Wireless suggestions?

[scrub]

Scrubette has issued an edict that I must get wireless for her apartment to minimize the effects of poker on her sleep and internet usage.

Problem is, I don't know much about computers, and have no idea what sort of wireless equipment I should buy.

She has a mac and I have a PC, and I think I'd feel more comfortable if the wireless were as secure as possible. She has DSL, if that makes a difference.

Suggestions? Thanks!

scrub

[wacki]

I like the airport extreme

It has 802.11g, and a lan port incase you want to add a switch later for 100 mbs connections, but 54 mbs should be plenty for the average home user.

If you want gigabit, there are other options, but they are expensive. This should be more than enough for you.

With AirPort Extreme, you can create a turbocharged wireless network accessible to both Macs equipped with the AirPort or AirPort Extreme Card and Wi-Fi-compliant Windows PCs, as well as other network devices like printers. A single AirPort Extreme Base Station allows up to 50 Macs and Windows PCs to connect wirelessly to each other and to the Internet.(1) And because it employs the 802.11g wireless standard, you never have to worry about compromised data rates — AirPort Extreme gives you blazing connectivity speeds up to 54 megabits per second.

http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/

[wacki]

The inexpensive home wireless routers at the top of the list seem to be the WRT54G, WRT54GS (probably not worth the added price), and Dlink DI-624. Some like the SMC 2804 but I have heard many complaints about how much heat it puts out and early deaths, while other's swear by its performance (this one has dual antenna). I would go with the WRT54G because of the dual antenna and both are detachable, the Dlink has just one antenna.

I prefer my switches and routers to be seperate, but it's up to you. Linksys or Mac are both good.

[scrub]

Hey, thanks for the suggestions.

Since I'm completely naive about this stuff, what does :
[ QUOTE ]
I prefer my switches and routers to be seperate, but it's up to you. Linksys or Mac are both good.

[/ QUOTE ]

mean, why would you prefer one over the other, and which of the things you were talking about was a switch v. a router?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

scrub

[wacki]

linksys and Mac (Macintosh) are brand names. Both are good.

I didn't name any switches, but the advantage of having a switch is you can designate different IP's to different machines. The run of the mill routers can't do that. Expensive ones can, but not cheap ones. When I say cheap I mean 2-3 digits of cost only. I like to tinker with my networks and do all sorts of crazy things like having the lights in my house voice activated, or have all my computers share the same music files. It's all basically stuff you won't have to worry about.

You can buy a router now, and buy a switch later. Or you can buy a regular router and buy a wireless switch. If you do that, D-Link makes some good low end routers that aren't wireless. This isn't exactly beginner stuff. Go with the models I suggested. You can always add on later. Whatever you do, if you only buy one thing get a ROUTER!!!

For definition of routers vs. switch use either:

www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
or
www.webopedia.com (http://www.webopedia.com)


Also, shop at www.newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com) they ROCK!!!!

[Boris]

I give a thumbs down to the Dlink wireless router. They are cheap but I'm not impressed with the performance. I've heard good things about 2wire.

[turnipmonster]

I recommend the airport express (http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/) as well. turnipmonsterette has a pc and I have a mac, and it works great. it doesn't sound like you'll need a separate switch for what you'll be doing.

pros:
- can play music from your computer to stereo wireless
- can hook up a usb printer so you can print from either machine wireless
- is very portable, no cables/cords
- very easy to configure from a mac.

cons:
- expensive, around 125
- can be a pain in the ass to configure from a PC. use the mac when you're configuring it.

--turnipmonster

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I give a thumbs down to the Dlink wireless router. They are cheap but I'm not impressed with the performance. I've heard good things about 2wire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I've heard a couple of other people say this. I like their non-wireless routers as they have treated me very well. I have heard good, and bad about anything of their's that is wireless, so maybe I shouldn't of listed it. But in general it is considered ok.

The LINKSYS Wireless G 54Mbps Broadband Router, Model WRT54G is $64.99 at newegg.

You can read user reviews here:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=33-124-010&depa=0

Again, don't forget Macintosh, macs are very good.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
The LINKSYS Wireless G 54Mbps Broadband Router, Model WRT54G is $64.99 at newegg.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would go with the LINKSYS also. I have to linksys routers hooked up from house to house and it hasn't gone down once in almost a year.

I would also go with the 802.11b if you are looking for more range. The 802.11g isn't going to make your internet any faster anyway.

One last point if you do buy the linksys they do have a package with the access point and the wireless NIC in the same box. Good Luck!

[scrub]

Thanks guys!

scrub

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
2.11b if you are looking for more range. The 802.11g isn't going to make your internet any faster anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Hardware.html

[astroglide]

cable/dsl connections are way slower than 11mb/s

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
cable/dsl connections are way slower than 11mb/s

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my, this is so not true.

I have cable, and I get at minimum 27 mbs. It totaly depends on your area.

Goto http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/ to find your speed.

DSL, yes it's slow, but cable can be faster than T1 if your in the right area.

[Phat Mack]

Dlink DI-624

We have a DI-624 and love it. We've got Mac's, Linux boxes and even a (gag) W-w-w-windows box served by it. No problems with it but it's only a couple of months old.

It replaced a Linksys that crashed once a day.

Just my 2 cents.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.11b if you are looking for more range. The 802.11g isn't going to make your internet any faster anyway.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right that is not true in your case I didn't realize that some ppl. have superfast internet connections. I only have a 1 MB Dsl and with 802.11b you get a thoughput of about 3 MB speedtesting just the wireless connection. So the 802.11g isn't really going to effect most ppl. internet connections speeds.

[astroglide]

a t1 is 1.5mb/s. most cable connections are around the speed of a t1, and so is my dsl. 27mb/s would be the speed of 18 t1s, which is absolutely ridiculous. i have a ds3 at work and i only see 27mb/s kind of throughput from sites hosted at my provider (savvis). i don't think you understand bandwidth.

[Chah Ngo]

So I run the bandwidth test and am getting 1.5mb/s on my cable modem. The extra money for 802.11g is a waste?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
a t1 is 1.5mb/s. most cable connections are around the speed of a t1, and so is my dsl. 27mb/s would be the speed of 18 t1s, which is absolutely ridiculous. i have a ds3 at work and i only see 27mb/s kind of throughput from sites hosted at my provider (savvis). i don't think you understand bandwidth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand it well enough. Right now, my cable modem is pretty slow but I am still getting 2148 kilobits per second according to http://www.pcpitstop.com/.

Ironically enough this is still higher than what webopedia rates a cable modem as possible as getting.

My last post was a typo, I meant 2.7 mbs. (I need to stop drunk posting) That is faster than a T1. As you already know. This isn't enough to saturate a 802.11b, but at night I do get faster connections than 802.11b can provide.

I will test it at night when traffic dies down, but I'm telling you I get crazy speeds on my cable modem. I know pcpitstop isn't lying to me because I've downloaded multiple files at these speeds.

I will post a screenshot of a speedtest at night and show you how fast it really can get. I would tell you, but I don't think you will believe me.

When I said DSL is slow, maybe they run DSL differently where you are at, but the $50 DSL line around here is not anywhere near as fast as a $40 cable broadband. I know becuase my roommate had DSL before I moved in with him.


Also:

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/510

Q: Why is a 1.5mbs DSL line $100 when 2mbs cable is only $40 (#510)

A: Your DSL line is a guaranteed 1.5mbs. Where as cable is a 10mbs shared line between people located on your node with no guarantee of speed.

And the above numbers do not reflect the cable modem speeds in my area.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
So I run the bandwidth test and am getting 1.5mb/s on my cable modem. The extra money for 802.11g is a waste?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are sharing between computers, or having a lan-fest, the bandwidth will not be used up with a 1.5mbs connection.


Just ran another test, I'm getting 5 mbs on my modem. Still not enough to saturate 802.11b, but it will happen soon enough.

But according to the books, astroglide is right. I get crazy speeds in bloomington and my dad gets similar speeds (but a bit slower) where he lives. I thought it was normal and the books were just behind, or being conservative. It sounds like this is not the case.

[astroglide]

My last post was a typo, I meant 2.7 mbs.

that makes a lot more sense /images/graemlins/smile.gif it's faster DOWN than a t1, not even close UP. you're not going to get a full 11mb/s out of 802.11b but i seriously seriously doubt you're even approaching 7mb/s with cable. anything over 5 is considered exceptional in the usa.

that faq is old too. there are plenty of cheap 1.5mb/s dsl lines, and for $100/month you can get 6.0/768 service from speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net/residential/adsl/package?speed=60768&service=classic).

dsl is much more admin-friendly: higher uplink speeds, no server restrictions, no packet filtering (lots of residential cable will block ipsec), static ips, etc.

[wacki]

Agreed. My upload is crap. The last time I tried to upload a file it was at 28k.

there are plenty of cheap 1.5mb/s dsl lines, and for $100/month you can get 6.0/768 service from speakeasy.

I didn't know that. Learn something new everyday.

As for DSL, I agree it has many many advantages.

[wacki]

you're not going to get a full 11mb/s out of 802.11b but i seriously seriously doubt you're even approaching 7mb/s with cable.

I'm going out of town in a few hours, but I will post a night time benchmark(screenshot) when I get back. One of two things will happen. Either you will be wowed, or I will have to get my memory checked.

Considering my last benchmark was 5 mbs, I'm thinking you will be wowed. But I agree, this doesn't sound like it's normal.

[Chah Ngo]

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you are sharing between computers, or having a lan-fest, the bandwidth will not be used up with a 1.5mbs connection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am looking to set up two desktops on the same cable modem. Does that make the (nominal) extra expense for 802.11g worthwhile?
And thanks in advance, I appreciate the info.

[wacki]

I like the extra bandwidth. And the reason is two fold. First, I share files between computers and that makes the bandwidth worth it to me. If your not doing that, then I agree with astroglide there is not really a strong need for the extra cost of 802.11g.

Second, if you goto:
http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Hardware.html

You will see:
Does 802.11g provides more Distance than 802.11b?

The answer is Yes and No.

Since the frequency and the output power of 802.11b and 802.11g hardware are similar, the general distance that they cover is similar.

That means that if you have an envioroment that "Kills" the signal it will "Kill" them both.

However if you have a weak unusable 801.11b signal at 50’ (just a numerical example) 802.11g might provide a working signal at the same distance since it yields more bandwidth.

Log the following page. The differences between the first set of graphs to the second represent the performance differences between 802.11b to 802.11g.

The problem with radio bandwidth is that theoretical bandwidth is NOT real world bandwidth. 802.11g has a theoretical bandwidth of 54 mbs. Look at this review.

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/reviews/CD/article.php/1585191

Also according to this graph:

http://www.80211-planet.com/img/perf-11g-ap-routers.gif

Netgear and D-Link are above and beyond everyone else. Yet there are many people don't like D-Link. I've had good experiences with their routers, and bad with their wireless equipment. I've also had good experiences with netgear (I've only used their equipment that is in dark blue metal encasing), but heard bad stories about their lower end silver UFO looking equipment. I honestly can't recommend a specific part. I can tell you what is good and whats not. I think Linksys, Mac, Netgear, and D-Link are all ok. Linksys and Mac seemed to be favored by all the people I know. The problem is, that according to the graph, they aren't the best performers. So I can't discredit Netgear and D-Link.

Also, according to the graph, look at how the bandwidth drops with distance. This is another reason why I like 802.11g over 802.11b. Bandwidth falls with both protocols, but 802.11g might allow you to get better signals on the outskirts of it's range.

[scrub]

Ok, so I bought the Linksys WRTnumbernumberstuffGS thing.

I set up the WEP encryption thing, and that seems to work.

And I'm posting this from the kitchen--neat.

Thanks guys!

scrub