On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>Would there be any downside in terms of speed accessing the Internet
>if I used two USB 2.0 wireless G adapters such as this?:
Thanks everyone for your input. I think I understand all the relevant
details.
I have an old "B" USB adapter that I never used from a past system. I
will play with that first on one of my desktops. I don't know if it's
the type of thing that would bring my network to the lowest common
denominator -- i.e. would it cause my "G" laptop go go at "B" speeds?
I know for USB hubs, having a pre-USB 2.0 device on the hub can bring
the speed down for all connections. Not sure it that's analgous for
wireless speeds.
I'm going to use this as an opportunity to learn "computer math" that
I have been neglecting. I'd like to find ways to measure the speed of
network components, and know the relative speeds on the 'net, hard
drives, external hard drives, flash drives, etc. Then I am going to
do the math and see if real world results match. This is the kind of
thing that all I need to do is expose myself to it and I will get up
to speed fairly quickly.
As was said by others:
- PCI may be better but also it could be hard to adjust reception --
that seems to be the source of most negative user reviews of PCI
wireless cards.
- USB wireless adapter is another option.
- It was stated that computer-to-computer transfer is faster using a
flash drive. That's true but I often stream .mp3's and access media
files from other computers. Again, an oppotunity to learn the math --
streaming a .mp3 file might be fine on any type of connection. For
photos, I can open using Remote Desktop or directly accessing a
network drive. "Computer math" might come in handy there too. I do
have a good 4G flash drive (Sandisk Cruzer Titanium) and yes, I think
I have overlooked the speed of that many times when doing
over-wireless transfers.
- Security could be a concern, although I already have wireless for
my laptop which already opens up my network to potential hackers. I
don't know if having a desktop wired in this setup would provide
additional security for the desktop. I need to learn about WPA
security -- right now I use a WEP key. The Linux guru across the hall
recently told me that my network isn't very secure (for him). I will
probably look into not broadcasting the SSID and find out if MAC
address security is useful.
I won't do "N" until the standards are finalized and the price point
is right. With competition, the prices might fall into line when "N"
is finalized. I have a feeling that will be the case. I also have a
feeling though that given my needs I won't need "N" anyway.
"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote in message
news:7lit231d6trrrgq2tit8a0hgddmmrnn7oo@4ax.com...
> Um, I think that was PRE-N, wasn't it? I am a slave to standards, when
> they
> exist and are followed. I have enough on my plate without having to screw
> around with pre-standard hardware then worry for myself and my clients
> that it
> may all be obsolete when the standards people finally get the standard
> approved.
>
> ... Ben Myers
"The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them."
Too true. Actually, what happens is that standards become perverted by the
urge to sell products. PRE-N is one of the more recent acts of standards
perversion... Ben Myers
>
>"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:7lit231d6trrrgq2tit8a0hgddmmrnn7oo@4ax.com.. .
>> Um, I think that was PRE-N, wasn't it? I am a slave to standards, when
>> they
>> exist and are followed. I have enough on my plate without having to screw
>> around with pre-standard hardware then worry for myself and my clients
>> that it
>> may all be obsolete when the standards people finally get the standard
>> approved.
>>
>> ... Ben Myers
>
>
>"The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them."
>
>ed
>
Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
> I'm going to use this as an opportunity to learn "computer math" that
> I have been neglecting. I'd like to find ways to measure the speed of
> network components, and know the relative speeds on the 'net, hard
> drives, external hard drives, flash drives, etc. Then I am going to
> do the math and see if real world results match. This is the kind of
> thing that all I need to do is expose myself to it and I will get up
> to speed fairly quickly.
The biggest problem I've found with dealing with speed is that Bit and
Byte both start with B's and most just say "kb/sec" or "mb/sec".
Obviously, there's a bit difference between a bit and a byte
Also, they use simple math, so 1000kbit = 1mbit.
My DSL has a max of 1.5mbit but I usually see speeds maxxing out between
700-1000kbit.
Most MP3s are 128-192kbit/sec.
802.11b is..3mbit/sec I think? G is 12mbit/sec?
> As was said by others:
> - PCI may be better but also it could be hard to adjust reception --
> that seems to be the source of most negative user reviews of PCI
> wireless cards.
Some PCI cards I've seen had detached antennas with a long wire, rather than
the fixed "finger" type stuck on outside of the card type. I don't know
if these are better or not, since the wire could also be a source of noise
if not insulated properly...
> - USB wireless adapter is another option.
> - It was stated that computer-to-computer transfer is faster using a
> flash drive. That's true but I often stream .mp3's and access media
> files from other computers. Again, an oppotunity to learn the math --
> streaming a .mp3 file might be fine on any type of connection. For
> photos, I can open using Remote Desktop or directly accessing a
> network drive. "Computer math" might come in handy there too. I do
> have a good 4G flash drive (Sandisk Cruzer Titanium) and yes, I think
> I have overlooked the speed of that many times when doing
> over-wireless transfers.
If you're just streaming MP3, 802.11b still gives you plenty of
bandwidth. Obviously if you're doing something more intensive, like
streaming a HD 1900x1080 video signal, you'll want something equally more
heavy duty
> - Security could be a concern, although I already have wireless for
> my laptop which already opens up my network to potential hackers. I
> don't know if having a desktop wired in this setup would provide
> additional security for the desktop. I need to learn about WPA
> security -- right now I use a WEP key. The Linux guru across the hall
> recently told me that my network isn't very secure (for him). I will
> probably look into not broadcasting the SSID and find out if MAC
> address security is useful.
For our network at home, I don't broadcast the SSID, I use a non-standard
SSID, and WPA. It also depends on how many other networks are in your
area. One friend of mine joked that his neighbors are his security, since
their networks are running open, and unencrypted so a would-be hitchhiker
would be more likely to abuse them, and not his network
> I won't do "N" until the standards are finalized and the price point
> is right. With competition, the prices might fall into line when "N"
> is finalized. I have a feeling that will be the case. I also have a
> feeling though that given my needs I won't need "N" anyway.
"G" should be plenty fast...at least until you get a taste of watching
high quality, steaming HD video on your TV
802.11b is rated at 11M BITS/second peak. 802.11g is rated at 54M BITS/second
peak. Some of the pre-N stuff uses pairs of transmitters on both ends to double
the G rate to 108M. But to get the double-G speed, you need an adapter in the
computer and a router both talking the same non-standard talk, usually the same
brand.
No matter what, 802.11g is far faster than most external broadband connections,
unless the 802.11g wifi connection is operating at a greatly degraded speed due
to poor signal quality or radio interference.
BTW, the 802.11b/g PCI cards with antennae on long cables do not emit any extra
radio noise from the cables themselves, which are coaxial. Co-ax cables are
made the way they are to emit nearly zero radio waves.
Yes, flash drives are handy. No, they are not a substitute for a 24/7 network
connection. Floppy diskettes and sneaker-net weren't either. A flash drive is
simply a higher capacity sneaker-net with marginally faster end-to-end data
transmission times... Ben Myers
>Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to use this as an opportunity to learn "computer math" that
>> I have been neglecting. I'd like to find ways to measure the speed of
>> network components, and know the relative speeds on the 'net, hard
>> drives, external hard drives, flash drives, etc. Then I am going to
>> do the math and see if real world results match. This is the kind of
>> thing that all I need to do is expose myself to it and I will get up
>> to speed fairly quickly.
>
>The biggest problem I've found with dealing with speed is that Bit and
>Byte both start with B's and most just say "kb/sec" or "mb/sec".
>Obviously, there's a bit difference between a bit and a byte
>
>Also, they use simple math, so 1000kbit = 1mbit.
>
>My DSL has a max of 1.5mbit but I usually see speeds maxxing out between
>700-1000kbit.
>
>Most MP3s are 128-192kbit/sec.
>
>802.11b is..3mbit/sec I think? G is 12mbit/sec?
>
>> As was said by others:
>
>> - PCI may be better but also it could be hard to adjust reception --
>> that seems to be the source of most negative user reviews of PCI
>> wireless cards.
>
>Some PCI cards I've seen had detached antennas with a long wire, rather than
>the fixed "finger" type stuck on outside of the card type. I don't know
>if these are better or not, since the wire could also be a source of noise
>if not insulated properly...
>
>> - USB wireless adapter is another option.
>
>> - It was stated that computer-to-computer transfer is faster using a
>> flash drive. That's true but I often stream .mp3's and access media
>> files from other computers. Again, an oppotunity to learn the math --
>> streaming a .mp3 file might be fine on any type of connection. For
>> photos, I can open using Remote Desktop or directly accessing a
>> network drive. "Computer math" might come in handy there too. I do
>> have a good 4G flash drive (Sandisk Cruzer Titanium) and yes, I think
>> I have overlooked the speed of that many times when doing
>> over-wireless transfers.
>
>If you're just streaming MP3, 802.11b still gives you plenty of
>bandwidth. Obviously if you're doing something more intensive, like
>streaming a HD 1900x1080 video signal, you'll want something equally more
>heavy duty
>
>> - Security could be a concern, although I already have wireless for
>> my laptop which already opens up my network to potential hackers. I
>> don't know if having a desktop wired in this setup would provide
>> additional security for the desktop. I need to learn about WPA
>> security -- right now I use a WEP key. The Linux guru across the hall
>> recently told me that my network isn't very secure (for him). I will
>> probably look into not broadcasting the SSID and find out if MAC
>> address security is useful.
>
>For our network at home, I don't broadcast the SSID, I use a non-standard
>SSID, and WPA. It also depends on how many other networks are in your
>area. One friend of mine joked that his neighbors are his security, since
>their networks are running open, and unencrypted so a would-be hitchhiker
>would be more likely to abuse them, and not his network
>
>> I won't do "N" until the standards are finalized and the price point
>> is right. With competition, the prices might fall into line when "N"
>> is finalized. I have a feeling that will be the case. I also have a
>> feeling though that given my needs I won't need "N" anyway.
>
>"G" should be plenty fast...at least until you get a taste of watching
>high quality, steaming HD video on your TV
>The biggest problem I've found with dealing with speed is that Bit and
>Byte both start with B's and most just say "kb/sec" or "mb/sec".
>Obviously, there's a bit difference between a bit and a byte
LOL I can relate to your kind of humor. Thanks for all the other
discussion -- I don't have time to properly follow up but I do
appreciate it (yours too Ben).
Re: Wireless G Adapter for Desktop? 
Linear Mode
