to set Linux up on it. Essentially with this combo you will get the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 8-core 3D V cache CPU, Samsung's 990 PRO 2TB NVMe SSD, the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX Motherboard, and finally the Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240. Thanks to that massive vertically stacked L3 cache, the X3D desktop processors, including the 9800X3D, also come with the benefit of not needing fast memory. Even DDR5-5600 should be plenty for it. The technical specifications of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D are given in the table below: Specification Value Architecture Zen 5 Cores / Threads 8 / 16 Base Clock 4.7 GHz Max Boost Clock Up to 5.2 GHz L1 Cache 640 KB L2 Cache 8 MB L3 Cache 96 MB Total Cache 104 MB CPU Core Process TSMC 4nm FinFET I/O Die Process TSMC 6nm FinFET Socket AM5 Default TDP 120W Max Temperature (Tjmax) 95°C Thermal Solution Not included Memory Type DDR5 Max Capacity 256 GB Memory Speeds 2x1R: DDR5-5600 2x2R: DDR5-5600 4x1R: DDR5-3600 4x2R: DDR5-3600 PCIe Version PCIe 5.0 PCIe Lanes (Total/Usable) 28 / 24 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10Gbps) 4 USB 2.0 1 Graphics Cores 2 CU RDNA 2 Frequency 2200 MHz DisplayPort over USB-C Yes Overclocking Unlocked Up next we have the tech specs for the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI Motherboard: Specification Value Chipset AMD X870 CPU Support AMD Ryzen 9000 / 8000 / 7000 Series Desktop Processors Socket AM5 Memory Slots 4 × DDR5 UDIMM Maximum Memory Capacity 256GB Memory Support DDR5 8400–5600 MT/s (OC), DDR5 5600–4800 MT/s (JEDEC) Integrated Graphics Outputs 1 × HDMI 2.1 FRL (up to 8K 60Hz) 2 × USB4 Type-C with DisplayPort 1.4 HBR3 (up to 4K 60Hz) Expansion Slots PCI_E1: PCIe 5.0 x16 (CPU) PCI_E2: PCIe 3.0 x1 (Chipset) PCI_E3: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset) Audio Realtek ALC4080 Codec 7.1-Channel USB High Performance Audio Supports up to 32-bit/384kHz playback on front panel S/PDIF output M.2 Slots 4 × M.2 M2_1: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 22110/2280) M2_2: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 2280/2260) M2_3: PCIe 4.0 x2 (Chipset, 2280/2260) M2_4: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset, 2280/2260) SATA Ports 4 × SATA 6Gb/s RAID Support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 for M.2 NVMe storage devices Rear USB Ports 4 × USB 2.0 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 2 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 2 × USB4 40Gbps Type-C Front USB Headers 4 × USB 2.0 4 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 20Gbps Type-C LAN Realtek 8126-CG 5G LAN Wireless Wi-Fi 7 (M.2 Key-E module pre-installed) Supports 2.4GHz / 5GHz / 6GHz bands Up to 5.8Gbps Supports 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be Bluetooth Bluetooth 5.4, MLO, 4KQAM Internal Power Connectors 1 × 24-pin ATX Power 2 × CPU Power Connectors 1 × PCIe 8-pin Power Connector Fan Headers 1 × CPU Fan 1 × Combo Fan (Pump/System) 6 × System Fan RGB Headers 3 × Addressable V2 RGB (JARGB_V2) 1 × RGB LED (JRGB) Other Internal Headers 1 × EZ Conn-header 2 × Front Panel Headers 1 × Chassis Intrusion 1 × Front Audio 1 × TPM 2.0 Header Debug Features 4 × EZ Debug LEDs 1 × EZ Digit Debug LED Rear I/O Ports Clear CMOS Button Flash BIOS Button HDMI 2 × USB 40Gbps Type-C 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 4 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 4 × USB 2.0 5G LAN Port Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Antenna Connectors Audio Connectors Form Factor ATX The Samsung 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification Value Interface PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC DRAM Cache 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,200 TBW MTBF 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink No Get the combo deal at this link: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, Samsung 990 PRO 2TB, MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI motherboard, Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240: $784.99 + $25 off with promo code FTTF77: $759.99 (Sold and Shipped by Newegg US) Good to know This Newegg deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • I heard from a lot of people that driver support for the latest games when RDNA first came out (Radeon 5000 series) was pretty bad, but if you didn't buy the card on day one, or were not trying to play the latest titles, then you were isolated from that issue. Other than that, it's been good and only getting better.
    • Meta launches new AI glasses in 26 styles and Muse Spark multimodal capabilties by Pradeep Viswanathan Meta today announced a new line of Meta Glasses in partnership with EssilorLuxottica. The new AI glasses build on the company’s existing smart glasses portfolio, which is sold under the Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta brands. The new Meta Glasses start at just $299, are compatible with prescription lenses, and will be available in 26 styles across different colors, lenses, and frames. At launch, Meta Glasses will be available in three frame styles. The Meta Adventurer features a clean rectangular design and comes in Standard and Large sizes. The Meta Fury is a bolder frame for users who want a stronger look. Meta Glasses by Kylie is a slim oval frame designed in collaboration with Kylie Jenner. Similar to existing Meta AI Glasses, the new Meta Glasses include a dedicated action button that can be used to quickly access Meta AI or launch a favorite feature. They also feature open-ear speakers for calls, music, and more. Meta has also included a multi-mic array with wind noise reduction for calls and messaging. Users can capture photos and videos hands-free using voice commands. Meta claims more than eight hours of battery life, while the portable charging case can provide up to 40 additional hours. As expected, Meta Glasses come pre-loaded with Meta AI powered by Muse Spark from day one. Muse Spark is the first model from Meta Superintelligence Labs with improved multimodal capabilities. The same Meta AI upgrade is also now available on existing Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta Glasses in the US and Canada via an update. With the Muse Spark-powered AI assistant, Meta AI in the new glasses can provide smarter answers, understand what the user is seeing, and help with daily tasks such as calendar management and navigation. Meta also announced an upcoming feature called the dynamic photo feature, which captures multiple frames and recommends the best one. Pedestrian navigation is also coming soon to these glasses. Meta is also adding support for 14 new live translation languages, including Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, and Korean. The new Meta Glasses are available starting today through Meta.com, Best Buy, Amazon, LensCrafters, Sunglass Hut, and select retailers.
    • is that a personal preference? whether it is or isn't, i get where you're coming from. i try to get and use fully open sourced applications whenever i can but there are instances where i find a superior product that is closed sourced. in these cases i do my best to learn about the company, who operates it, their background, parent and sub structure etc. to some extent, depending on "the smell test". i really believe that Syncback is really and truly something great. even if you don't use it, it's always worth a recommendation to someone else, especially if that someone else is not very computer literate. for someone of your calibre you, you'll manage just fine with Syncthing, no doubt about it.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      468
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      166
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      104
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      87
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!