While I'm (mostly) on the wired side of the argument, nobody here can
say that wired is cheaper than wireless. Sure, the hardware is
cheaper, but you cannot account for the cost of installation of a
wired LAN without knowing if the person asking is capable of doing the
wiring and install, or what the layout will be and what kind of house
they live in. (Having done my own wiring in both a ranch house and a
three-story Victorian -- I know which I would rather re-wire.)

Bill


"LittleJohn" wrote in message
news
Jeff wrote:

Assuming the only data transfers are thru the modem. When I
upgraded
my home LAN from 10 to 100 Mbps, the difference between computers
was astounding. Now I can go to gigabit and can't imagine why I'd
want to go backwards to wireless.

I'm not assuming, just reading the OP's posted requirements.
There
are many reasons to choose various technologies over others. I'm
not
debating which is better, only whioch makes the most sens for the
situation in question.

Wrong again. You're assuming you fully understand the op's
requirements
from an extremely limited bit of information. You gleaned from his
messages that he wants more than one computer connected to the
internet
and he knows little or nothing about networking.

If the only consideration is ease of installation, wireless is the
way to
go. If cost, reliability, speed, or security are major factors, a
hard
wired local LAN is the answer.

There seems to be no doubt in anyones mind, but yours, which is the
least
expensive, has the highest reliability, the highest speed, and is
the most
secure. I suggest that a hard wired local LAN is the only solution
"whioch makes the most sens for the situation in question."

LittleJohn
Madison, AL