Most cable services will run the internet cable to the house and inside one
room. Then you have the option of doing the rest yourself - if there are
computers in other rooms you can use a wireless setup. We are probably going
to get cable service and I'm not sure we can get the wireless setup to work. As
long as we have to hire someone to do it, thought maybe we should just pay
someone to wire those rooms.

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is that
even possible?

Thanks.

Dorothy

From: (Dorot29701)


Most cable services will run the internet cable to the house and inside one
room. Then you have the option of doing the rest yourself - if there are
computers in other rooms you can use a wireless setup. We are probably
going
to get cable service and I'm not sure we can get the wireless setup to work.
As
long as we have to hire someone to do it, thought maybe we should just pay
someone to wire those rooms.

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each
other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two
rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is
that
even possible?

Thanks.

Dorothy

No.
The cable line (Rg-6 coaxial cable) first runs into a cable modem. From the
moden you connect to a network card on the computer with Cat5 or Cat6e.

The cable company doesn't run your network cable, they only run the coaxial
television cable that connects to the modem.

In order to network more than one computer you need to split the Cat5 cable
after the modem with a router, not the Rg6 coaxial line.

And most cable companies prohibit this - as the want you to pay for an
additional modem if you want additional computers hoked up - just like they
used to charge you extra to split your regular cable line and hook up extra
televisions and VCRs.

"HA HA Budys Here"

No.
The cable line (Rg-6 coaxial cable) first runs into a cable modem. From
the
moden you connect to a network card on the computer with Cat5 or Cat6e.

Stated in simpler words - one cable modem per cable entering the house.
Don't ask why. You'd have to be stupid to pay for more cable modems per
house. Each modem would be sharing bandwidth anyway, just like a home
network hub does. Waste of money.

The company won't give you that extra modem for free, either, because the
registered hardware address is all it needs to get on the company's
network - you could give the modem to any neighbor with cable TV and they'd
be likely be able to tap into the network too.

Further, most internet providers charge extra for "home networking" -
another waste of money unless you can't read and follow the simple
instructions required to set up your own network.

Wireless networking is no-brainer and cheap. The components come in blister
packs at Home Depot these days.

Let them get the modem set up on 1 computer, as is usually included in
installation, then go buy the wireless network components and read the
"quick setup" instructions. In the end, you'll have as many computers as
you want screaming on the internet by simply installing a wireless card in
each, pay 1 monthly service, no holes and mess all of cables all over the
house (and the costs of having someone drill all those holes), and no extra
monthly "home networking" costs.


- Nate

Wireless is essentially "plug and play".

Dorot29701 wrote:

Most cable services will run the internet cable to the house and inside one
room. Then you have the option of doing the rest yourself - if there are
computers in other rooms you can use a wireless setup. We are probably going
to get cable service and I'm not sure we can get the wireless setup to work. As
long as we have to hire someone to do it, thought maybe we should just pay
someone to wire those rooms.

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is that
even possible?

Thanks.

Dorothy

On 13-May-2004, (Dorot29701) wrote:

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is that
even possible?

You could if you had two cable modems. With one cable modem, you can plug it
into one computer, then add a second NIC and set it up for "Internet Connection
Sharing" (see the Windows documentation). Then plug the second computer into
that NIC. The two computers will connect the NICs with an Ethernet wire. No
router needed.

While it's possible for the cable company to check whether you've got two computers
connected this way, I did it for years without my supplier noticing. They did
come down on those who connected extra computers via routers without paying extra.

Make sure you have a good firewall software package installed and turn off access
to almost everything in your computer. Ditto a good virus checking software
package.

If you can't do this, the 14 y.o next door probably can. :-)

Mike

and run the wires through the walls/ceilings.
Wireless is plug and play. No wires.

Bonehenge wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:35:03 GMT, Jo
wrote:


Wireless is essentially "plug and play".


As are many current $50 wired systems. The brouter simply acts like a
dhcp server. Most of the time, all the user needs to do is enter the
login info via a simple web page interface, connect the wires, and
reboot everything.

Barry

On 2004/5/13 7:51 PM, "Jo" wrote:

To the original poster - you might also post this question to the newsgroup
comp.dcom.modems.cable if you want to talk with some experts.

and run the wires through the walls/ceilings.

A bit of work, but no real technical difficulties. The electronics and
computer setup are even easier than with wireless but the physical wiring
can be a challenge. Requires drilling a few holes and fishing the cables
through. It can take a bit of time for someone who has no experience with
this, but it is pretty straight forward. If you can operate a drill and feel
comfortable crawling around in an attic space, there is no real challenge.

Apartment dwellers may not have the access needed, so this advice is better
suited to home owners.

Wireless is plug and play. No wires.

Unless you are concerned with security or performance.

I get 100 MBps on my home Ethernet. Most network adaptors, routers, etc,
will support that easily. What do you get on wireless. While external
traffic is limited by the cable modem service, local traffic such as file
and print sharing can use the additional bandwidth.

On the security side, 802.11b wireless is terrible, especially with the
default settings. The X and G versions are better, but require knowledgeable
set up to reach their potential. If you do an actual pug-and-play
installation with consumer grade products, you are exposed to significant
risk of someone, like the teenage hacker next door, hijacking your network.

In any event, I would recommend installing a hardware firewall between cable
modem and router or wireless access point. Several companies offer
combination firewall/router devices that work well. Also, take the time to
study the configuration settings. Change all the default passwords. Turn off
remote administration options on the firewall - you don't want someone
coming across the wide area net changing your configuration. If you do run
wireless, turn on all the security options and pick strong authentication
and set long keys. None of the wireless systems that I have seen default to
good security settings.

On 13 May 2004 22:04:17 GMT, (Dorot29701) wrote:

Most cable services will run the internet cable to the house and inside one
room. Then you have the option of doing the rest yourself - if there are
computers in other rooms you can use a wireless setup. We are probably going
to get cable service and I'm not sure we can get the wireless setup to work. As
long as we have to hire someone to do it, thought maybe we should just pay
someone to wire those rooms.

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is that
even possible?

Sure. Then you need a second cable modem of course.

First, wireless will work fine. Second, have a network installer come
to the house and do the work if you want. Third, wireless *will* work
fine.

Jeff

Jeff Cochran wrote:
(Dorot29701) wrote:
My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is that
even possible?

Sure. Then you need a second cable modem of course.

Poor solution, Jeff. Most Cable providers (ISPs) won't allow it, and
those that do will charge you twice their standard monthly fee.

A better solution is to purchase a 4-port firewall router (Under $100) and
put it behind the cable modem. Then you can feed up to 256 computers off
that same line. Have an installer run cat-5 or cat-6 (for higher speed)
cable between the two rooms terminated in standard (RJ-48) Ethernet boxes
on the wall. Or do it yourself. It's no harder than running phone wire.

First, wireless will work fine. Second, have a network installer come
to the house and do the work if you want. Third, wireless *will* work
fine.

Wireless is a pain. It's slow, expensive, will not work in some areas, and
has security issues. It's the only solution if you want to sit on your
deck and use your laptop, but a poor substitute when hard-wiring is
possible.

LittleJohn
Madison, AL

"Wireless is a pain. It's slow, expensive, will not work in some areas,
and has security issues."
Slow? It runs at or faster than the cable modem speed. This user (the
guy that started the thread) does not have a file server to worry about.
Even then, most users will not detect the difference between wired and
wireless.
expensive? You can get a 4-port Linsys WAP for next to nothing.
Wireless NIC is cheap as well.
will not work in some areas??? He's talking ACROSS THE HALL.
security issues? Enable WEP and MAC filtering and only those who REALLY
want in will get in. If they want in that bad, they will get in no
matter what.

I've been running Wireless for years at home and in various hotels.
Works GREAT.

LittleJohn wrote:

Jeff Cochran wrote:

(Dorot29701) wrote:

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both rooms? Is that
even possible?

Sure. Then you need a second cable modem of course.


Poor solution, Jeff. Most Cable providers (ISPs) won't allow it, and
those that do will charge you twice their standard monthly fee.

A better solution is to purchase a 4-port firewall router (Under $100) and
put it behind the cable modem. Then you can feed up to 256 computers off
that same line. Have an installer run cat-5 or cat-6 (for higher speed)
cable between the two rooms terminated in standard (RJ-48) Ethernet boxes
on the wall. Or do it yourself. It's no harder than running phone wire.


First, wireless will work fine. Second, have a network installer come
to the house and do the work if you want. Third, wireless *will* work
fine.


Wireless is a pain. It's slow, expensive, will not work in some areas, and
has security issues. It's the only solution if you want to sit on your
deck and use your laptop, but a poor substitute when hard-wiring is
possible.

LittleJohn
Madison, AL

My prejudice: I'm a wired ethernet guy. Maybe I just like running
wires, etc.

My internet (dsl - but that 's no different) comes into the basement
to my adapter and router. Then it's up into the attic via conduit and
conduit runs all around the attic, out near the eaves and away from
the the electrical wiring.

Since your users are across the hall, you can't just to the "through
the wall or closet trick." If you put in RJ-45 jacks in each bedroom
and get them lined up on the same joist space, the fishing job for the
wires wouldn't be too bad. And you dont' need electrical boxes, just
use mud-rings. (It's kind of scary to think you can actually get all
this stuff at home depot.)

However, all things considered:
I would usually recommend wireless. Unless you are spooling video off
a server to multiple rooms, you will never use up the bandwidth of
newer wireless standards. As far as Internet traffic - your cable is
nowhere close to the speeds you'll get on you own network. But you
hardly need that speed to share a printer. Make sure you keep up with
all security precautions! (My friend works for a big consulting firm:
she is specifically prohibited from having her work laptop on a
wireless network at home. She went with a "phone line network" which
has worked ok. You can also do a network over your regular house
electrical wiring.)

In my experience, getting the networking to work properly with the two
operating systems and each other will be more difficult than than
physically setting up the network. If both of the machines are running
the same o/s, you'll have a head start.


"Dorot29701" wrote in message
...
Most cable services will run the internet cable to the house and
inside one
room. Then you have the option of doing the rest yourself - if there
are
computers in other rooms you can use a wireless setup. We are
probably going
to get cable service and I'm not sure we can get the wireless setup
to work. As
long as we have to hire someone to do it, thought maybe we should
just pay
someone to wire those rooms.

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from
each other.
Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have
those two rooms
wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both
rooms? Is that
even possible?

Thanks.

Dorothy

For the very brave, there is a new thing going on where you can get
wireless network over the eletrical lines. no gear in the house at all.
Security must suck. my neighbor uses it and likes it.

bill wrote:

My prejudice: I'm a wired ethernet guy. Maybe I just like running
wires, etc.

My internet (dsl - but that 's no different) comes into the basement
to my adapter and router. Then it's up into the attic via conduit and
conduit runs all around the attic, out near the eaves and away from
the the electrical wiring.

Since your users are across the hall, you can't just to the "through
the wall or closet trick." If you put in RJ-45 jacks in each bedroom
and get them lined up on the same joist space, the fishing job for the
wires wouldn't be too bad. And you dont' need electrical boxes, just
use mud-rings. (It's kind of scary to think you can actually get all
this stuff at home depot.)

However, all things considered:
I would usually recommend wireless. Unless you are spooling video off
a server to multiple rooms, you will never use up the bandwidth of
newer wireless standards. As far as Internet traffic - your cable is
nowhere close to the speeds you'll get on you own network. But you
hardly need that speed to share a printer. Make sure you keep up with
all security precautions! (My friend works for a big consulting firm:
she is specifically prohibited from having her work laptop on a
wireless network at home. She went with a "phone line network" which
has worked ok. You can also do a network over your regular house
electrical wiring.)

In my experience, getting the networking to work properly with the two
operating systems and each other will be more difficult than than
physically setting up the network. If both of the machines are running
the same o/s, you'll have a head start.


"Dorot29701" wrote in message
...

Most cable services will run the internet cable to the house and

inside one

room. Then you have the option of doing the rest yourself - if there

are

computers in other rooms you can use a wireless setup. We are

probably going

to get cable service and I'm not sure we can get the wireless setup

to work. As

long as we have to hire someone to do it, thought maybe we should

just pay

someone to wire those rooms.

My question: Both computers are in bedrooms, across the hall from

each other.

Would it be possible (instead of buying wireless setup) to have

those two rooms

wired for cable and get a spliter so the signal would go to both

rooms? Is that

even possible?

Thanks.

Dorothy

"Jo" wrote in message
ink.net...
Wireless is essentially "plug and play".

And completely insecure. If the OP can run a simple Ethernet cable they will
have a much more reliable and secure result.

Nate B wrote:

Let them get the modem set up on 1 computer, as is usually included in
installation, then go buy the wireless network components and read the
"quick setup" instructions. In the end, you'll have as many
computers as you want screaming on the internet by simply installing
a wireless card in each, pay 1 monthly service, no holes and mess all
of cables all over the house (and the costs of having someone drill
all those holes), and no extra monthly "home networking" costs.

I hope you'll permit a friendly amendment.

DO NOT hook up a cable modem directly to a computer! The output of the cable
modem should go first to a hardware router/switch. To this, either wired or
wireless, the computers are connected. In other words, the router/switch
(switch=high-speed router), sits between your computer(s) and the internet.
This configuration enables hardware anti-intrusion, blocking, firewall
capability.

"JerryMouse" wrote in message
...
Nate B wrote:

Let them get the modem set up on 1 computer, as is usually included in
installation, then go buy the wireless network components and read the
"quick setup" instructions. In the end, you'll have as many
computers as you want screaming on the internet by simply installing
a wireless card in each, pay 1 monthly service, no holes and mess all
of cables all over the house (and the costs of having someone drill
all those holes), and no extra monthly "home networking" costs.

I hope you'll permit a friendly amendment.

DO NOT hook up a cable modem directly to a computer! The output of the
cable
modem should go first to a hardware router/switch. To this, either wired
or
wireless, the computers are connected. In other words, the router/switch
(switch=high-speed router), sits between your computer(s) and the
internet.
This configuration enables hardware anti-intrusion, blocking, firewall
capability.

it's ideal to to put the router betw the cablemodem and the pc.
but it is also optional to directly connect the cablemodem to the pc under
certain situations.
the pc is firewalled and running DHCP to your home LAN. this pc can also be
running packet sniffers or proxy for your LAN. I use this setup for cheating
with online multiplayer games.

-a|ex

Jo wrote:

"Wireless is a pain. It's slow, expensive, will not work in some areas,
and has security issues."
Slow? It runs at or faster than the cable modem speed.

Yep, and that's slow also. The max transfer rate on a cable modem is 10
Meg with an effective rate of about 2 Meg. Normal wireless (not g) runs
about the same. A $10 RJ-45 NIC runs 100 Meg. Or in the Gig range if you
run cat-6 and buy expensive cat-6 NICs. Eventually you'll get tired of
that car that only runs 2 MPH and wish you had bought the cheaper car that
runs 100 MPH. That big movie file that you want to transfer to the other
computer and takes 5 minutes to transfer will take over four hours via
wireless. That's s l o w .

Even then, most users will not detect the difference between wired and
wireless.

You can't tell the difference between 5 minutes and four hours???

expensive? You can get a 4-port Linsys WAP for next to nothing.
Wireless NIC is cheap as well.

Wireless cards are two to three times the cost of a standard network
card... And the required access point is four to five times as much. You
can lessen the cost by buying a combination access/firewall/router, but
not a lot. You can go up to 802.11g and get around 50 Meg, but you best
float a loan before you go check them out.

will not work in some areas??? He's talking ACROSS THE HALL.

True, but he might want to put another computer somewhere wireless won't
penetrate. Like behind a concrete wall.

security issues? Enable WEP and MAC filtering and only those who REALLY
want in will get in. If they want in that bad, they will get in no
matter what.

The point was that running wires is something most everyone can do and
hard wired connectivity is totally secure. Not even the high tech
equipment of goverment agencies can penetrate a hard wired lan when it's
not connected to the Internet. They can, however, access any file on any
computer in your house from a van across the street if you're running
wireless. And they're not the only ones that can do it.

128 bit WEP is like a cheap padlock. It only keeps out the honest and
those unable to obtain the tools to get past it.

LittleJohn
Madison, AL

On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:56:30 -0500, LittleJohn
wrote:

"Wireless is a pain. It's slow, expensive, will not work in some areas,
and has security issues."
Slow? It runs at or faster than the cable modem speed.

Yep, and that's slow also. The max transfer rate on a cable modem is 10
Meg with an effective rate of about 2 Meg. Normal wireless (not g) runs
about the same.

And that's the exact point. The bottleneck is the cable modem, and
always will be. Since the internal network, wireless, is as fast or
faster than the slowest point, you can't tell the difference between a
wireless network, a 100 MBPS cabled network, Gigabit over ethernet or
fiber.

expensive? You can get a 4-port Linsys WAP for next to nothing.
Wireless NIC is cheap as well.

Wireless cards are two to three times the cost of a standard network
card... And the required access point is four to five times as much. You
can lessen the cost by buying a combination access/firewall/router, but
not a lot. You can go up to 802.11g and get around 50 Meg, but you best
float a loan before you go check them out.

Oh yeah, the price goes from a minimum of about $20 US for a NIC and
a long crossover to a cable modem, to not much more for a crossover to
a second NIC in the primary system running ICS, to about $80 for two
cables long enough and a cable router (assumes NICs in two systems
alreaday), to about $100 for a wireless cable router and a wireless
PCI card. No cabling, and you can move it at will. Wireless G ran me
$200 for the router, two USB cards and a PCI card weekend before last.
20 minutes and a Diet Coke later, the guy's systems were sailing
along, a PC, a PC notebook and a Mac. With security.

will not work in some areas??? He's talking ACROSS THE HALL.

True, but he might want to put another computer somewhere wireless won't
penetrate. Like behind a concrete wall.

Wireless penetrates concrete fine. He might want to put a wireless
laptop in his neighbor's treehouse too, but he said a room across a
hall.

security issues? Enable WEP and MAC filtering and only those who REALLY
want in will get in. If they want in that bad, they will get in no
matter what.

The point was that running wires is something most everyone can do and
hard wired connectivity is totally secure. Not even the high tech
equipment of goverment agencies can penetrate a hard wired lan when it's
not connected to the Internet.

First, in the OP's point, he doesn't need a LAN if he's not connecting
to the internet. Second, you happen to be wrong.

They can, however, access any file on any
computer in your house from a van across the street if you're running
wireless. And they're not the only ones that can do it.

Stop by my house and try.

128 bit WEP is like a cheap padlock. It only keeps out the honest and
those unable to obtain the tools to get past it.

For all the flap on wireless security, there really aren't any
instances where wirelss in a home using WEP or another security option
gtes broken into. There are darned few where even open wireless
connections in homes get hacked.

Plus, since your statement about wireless not being able to get to
some places pretty much means the hacker has to come sit at your
dining room table, it's not that big an issue now is it?

The OP should take this to one of the networking or wireless groups
for the real low down. And if he wants to run the cable himself,
check out sandman.com. Plus, at least locally, he can get it
professionally wired for less than the cost of the tools he'd use.

Jeff

On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:33:41 -0400, "George"
wrote (with possible editing):


"Jo" wrote in message
link.net...
Wireless is essentially "plug and play".

And completely insecure. If the OP can run a simple Ethernet cable they will
have a much more reliable and secure result.


I understand that the original encryption was pretty useless, but
hasn't that changed? I thought that the latest encryption (128 bit
DES) was supposed to be pretty good, no?
Thanks,
--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

read the mans requirements.
Personally, I have wired and wireless in my house. 3 windows boxes, one
linus and a Sun server...

LittleJohn wrote:

Jo wrote:


"Wireless is a pain. It's slow, expensive, will not work in some areas,
and has security issues."
Slow? It runs at or faster than the cable modem speed.


Yep, and that's slow also. The max transfer rate on a cable modem is 10
Meg with an effective rate of about 2 Meg. Normal wireless (not g) runs
about the same. A $10 RJ-45 NIC runs 100 Meg. Or in the Gig range if you
run cat-6 and buy expensive cat-6 NICs. Eventually you'll get tired of
that car that only runs 2 MPH and wish you had bought the cheaper car that
runs 100 MPH. That big movie file that you want to transfer to the other
computer and takes 5 minutes to transfer will take over four hours via
wireless. That's s l o w .


Even then, most users will not detect the difference between wired and
wireless.


You can't tell the difference between 5 minutes and four hours???


expensive? You can get a 4-port Linsys WAP for next to nothing.
Wireless NIC is cheap as well.


Wireless cards are two to three times the cost of a standard network
card... And the required access point is four to five times as much. You
can lessen the cost by buying a combination access/firewall/router, but
not a lot. You can go up to 802.11g and get around 50 Meg, but you best
float a loan before you go check them out.


will not work in some areas??? He's talking ACROSS THE HALL.


True, but he might want to put another computer somewhere wireless won't
penetrate. Like behind a concrete wall.


security issues? Enable WEP and MAC filtering and only those who REALLY
want in will get in. If they want in that bad, they will get in no
matter what.


The point was that running wires is something most everyone can do and
hard wired connectivity is totally secure. Not even the high tech
equipment of goverment agencies can penetrate a hard wired lan when it's
not connected to the Internet. They can, however, access any file on any
computer in your house from a van across the street if you're running
wireless. And they're not the only ones that can do it.

128 bit WEP is like a cheap padlock. It only keeps out the honest and
those unable to obtain the tools to get past it.

LittleJohn
Madison, AL

On 15-May-2004, Jeff Cochran wrote:

And that's the exact point. The bottleneck is the cable modem, and
always will be. Since the internal network, wireless, is as fast or
faster than the slowest point, you can't tell the difference between a
wireless network, a 100 MBPS cabled network, Gigabit over ethernet or
fiber.

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.

For some people, it makes a difference.

Mike

On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:28:54 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

On 15-May-2004, Jeff Cochran wrote:

And that's the exact point. The bottleneck is the cable modem, and
always will be. Since the internal network, wireless, is as fast or
faster than the slowest point, you can't tell the difference between a
wireless network, a 100 MBPS cabled network, Gigabit over ethernet or
fiber.

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.

Jeff

Jo wrote:

read the mans requirements.

I did. Just trying to give him the pros and cons of both options.

Personally, I have wired and wireless in my house. 3 windows boxes, one
linus and a Sun server...

So do I. Only one Windoze machine for the Grandkids games, but twice the
total number of boxes (Not including three laptops). They keep the house
toasty in the winter...

LittleJohn
Madison, AL

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

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