My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
The cables are inconveniently placed.
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?:
Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
--> Laptop Wireless G
--> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
--> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
might want to wait for those adapters).
I tend to favor internal PCI wireless cards, because the USB 2.0 adapters are
real dust catchers. In terms of speed, they are pretty much the same.
Your speed of access to the internet would barely change at all if you went with
wifi instead of wired. Even the older 802.11b wifi is faster than most any
boradband internet connection, which is the limiting factor for speed of
internet. (I'm not familiar enough with the speed of Verizon's FIOS broadband
to comment on it.)
If you do a lot of file sharing among desktop computers, it will be slower with
wifi, mostly with very large files.
Save your money. Buy cheap 802.11g equipment rather than
not-ready-for-prime-time 802.11-DRAFT-N. The 802.11n standard is not approved
by standards bodies, and any equipment you buy now could become incompatible
with any standard version you buy in the future. When 802.11n becomes an
approved standard and there are standard 802.11n routers and adapters, that is
the time to consider replacing the 802.11g stuff. In the meantime, every wifi
vendor (Linksys, Netgear, Buffalo, D-Link, others) is touting its pre-n
equipment, to try to get people to replace perfectly good equipment... Ben Myers
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
>network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
>The cables are inconveniently placed.
>
>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?:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
>
>My network would then be:
>
>Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
> --> Laptop Wireless G
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
>
>I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
>direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
>comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
>might want to wait for those adapters).
Thanks Ben -- I didn't think of PCI wireless, probably because PCI
seems more hard-wired than wireless but of course wireless can be
implemented via PCI too. There are probably other advantages of PCI
over USB 2.0. My Kensington bluetooth USB 2.0 device has a process
that locks up one of my systems occasionally so I don't even use that.
I can't believe I have been dealing with those hard-wired connections
for several years when I could have been using wireless all along.
Ack.
I have free PCI slots in the E510 and XPS 410 even after already
having added USB 2.0 PCI Cards (for 5 extra USB 2.0 connections on
each). So, I shall be looking for some good PCI wireless G cards on
sale.
It's time I dust off a calculator and understand more what Mbps and
other speed measures really mean, and how that translates into data
coming from the Internet and being shared among PCs. A byte = 8 bits?
M(bits?)persecond. Hmm, I wonder why they don't use mega-bytes /
second, since a byte = a character. Yes, as you can see I am very out
of date!!! Obviously binary data doesn't care about "characters" --
what I relate to worked fine with Commodore PETS, Apple IIs, or IBM
mainframes ...
Bonk! I wonder what Dilbert would say ... he'd probably post a
picture of a brontosaurus on my cubicle ... Wait, no -- make that a
T-Rex. If I am going to be a dinosaur I might as well make the most
out of it!
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:59:55 -0400, Ben Myers
<ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote:
>I tend to favor internal PCI wireless cards, because the USB 2.0 adapters are
>real dust catchers. In terms of speed, they are pretty much the same.
>
>Your speed of access to the internet would barely change at all if you went with
>wifi instead of wired. Even the older 802.11b wifi is faster than most any
>boradband internet connection, which is the limiting factor for speed of
>internet. (I'm not familiar enough with the speed of Verizon's FIOS broadband
>to comment on it.)
>
>If you do a lot of file sharing among desktop computers, it will be slower with
>wifi, mostly with very large files.
>
>Save your money. Buy cheap 802.11g equipment rather than
>not-ready-for-prime-time 802.11-DRAFT-N. The 802.11n standard is not approved
>by standards bodies, and any equipment you buy now could become incompatible
>with any standard version you buy in the future. When 802.11n becomes an
>approved standard and there are standard 802.11n routers and adapters, that is
>the time to consider replacing the 802.11g stuff. In the meantime, every wifi
>vendor (Linksys, Netgear, Buffalo, D-Link, others) is touting its pre-n
>equipment, to try to get people to replace perfectly good equipment... Ben Myers
>
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>
>>My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
>>network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
>>The cables are inconveniently placed.
>>
>>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?:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
>>
>>My network would then be:
>>
>>Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
>> --> Laptop Wireless G
>> --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
>> --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
>>
>>I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
>>direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
>>comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
>>might want to wait for those adapters).
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
>network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
>The cables are inconveniently placed.
>
>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?:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
>
>My network would then be:
>
>Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
> --> Laptop Wireless G
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
>
>I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
>direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
>comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
>might want to wait for those adapters).
Journey, avoid the n-wireless because it is actually a "pre-n"
protocol since the std isn't yet ratified so the pre-n isn't uniform
among all vendors.
I don't use any usb 2 adapters only wifi "g" cards (internal or
external) and never used a wired network at home so I can't help you
on the other questions.
The only advantage I can see to a USB 2.0 wifi adapter is that if you have very
poor wifi reception, you have a lot of latitude (small l) to move around the
antenna in an effort to improve signal strength. If your desktops have more or
less line of sight with the router, an internal PCI 802.11b/g card is unlikely
to have any problems transmitting a strong signal. On the other hand, if the
computers are several rooms away, on another floor, and with microwave, portable
phones and other electronics gear in between, you may want the added flexibility
of USB 802.11b/g. That's been my experience in setting up a lot of SOHO wifi
networks these last 3-4 years... Ben Myers
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
>network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
>The cables are inconveniently placed.
>
>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?:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
>
>My network would then be:
>
>Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
> --> Laptop Wireless G
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
>
>I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
>direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
>comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
>might want to wait for those adapters).
I have the Linksys WUSB54G adapter, so that when I have to work on one of my
grand-kid's computers, I just plug it into their USB2.0 slot and work-away..
Ben, sorry you are not going for the "n" wifi system. Your are missing
another WOW experience!!
"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote in message
news:86ts23dchmg5598omlhpb17ginu99is520@4ax.com...
> The only advantage I can see to a USB 2.0 wifi adapter is that if you have
very
> poor wifi reception, you have a lot of latitude (small l) to move around
the
> antenna in an effort to improve signal strength. If your desktops have
more or
> less line of sight with the router, an internal PCI 802.11b/g card is
unlikely
> to have any problems transmitting a strong signal. On the other hand, if
the
> computers are several rooms away, on another floor, and with microwave,
portable
> phones and other electronics gear in between, you may want the added
flexibility
> of USB 802.11b/g. That's been my experience in setting up a lot of SOHO
wifi
> networks these last 3-4 years... Ben Myers
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>
> >My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
> >network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
> >The cables are inconveniently placed.
> >
> >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?:
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
> >
> >My network would then be:
> >
> >Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
> > --> Laptop Wireless G
> > --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
> > --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
> >
> >I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
> >direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
> >comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
> >might want to wait for those adapters).
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
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:17:04 GMT, "rove" <lr@guess.net> wrote:
>I have the Linksys WUSB54G adapter, so that when I have to work on one of my
>grand-kid's computers, I just plug it into their USB2.0 slot and work-away..
>Ben, sorry you are not going for the "n" wifi system. Your are missing
>another WOW experience!!
>
>"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:86ts23dchmg5598omlhpb17ginu99is520@4ax.com.. .
>> The only advantage I can see to a USB 2.0 wifi adapter is that if you have
>very
>> poor wifi reception, you have a lot of latitude (small l) to move around
>the
>> antenna in an effort to improve signal strength. If your desktops have
>more or
>> less line of sight with the router, an internal PCI 802.11b/g card is
>unlikely
>> to have any problems transmitting a strong signal. On the other hand, if
>the
>> computers are several rooms away, on another floor, and with microwave,
>portable
>> phones and other electronics gear in between, you may want the added
>flexibility
>> of USB 802.11b/g. That's been my experience in setting up a lot of SOHO
>wifi
>> networks these last 3-4 years... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:43 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>>
>> >My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
>> >network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
>> >The cables are inconveniently placed.
>> >
>> >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?:
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
>> >
>> >My network would then be:
>> >
>> >Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
>> > --> Laptop Wireless G
>> > --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
>> > --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
>> >
>> >I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
>> >direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
>> >comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
>> >might want to wait for those adapters).
>
Other things being equal, wired is better. It's faster, it's more
reliable, it's more secure, it's easier to configure and it's cheaper
(EXCLUDING the cost of installing the cable). However, both wired and
wireless are considerably faster than you internet connection. Where
you notice the difference is in doing large computer to computer local
operations.
Journey wrote:
> My two desktop PCs are directly connected to a wireless router via
> network cables. The router is directly connected to my cable modem.
> The cables are inconveniently placed.
>
> 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?:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ac8hq
>
> My network would then be:
>
> Cable Modem --> Wireless G Router
> --> Laptop Wireless G
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB 2 Adapter
> --> Desktop Wireless G USB2 Adapter
>
> I don't have a grasp on what the relative speed of the Internet, of a
> direct connect, and of g-wireless are. (just for completeness any
> comments on what n-wireless would bring might be useful too in case I
> might want to wait for those adapters).
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:14:54 -0400, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Other things being equal, wired is better. It's faster, it's more
>reliable, it's more secure, it's easier to configure and it's cheaper
>(EXCLUDING the cost of installing the cable). However, both wired and
>wireless are considerably faster than you internet connection. Where
>you notice the difference is in doing large computer to computer local
>operations.
>
I got something faster than "n" std and it's called a thumb drive. I
just walk it over to the next pc and bam, the files are there <grin>.
People get caught up in the "b","g", "pre-n" wireless stds. too much.
True be known, unless you transfer big files or view heavy graphic web
pages (on a shared internet connection), the std isn't going to make
that big of a difference. If money were an object, if available I'd
buy "b" first, followed by "g" next. Of course "g" is widely availabe
so far.
And I believe you are right that the wired is faster for file sharing
tho I'm not sure about more secure part.
"RnR" wrote in message news:guuu23hjuikf00upnhphhv3um83pe86a7t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:14:54 -0400, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Other things being equal, wired is better. It's faster, it's more
>>reliable, it's more secure, it's easier to configure and it's cheaper
>>(EXCLUDING the cost of installing the cable). However, both wired and
>>wireless are considerably faster than you internet connection. Where
>>you notice the difference is in doing large computer to computer local
>>operations.
>>
>
> I got something faster than "n" std and it's called a thumb drive. I
> just walk it over to the next pc and bam, the files are there <grin>.
>
> People get caught up in the "b","g", "pre-n" wireless stds. too much.
> True be known, unless you transfer big files or view heavy graphic web
> pages (on a shared internet connection), the std isn't going to make
> that big of a difference. If money were an object, if available I'd
> buy "b" first, followed by "g" next. Of course "g" is widely availabe
> so far.
>
> And I believe you are right that the wired is faster for file sharing
> tho I'm not sure about more secure part.
Wireless G Adapter for Desktop? 
Linear Mode
