Man at B&Q :
On Jan 4, 11:37*am, Mike Barnes wrote:
Adrian Brentnall :

The new 'net connection came complete with a wireless router -
so was playing with the idea of getting rid of the wired network
connections between the three (dell desktop) office pc's (winxp) and
the router and loacting the router at the master socket.

My first thought is: why would anyone do that? I can't think of a single
reason why I'd change from wired to wireless, unless I *really* needed
the portability.

Or perhaps the clue is in the "locating the router at the master
socket". That seems like a good idea, but if there wasn't any way of
doing it other than wireless, I wouldn't bother.

Have you looked at Homeplugs (ethernet over mains)? More expensive than
wireless, but IMO much better in every respect except portability.

After faffing with Belkin USB WiFi adapters on a number of machines
and never really getting them to work well, it was a breath of fresh
air to install Devolo (refused to buy Belkin ever again) homeplugs.
Plug them in and they just work, absolutely no setup required for
basic operation. A utility lets you enable encryption.

I also use Devolo for over-the-mains and it's been perfect. Plug and go,
as you say.

Funny you should mention Belkin. I do have a use for wireless here
(remote controls for my home jukebox) and I recently upgraded from g to
n. I bought a well-reviewed Belkin router, but after several months of
frustration trying to get it to stay up for more than a week (including
swapping it for a replacement unit), I sent it back to Amazon and got my
money back. The Trendnet router I bought instead cost twice as much, but
it gives much better signal strength and has never put a foot wrong.

--
Mike Barnes

In article , Dave Osborne
scribeth thus
Tim W wrote:
Dave Osborne
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 11:38

Tim W wrote:
Roger Mills
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 10:56


In the defence of WIFI, mine's rock solid and running WPA2-PSK. That's
not the most secure but it's good enough for most people.

Outside of a corporate context (i.e. with an 802.1x authentication
server), what's more secure than WPA2-PSK?

You just said it...

WPA2-PSK is good enough for most people, but it would be wrong to state it's
the most secure solution ;-



OK, I thought I was missing some important new development!



It is much better than WEP, but then again not everyone uses that
even;!..

I'd suggest like a few others use CAT 5 cable if you can and wireless if
you can't, but do bear in mid the 2.4 Ghz part of the band is rather
overcrowded in a lot of areas, not only wireless for PC's but video
senders and the like and leakage from microwave ovens etc..

Don't believe all the speed hype you read either, all that is subject to
interference etc..

Download Netstumbler on a laptop, its quite good fun seeing how many
wireless points are around and whether or not their protected...


http://www.netstumbler.com/downloads/
--
Tony Sayer

"Adrian Brentnall" wrote in message
...
HI Yellow

Yellow wrote:
"Adrian Brentnall" wrote in message
...
HI Folks
The new 'net connection came complete with a wireless router -
so was playing with the idea of getting rid of the wired network
connections between the three (dell desktop) office pc's (winxp) and the
router and loacting the router at the master socket.

Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC) &
installed them. Wouldn't install under Windows' 'found new hardware'
routine - had to use the manufacturer's own utility to install.

Anyway - they seem to be working - but one of the PCs is losing its
wireless connection intermittently, and both were in a 'very
unresponsive, mouse cursor not responding' sort of place, this morning.
-needed rebooting to get any life...

Looking at the diagnostics on the wireless cards - both are showing 100%
signal strength (can't be more than 10ft from the pc to the router!) -
and (only?) 60 - 80% link quality.
The detailed stats show (amongst other things) rx retry of 20% -
and a whole bundle of RX CRC errors..

There's no troubleshooting info with the PCI cards - and no means of
contacting a tech support organisation - the instruction leaflet says
'contact your vendor' ..... (CPC! - yeah, right)

So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
cables!

Thanks for any advice / experience

This sounds like a driver issue to me.

First, uninstall the drivers and then get them back off the
manufacturer's disk - sometimes windows screws up if it installs
"generic" drivers (or fails to install them properly) and then you use a
disk to install new ones over the top.

Second, if that doesn't improve things, use the "search for the best
driver on the internet" function to see if that can find more up to date
drivers.

Third, search for your hardware (using the part number as ID) on the
internet and see if updated drivers are available or if there are any
comments from others having similar problems.

For the record, I use wireless (in a built up area) successfully, so it
is possible - do not give up at the first hurdle.


Thanks for the suggestions - but I think I'll just give up at the first
hurdle g

CPC will hopefully accept these two rubbish cards back - and I'll use the
refund to buy something useful. like screws! g

The thing's probably solvable - but I don;t want to spend hours of my time
on it - defeatist, I know, but there you go....


Fair enough. :-)

For what it is worth, I use netgear. I have one of their non-wireless
networks card in my main computer, wire connected to netgear router, and one
of their USB wireless devices on an old computer I just use for backup that
sits miles away in the back bedroom.

I also have a netbook with a built-in wireless card (no idea of make), a
palm PDA and a Nintendo DS that all just cheerfully connect and work without
any effort on my part anywhere in the house or garden.

So honestly, despite all the negative comments in this group, it can really
be done.

In article , Adrian Brentnall
scribeth thus
HI Timothy

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

Unless you're frequently moving your PCs (laptops?) around, I'd go for a
wired solution every time. It's far more reliable and far more secure. [If
wireless is flakey out of the box, think what it will be like when you
introduce decent encryption!]

I completely disagree.
WiFi normally works perfectly well.
There is something wrong with the setup in the OP's case.
I'd try re-setting the PCI cards, moving the antennae, etc.
If that didn't work I'd assume there was something wrong
with the WiFi cards, and try another make, maybe USB.


Tried resetting the cards - in fact they seem to require it fairly
frequently - which is a pain as I have to type in a 20-digit WPA key
(twice!) each time

Difficult voing the antennae - they're on the back of a couple of
mini-towers

I'm tempted to believe that it's the cards at fault -
and have emailed CPC to ask for an RMA. The laptop's working fine
(different type of card) - but I can't be bothered to spend hours
trying to sort out something which I feel should work 'straight out of
the box'.


Try http://solwise.com

next time there're usually very helpful..

If the manufacturer offered some sort of online support then I might
give that a go... but they don't...

Thanks
Adrian

--
Tony Sayer

HI Tony

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Adrian Brentnall
scribeth thus
HI Timothy

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

Unless you're frequently moving your PCs (laptops?) around, I'd go for a
wired solution every time. It's far more reliable and far more secure. [If
wireless is flakey out of the box, think what it will be like when you
introduce decent encryption!]
I completely disagree.
WiFi normally works perfectly well.
There is something wrong with the setup in the OP's case.
I'd try re-setting the PCI cards, moving the antennae, etc.
If that didn't work I'd assume there was something wrong
with the WiFi cards, and try another make, maybe USB.

Tried resetting the cards - in fact they seem to require it fairly
frequently - which is a pain as I have to type in a 20-digit WPA key
(twice!) each time

Difficult voing the antennae - they're on the back of a couple of
mini-towers

I'm tempted to believe that it's the cards at fault -
and have emailed CPC to ask for an RMA. The laptop's working fine
(different type of card) - but I can't be bothered to spend hours
trying to sort out something which I feel should work 'straight out of
the box'.


Try http://solwise.com

next time there're usually very helpful..

Thanks - cost for a card about 2x what CPC wanted - but then, I guess
their card might work ! g

Thanks
Adrian

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:22:04 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Is wifi really full duplex in this situation?

Fairly sure WiFi is simplex, only one transmitter can transmit at a
time or stuff gets corrupted and has to be resent.

WIFI laptop to server via a single WIFI hop is giving around 17Mbit/sec
Laptop to another wifi client gives around 8-10mb/sec

That backs up the simplex theory.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:43:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Firstly that there is a gross simplification. All channels are spread
spectrum anyway, so the effect of overlap is not 'hit or miss' but
simply one of slow degradation.

Yes, but the spectrum used by say channel 3 overlaps those used by
channels 1, 2, 6 & 7. Channels 1, 6 & 11 do not overlap each other.
So work well as three mutaully interference free channels.

You could use 2,7,12 or 3,8,13 (Europe) or 4,9,14 or 5,10,14 (Japan)
but most kit comes defaulted to 1, 6 or 11 so it makes sense in
crowded areas to only use 1,6 or 11. When ever I've done a check for
visible WiFi devices I've only ever seen stuff on channels 1,6 or 11.

so they do not necessarily do as much to each other as you might think.

Too many variables. If the there are two bases on say Ch1 and Ch2 but
the device trying to talk to the base on ch1 is a long way away or
can't be heard by the base on Ch2 then and there is a decent bit of
traffic trying to flow on both connections it won't work anything
like as well as using say 1 and 6.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Adrian Brentnall wrote:

So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
cables!

Thanks for any advice / experience
Adrian

Personally, I'd say if you have the choice of a cable, use it. In most
circumstances it will be faster and more reliable.

If you want to use the wireless, try vahnging the channel on the router
and see if that helps.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:55:40 +0000, MM wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:12:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

HI Folks
The new 'net connection came complete with a wireless router -
so was playing with the idea of getting rid of the wired network
connections between the three (dell desktop) office pc's (winxp) and the
router and loacting the router at the master socket.

Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC) &
installed them. Wouldn't install under Windows' 'found new hardware'
routine - had to use the manufacturer's own utility to install.

Anyway - they seem to be working - but one of the PCs is losing its
wireless connection intermittently, and both were in a 'very
unresponsive, mouse cursor not responding' sort of place, this morning.
-needed rebooting to get any life...

Looking at the diagnostics on the wireless cards - both are showing
100% signal strength (can't be more than 10ft from the pc to the
router!) - and (only?) 60 - 80% link quality.
The detailed stats show (amongst other things) rx retry of 20% -
and a whole bundle of RX CRC errors..

There's no troubleshooting info with the PCI cards - and no means of
contacting a tech support organisation - the instruction leaflet says
'contact your vendor' ..... (CPC! - yeah, right)

So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
cables!

I wouldn't touch wireless networking with a bargepole. Cat 5e cabling
for me every time.

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Mark" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those, and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've got
the wire in place).

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:58:53 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

HI Tim

Tim.. wrote:

"Adrian Brentnall" wrote in message
...
HI Folks

So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good
old cables!


In a word.. yes, I would.

Use some homeplugs if you need data where is it not that easy to cable
Cat5 to.


Sounds sensible.
Actually, the laptop is running reasonably well (it's an old laptop!)
on a wireless connection (using a wireless different adapter)- which
suggests to me that the router's doing its stuff - and it's these two
wireless cards that are carp...

Not much need to run anything 'beyond the wires' - the weather station
server / mp3 jukebox in the outside studio has a flying Cat5 cable - so
it was really just a (not so) bright idea to try and reduce the cabling
in the office..

Thanks

I am having similar problems with my PC. My internet radio keeps
dropping out. It has only really started happening since I increased
the length of the cable from the router to the phone socket but I
can't see why that should be the case. I am more inclined to blame the
cheapo wireless adapter that I bought from Saverstore and which bears
the words 'Made in China'.
Maris

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:38:50 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:55:40 +0000, MM wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:12:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

HI Folks
The new 'net connection came complete with a wireless router -
so was playing with the idea of getting rid of the wired network
connections between the three (dell desktop) office pc's (winxp) and the
router and loacting the router at the master socket.

Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC) &
installed them. Wouldn't install under Windows' 'found new hardware'
routine - had to use the manufacturer's own utility to install.

Anyway - they seem to be working - but one of the PCs is losing its
wireless connection intermittently, and both were in a 'very
unresponsive, mouse cursor not responding' sort of place, this morning.
-needed rebooting to get any life...

Looking at the diagnostics on the wireless cards - both are showing
100% signal strength (can't be more than 10ft from the pc to the
router!) - and (only?) 60 - 80% link quality.
The detailed stats show (amongst other things) rx retry of 20% -
and a whole bundle of RX CRC errors..

There's no troubleshooting info with the PCI cards - and no means of
contacting a tech support organisation - the instruction leaflet says
'contact your vendor' ..... (CPC! - yeah, right)

So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
cables!

I wouldn't touch wireless networking with a bargepole. Cat 5e cabling
for me every time.

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

With Zen I specifically asked for a wired version.

MM

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
.. .

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those, and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem. Plus,
wired is way faster.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
. ..

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've
got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem.

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless off
if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well
enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too, it
makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

Plus, wired is way faster.

For most people's use, it won't be. The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:34:32 +0000, Maris wrote:

I am having similar problems with my PC. My internet radio keeps
dropping out. It has only really started happening since I increased
the length of the cable from the router to the phone socket but I
can't see why that should be the case.

Longer cable has screwed up your sync rate and/or the messing about
has pushed down your BRAS rate. What does your router say it's
connection speed is?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:11 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've
got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem.

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless off

Why should I have to bother about that? I don't have to with my wired
network.

if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well
enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too,

What advantages for me? I have two computers in the same room. Okay, I
have a third computer on my digital piano and on those rare occasions
that I need to access the network from there I trail a cable across
the carpet for 5 minutes, then remove it again. It's absolutely no
hassle at all. If I had a wireless network I'd save myself 5 minutes
of inconvenience maybe five times a year, but would have all those
security considerations to implement instead.

it
makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

No, it doesn't. They should simply ask what the punter wants, not just
assume.


Plus, wired is way faster.

For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

MM

Maris wrote:

I am having similar problems with my PC. My internet radio keeps
dropping out. It has only really started happening since I increased
the length of the cable from the router to the phone socket but I
can't see why that should be the case. I am more inclined to blame the
cheapo wireless adapter that I bought from Saverstore and which bears
the words 'Made in China'.
Maris

It's probable that the extra cable installed is picking up
interference from a Medium Wave transmitter.

I'm 8 miles away from one on 909 kHz, and there's no reception of the
ADSL signal above bin 200 (862.5 kHz). This of course limits download
speed, as bins 201 - 255 are wiped out as far as data carrying is
concerned.

More than you ever wanted to know he

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adsl_tech...tm#frequencies

TF

"MM" wrote in message
...


For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

A properly configured wireless network will *not* slow down an internet
connection that is at best about 20M.
I can max out my 20M broadband with ease over wireless while also doing a
backup also over wireless to a buffalo linkstation.

The days of 1M wireless have been gone for a decade now.

dennis@home wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...


For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

A properly configured wireless network will *not* slow down an internet
connection that is at best about 20M.
I can max out my 20M broadband with ease over wireless while also doing
a backup also over wireless to a buffalo linkstation.


the problem with wireless is it cant match a duplex 100Mbps cat 5
connection between machines.

Not all networking is WAN.



The days of 1M wireless have been gone for a decade now.

the days of 20M wireless are numbered. TRe spectrum is SO crowded in
urban locations its barely worth using.

In a modern house with foiled up walls, its equally crap.

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 10:50


the problem with wireless is it cant match a duplex 100Mbps cat 5
connection between machines.

Not gone gig then? ;-

--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
dennis@home wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...


For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

A properly configured wireless network will *not* slow down an internet
connection that is at best about 20M.
I can max out my 20M broadband with ease over wireless while also doing
a backup also over wireless to a buffalo linkstation.


the problem with wireless is it cant match a duplex 100Mbps cat 5
connection between machines.

Not all networking is WAN.



The days of 1M wireless have been gone for a decade now.

the days of 20M wireless are numbered. TRe spectrum is SO crowded in
urban locations its barely worth using.

In a modern house with foiled up walls, its equally crap.

5.8 Ghz is now available, problem is a lot of things like laptops aren't
equipped but it is designed better for A Indoor nomadic (Ofcom's words),
B outdoor nomadic, and C point to point where if it has a clear path can
works very well ..


--
Tony Sayer

Tim W wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 10:50


the problem with wireless is it cant match a duplex 100Mbps cat 5
connection between machines.

Not gone gig then? ;-

Not yet, no.

100 Mbps is fast enough, mostly.

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 12:02

Tim W wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 10:50


the problem with wireless is it cant match a duplex 100Mbps cat 5
connection between machines.

Not gone gig then? ;-

Not yet, no.

100 Mbps is fast enough, mostly.

It is true that whilst I have gig, most of my boxes can't shovel faster than
300-400Mbit/sec[1] and if it's not in cache in the server, then it's down
rather more.

[1] I had a server at work that I managed to get around 2.5Gbit/second
useful NFS transmission speed (including all protocol overheads) serving
from a very fast RAID and a stupid amount of cache. Cost a bit though...

--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:11 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
m...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about
the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've
got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem.

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless off

Why should I have to bother about that? I don't have to with my wired
network.

Commercial reasons - offering wireless by default is sound commercial sense.
You're in a minority - offering you that extra service would cost money.

if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well
enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too,

What advantages for me?

I'm not interested in that. It offers advantages for many people - you may
not be among them, but you're in a bit of a minority.

it
makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

No, it doesn't. They should simply ask what the punter wants, not just
assume.

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're fully
at liberty to.

Plus, wired is way faster.

For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

No it's not. If the limiting factor is the connection to the exchange, it
makes no odds having wireless or wired.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

Wireless isn't that slow.

On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

I don't work for an ISP, no. But I've got an idea about commercial reality.

As it happens, I do work in the IT dept of a company with a policy of
windows-only on the desktop, and don't really have a problem with that
policy. Servers is a different matter, and I've had quite a lot to do with
encouragement towards non-windows there.

And mine and friends laptops seem to work fine with wireless and linux.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:28:36 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"MM" wrote in message
.. .


For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

A properly configured wireless network will *not* slow down an internet
connection that is at best about 20M.
I can max out my 20M broadband with ease over wireless while also doing a
backup also over wireless to a buffalo linkstation.

The days of 1M wireless have been gone for a decade now.

Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.

MM

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:53:14 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:11 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
om...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about
the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've
got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem.

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless off

Why should I have to bother about that? I don't have to with my wired
network.

Commercial reasons - offering wireless by default is sound commercial sense.
You're in a minority - offering you that extra service would cost money.

if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well
enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too,

What advantages for me?

I'm not interested in that. It offers advantages for many people - you may
not be among them, but you're in a bit of a minority.

it
makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

No, it doesn't. They should simply ask what the punter wants, not just
assume.

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're fully
at liberty to.

Plus, wired is way faster.

For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

No it's not. If the limiting factor is the connection to the exchange, it
makes no odds having wireless or wired.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

Wireless isn't that slow.

But it IS slower, is more hassle and more open to hackers.

MM

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:05:12 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:gdidnbgDGvyDPNnWnZ2dnUVZ7qZi4p2d@brightview. co.uk...
On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

I don't work for an ISP, no. But I've got an idea about commercial reality.

As it happens, I do work in the IT dept of a company with a policy of
windows-only on the desktop, and don't really have a problem with that
policy. Servers is a different matter, and I've had quite a lot to do with
encouragement towards non-windows there.

And mine and friends laptops seem to work fine with wireless and linux.


My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other
box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be
easy?

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:53:14 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:11 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
news:k5g6k51vlioq6hp75ep0jlacf68s0sb1vt@4ax. com...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot
of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for
those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about
the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the
doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given
most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where
I've
got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem.

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless
off

Why should I have to bother about that? I don't have to with my wired
network.

Commercial reasons - offering wireless by default is sound commercial
sense.
You're in a minority - offering you that extra service would cost money.

if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well
enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too,

What advantages for me?

I'm not interested in that. It offers advantages for many people - you may
not be among them, but you're in a bit of a minority.

it
makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

No, it doesn't. They should simply ask what the punter wants, not just
assume.

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

Plus, wired is way faster.

For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

No it's not. If the limiting factor is the connection to the exchange, it
makes no odds having wireless or wired.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

Wireless isn't that slow.

But it IS slower, is more hassle and more open to hackers.

You're really struggling with the idea of bottlenecks, aren't you. For most
people's use, the limiting factor will be the link to the exchange, not the
wireless speed. Thus it isn't slower in practice.

In many cases it's not more hassle - remember, fixed desktops are becoming
less mainstream. Plenty of people have the router in the hall next to the
incoming phone point, and just use their computer in the living room or
whatever. Running Cat5 for that is tedious.

Yes, it's theoretically a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's
secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:05:12 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:gdidnbgDGvyDPNnWnZ2dnUVZ7qZi4p2d@brightview .co.uk...
On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

I don't work for an ISP, no. But I've got an idea about commercial
reality.

As it happens, I do work in the IT dept of a company with a policy of
windows-only on the desktop, and don't really have a problem with that
policy. Servers is a different matter, and I've had quite a lot to do with
encouragement towards non-windows there.

And mine and friends laptops seem to work fine with wireless and linux.


My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other
box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be
easy?

Um, I'm not the one trying to make things difficult. Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

In message , MM
writes
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:05:12 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:gdidnbgDGvyDPNnWnZ2dnUVZ7qZi4p2d@brightview .co.uk...
On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

I don't work for an ISP, no. But I've got an idea about commercial reality.

As it happens, I do work in the IT dept of a company with a policy of
windows-only on the desktop, and don't really have a problem with that
policy. Servers is a different matter, and I've had quite a lot to do with
encouragement towards non-windows there.

And mine and friends laptops seem to work fine with wireless and linux.


My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other
box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be
easy?

It's not so easy if you want to connect your laptop where ever you want
to be around the house with a wired network.

No one said that you had to use wireless - it obviously not appropriate
for your situation. but for other situations it is entirely appropriate
- and increasingly so as people use laptops, netbooks and other mobile
wifi enabled devices etc. horsed for course and all that - we use both
wired and wireless networking in this house as suits the situation.



But Clive's main point (with which I'd concur) really seemed to be that
wireless works fine most of the time for most people (not to say it
doesn't have flaws, and can't be a bit more flakey at times) and is
plenty fast enough for the use most people put it too - connecting to
the internet.

We have O2 broadband here and get about 15 Mb/s ( but most on ADSL will
be lucky to be getting anywhere near the fabled 8 Mb/s) when connecting
via the laptops most of the time the wireless connection provides
plenty more than that unless I stretch the connection to the limits of
it's range - so connecting faster by a wired connection doesn't really
matter for speed - it's not the limiting factor. Even pretty demanding
stuff like streaming HD streams using iPlayer works fine

Even for general use connecting to the home file server it's plenty fast
enough really. Though I do connect up a cable if I have a a big file to
transfer.


--
Chris French

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:20 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:05:12 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:gdidnbgDGvyDPNnWnZ2dnUVZ7qZi4p2d@brightvie w.co.uk...
On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

I don't work for an ISP, no. But I've got an idea about commercial
reality.

As it happens, I do work in the IT dept of a company with a policy of
windows-only on the desktop, and don't really have a problem with that
policy. Servers is a different matter, and I've had quite a lot to do with
encouragement towards non-windows there.

And mine and friends laptops seem to work fine with wireless and linux.


My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other
box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be
easy?

Um, I'm not the one trying to make things difficult. Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

MM

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:25:26 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:53:14 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:11:11 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
news:k5g6k51vlioq6hp75ep0jlacf68s0sb1vt@4ax .com...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot
of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for
those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about
the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the
doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given
most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where
I've
got
the wire in place).


I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries
to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem.

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless
off

Why should I have to bother about that? I don't have to with my wired
network.

Commercial reasons - offering wireless by default is sound commercial
sense.
You're in a minority - offering you that extra service would cost money.

if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well
enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too,

What advantages for me?

I'm not interested in that. It offers advantages for many people - you may
not be among them, but you're in a bit of a minority.

it
makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

No, it doesn't. They should simply ask what the punter wants, not just
assume.

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

Plus, wired is way faster.

For most people's use, it won't be.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they
aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

No it's not. If the limiting factor is the connection to the exchange, it
makes no odds having wireless or wired.

The limiting factor will be the
connection to the internet. As I said above...

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us
high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots
with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a
bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their
vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that
runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with
wireless.

Wireless isn't that slow.

But it IS slower, is more hassle and more open to hackers.

You're really struggling with the idea of bottlenecks, aren't you. For most
people's use, the limiting factor will be the link to the exchange, not the
wireless speed. Thus it isn't slower in practice.

In many cases it's not more hassle

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I
can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

- remember, fixed desktops are becoming
less mainstream.

So what? I only have desktops. I shall, in the spring, be building a
mini-ITX based "desktop" for my piano. Cost of parts: around £100,
less hard drive, keyboard and mouse, which I have in spades. It will
be connected via Cat5e.

Plenty of people have the router in the hall next to the
incoming phone point, and just use their computer in the living room or
whatever. Running Cat5 for that is tedious.

No, it's fun! Shows one's ingenuity!

Yes, it's theoretically

i.e. it is...

a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's
secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
the way it's gonna stay.

MM

MM :
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:20 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:
Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently
it does, so here goes... You're neglecting the obvious, which is that
*routing* that wire in a household-friendly way is often far from easy.

--
Mike Barnes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/01/2010 12:53, Clive George wrote:

[snip]

See above about commercial reasons. It's cheaper and easier for them to
just
supply one sort of router. If you want to pay extra for wired, you're
fully
at liberty to.

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

Nothing wrong with only supporting the majority of users..
Its cheaper and windows users don't want to subsidise others any more than
we already do. ;-)

"MM" wrote in message
...


My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other
box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be
easy?

Its all fine when it works.
Its finding solutions when it doesn't that's hard.
Why make it harder by having to, potentially, find more solutions?
Same machine, same os, same applications makes things easier.

PS, I'm biased as ubuntu is absolutely cr@p on a HP tx2.
Win7 is far better on it.

"MM" wrote in message
...


Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.

Not if you have to pay for installation it isn't.
nor is it cheaper if you have to redecorate after putting it in.

Wireless routers cost the same or less than wired ones and are usually free.
laptops come with wireless these days so it is free.
desktops cost about £8 to make wireless.
wireless isn't a trip hazard.
wireless doesn't export potentials outside the building if you have your
server in the shed.
most people don't do anything where the speed difference between wired and
wireless matters.

Don't imagine that if you have something worth stealing that the "extra"
security of wired will stop someone stealing it.

"Clive George" wrote in message
...


Yes, it's theoretically a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's
secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.


Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves the
browser.
Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

dennis@home wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...


Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.

Not if you have to pay for installation it isn't.
nor is it cheaper if you have to redecorate after putting it in.

Wireless routers cost the same or less than wired ones and are usually
free.
laptops come with wireless these days so it is free.
desktops cost about £8 to make wireless.
wireless isn't a trip hazard.
wireless doesn't export potentials outside the building if you have your
server in the shed.
most people don't do anything where the speed difference between wired
and wireless matters.

Don't imagine that if you have something worth stealing that the "extra"
security of wired will stop someone stealing it.

Exactly.

Wireless is a cheap shoddy insecure method that suits most clueless
users perfectly.

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.