Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 47 Location: Edinburgh
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:39 pm Post subject: Wireless Home Network
Hey guys, need some advice on this stuff. I moved into my new flat last week and we're thinking of getting broadband. It's three of us in the flat. I was thinking of buying a wireless router to avoid the hassle of long ethernet cables running through the flat. My question though is what type of router should I get, I'm concerned with the transmission standards 802.11a, b, g... Which one is the best? I'm basically going to have the router in one room and the two other computers in a room of their own. Will the signal be strong enough to go through the walls whilst still maintaining a good transfer speed? I'm going to ask the guy at the store anyway, but if someone could give me some guidance as well I'd appreaciate it.
I have a Linksys Wlan Broadband router (11mbit and 802.11b) on my 2mbit/128kbit connection here in Denmark, and i'm sharing my connection with 2 others. We each live in a one room flat and there have never been any problems in the connection because of walls ect. It runs like a dream.
But if you want to make a dedicated network I would advice you to get a router with 54mbit option, because 11mbit is too slow for moving files ect.
i don't know very much but as far as i know 802.11g is the best one with good speeds. I think its also what apple use in their sexeh powerbooks (which probably doesn't matter much to you ). _________________
Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 47 Location: Edinburgh
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:02 am Post subject:
Well, after some months of tweaking and testing I've given up on the wireless network. From what I've experienced, WLANs are not as great as you might think. First of all, there are many obstacles which reduce signal strength: walls, piping in the walls, power supplies (microwaves, fridges, even your computer!), big bodies of water (boilers, water tanks, etc) and of course, distance.
If you ever buy a WLAN the instructions will tell you that to get the best performance, there shouldn't be any obstacles between the router and your connection. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of wireless networking in a home where there WILL be obstacles. Kind of stupid to set up a WLAN in just one room, don't you think? Of course the solution is to get aerials around the home so that the signal remains strengthened, but then the cost goes up up and away.
So what did I do about it? Well I tried nonetheless. To set up the router you need to be physically plugged in so you can configure the WLAN and security settings (at least for my router). Once you got that you install your WNICs on each computer, connect and start surfing. Well the connection works, and me being two rooms away from the router (in a flat), my signal strength remained around 60%. That's not too bad. The problem is that the connection is lost for a second or two every so often. If you're just casually surfing the net, that's not really a problem, but if you're talking on microsoft messenger, or having a video-conference, or streaming a video, etc then that will break up your connection and you'll have to re-login, re-start, re-connect, etc.
Hence, disappointed with the poor performance of the router (at least for my needs), I decided to switch to the good old CAT 5 cables (when I bought the router, I made sure it had ethernet sockets, just in case). I bought a 30 meter cable which only cost me 11£. And it goes from the router in one room, along the hall into my room, on the other end of the flat. Now all I need to do is nail it to the wall and I'll barely notice it's there.
So, if you're considering WLAN, think about it real hard and be ready to make some sacrifices because the technology is still in its infant stages (for home users). And one more thing, if any of you have AOL broadband, you may have noticed that only the Gold and Platinum options support simultaneous computers sharing an internet connection. Well, you can still do it with the Silver option it's just that AOL believes that 32Kb/s is not a good enough bandwidth to share in a network. Don't be fooled by them! It works fine (I've done it!).
Joined: Jun 02, 2004 Posts: 92 Location: Dalry, Edinburgh
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:15 pm Post subject:
AOL just wants more money.
Of course it's enough for casual web surfing. I used to share a 56k connection between 3 computers back in the day.
Plus there are probably hidden charges if you admit to sharing the connection, such as extra IPs etc. All ISPs do the same. None of it's needed, but they rely on convincing the less computer literate people in order to make the £s. A good example is my friend who payed a one of connection to xbox live (£50), and now pays £5 a month subscription. All this was payed for and done through his ISP. Oh.... wait.... there IS NO SUBSRICPTION TO XBOX LIVE. You pay the one off fee every 12 months, or pay a subscription to Micro$oft themselves. Telewest had the balls to charge him £60 a year subscription for another IP address, for a god damn xbox. Jesus... that annoyed me.
I honestly can't think of one good reason for having different IP addresses, apart from perhaps a few of the old P2P networks won't allow simultaneous connections..
Rich
p.s As for your networking fun, glad ya came back to good old faithful (wires)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
