alt.certification.network-plus - Networking Home, Need Advice

Author

Networking Home, Need Advice

Bryan

2002-09-12, 9:29 pm

Hello,

I need to network 5 computers in a home. Four of the computers are
all the same running Windows 98. They are 1.2 Ghz Durons.

One computer is a laptop.

Because of the wiring I am thinking about going with a wireless. I'm
also thinking of going with a combination wireless/cat5 network.

I've been reading about the LinkSys products.

I do not know where to begin. There is going to be a cable connection
that I need to have networked in. I figure I need a wireless cable
router and then pci cards or USB adapters for each machine (pcmcia for
the laptop). What else do I need?

How hard is it to set up a wireless network? I have set up normal
networks before with WindowsXP. I've done a little with 98.

I need some guidance and direction here. Thanks for the help.

Bryan

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Gareth

2002-09-13, 9:29 am

<Bryan> wrote in message news:3d814509.1008453@news.midmaine.com...
> Hello,
>
> I need to network 5 computers in a home. Four of the computers are
> all the same running Windows 98. They are 1.2 Ghz Durons.
>
> One computer is a laptop.
>
> Because of the wiring I am thinking about going with a wireless. I'm
> also thinking of going with a combination wireless/cat5 network.
>
> I've been reading about the LinkSys products.
>
> I do not know where to begin. There is going to be a cable connection
> that I need to have networked in. I figure I need a wireless cable
> router and then pci cards or USB adapters for each machine (pcmcia for
> the laptop). What else do I need?
>
> How hard is it to set up a wireless network? I have set up normal
> networks before with WindowsXP. I've done a little with 98.
>
> I need some guidance and direction here. Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

If you're determined to go wireless, then I would recommend PCI cards for
the workstations, and a PCMCIA card for the laptop.

Setting up a wireless network is no harder than setting up a cabled one
really. The only extra configuration involved is setting the cards to "ad
hoc" or "infrastructure" mode (the latter using an access point of some
kind, which you won't be using), and a few options regarding encryption and
keys.

I'm guessing you already have a cable internet connection, so why not simply
buy the wireless cards, and setup a machine to act as a (nat) proxy for the
rest of the machines? Also, are you sure that wireless (11mbit) can sustain
the bandwidth and speed requirements for the machines?

HTH, cheers.

G.

Gareth

2002-09-13, 10:29 am

Brian Schwarz

2002-09-13, 1:29 pm

"Gareth" <gaz@gaz.org> wrote in message
news:alsssi$24c$1@paris.btinternet.com...
<snip>
> If you're determined to go wireless, then I would recommend PCI cards for
> the workstations, and a PCMCIA card for the laptop.

I would disagree on that point. I prefer to use USB Wireless NICs for
desktop systems because it gives you some freedom in where you place the
antennae. Depending on the construction of your home, you might have a few
dead spots in your wireless coverage and moving the USB device around is a
lot easier than moving your desktop PC.

<snip>
> Also, are you sure that wireless (11mbit) can sustain
> the bandwidth and speed requirements for the machines?

Unless he has some really unusual Internet connection, the limiting factor
is going to be the Internet connection, not the wireless network.

As far as product recommendations, I have an SMC Barricade wireless router
that I've been pretty happy with. 802.11b wireless has become something of
a commodity, though, so you'll probably do fine with any name brand.

Cheers,

Brian Schwarz
www.bluecollartech.com

--

____________________________
The opinions expressed here are my
own, and do not reflect those of my
employers - past, present, or future.
____________________________

Brian Schwarz

2002-09-13, 2:29 pm

Gareth

2002-09-13, 5:29 pm

"Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
news:8wqg9.4523$CJ5.618693@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> I would disagree on that point. I prefer to use USB Wireless NICs for
> desktop systems because it gives you some freedom in where you place the
> antennae. Depending on the construction of your home, you might have a
few
> dead spots in your wireless coverage and moving the USB device around is a
> lot easier than moving your desktop PC.

With the maximum length of a USB cable being from 3-5 metres, I seriously
question how those extra few metres would make the difference. Next, take
into account the inherant extra processing required by USB devices, as
opposed to PCI.

> Unless he has some really unusual Internet connection, the limiting factor
> is going to be the Internet connection, not the wireless network.

Bryan never stated what his network requirements were, so instead of
assuming he'd simply be using it for Internet *OR* assuming he'd be sharing
files (etc), I asked a question to incorporate all eventualities.

No offense Brian, but I think you were being very pedantic with your
response, give people some credit at least :-)

Cheers.

G.

Gareth

2002-09-13, 6:29 pm

Brian Schwarz

2002-09-13, 6:29 pm

No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My apologies if
it came across differently.

On the subject of USB vs. PCI NICs, I've played around a little bit with PC
Card wireless cards and USB wireless NICs, and I've definitely been able to
get a connection with the USB version when I couldn't with the PC card, all
things being equal. The signal quality, as shown by the wireless LAN
configuration utility, definitely changes when moving the USB antennae
around. Your mileage may vary depending on how your house is constructed.
I'll agree that in a lot of situations, it really won't make a difference,
but in marginal situations it could be the difference between connecting and
not connecting.

I hadn't considered the higher overhead of USB vs. PCI - might be
interesting to try both ways and see if you can see a difference in actual
use.

I admit that I made the assumption that Internet access would be the primary
purpose of this home network - you're absolutely right that if he's going to
be doing a lot of large file transfers between his home machines, a wired
network might be a better choice.

Best wishes,

Brian Schwarz
www.bluecollartech.com

--

____________________________
The opinions expressed here are my
own, and do not reflect those of my
employers - past, present, or future.
____________________________

"Gareth" <gaz@gaz.org> wrote in message
news:altrfo$ods$1@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
> news:8wqg9.4523$CJ5.618693@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > I would disagree on that point. I prefer to use USB Wireless NICs for
> > desktop systems because it gives you some freedom in where you place the
> > antennae. Depending on the construction of your home, you might have a
> few
> > dead spots in your wireless coverage and moving the USB device around is
a
> > lot easier than moving your desktop PC.
>
> With the maximum length of a USB cable being from 3-5 metres, I seriously
> question how those extra few metres would make the difference. Next, take
> into account the inherant extra processing required by USB devices, as
> opposed to PCI.
>
>
> > Unless he has some really unusual Internet connection, the limiting
factor
> > is going to be the Internet connection, not the wireless network.
>
> Bryan never stated what his network requirements were, so instead of
> assuming he'd simply be using it for Internet *OR* assuming he'd be
sharing
> files (etc), I asked a question to incorporate all eventualities.
>
> No offense Brian, but I think you were being very pedantic with your
> response, give people some credit at least :-)
>
> Cheers.
>
> G.
>
>
>

Brian Schwarz

2002-09-13, 7:29 pm

Gareth

2002-09-13, 7:29 pm

"Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
news

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My apologies
if
> it came across differently.

Gladly accepted

> On the subject of USB vs. PCI NICs, I've played around a little bit with
PC
> Card wireless cards and USB wireless NICs, and I've definitely been able
to
> get a connection with the USB version when I couldn't with the PC card,
all
> things being equal. The signal quality, as shown by the wireless LAN
> configuration utility, definitely changes when moving the USB antennae
> around. Your mileage may vary depending on how your house is
constructed.
> I'll agree that in a lot of situations, it really won't make a difference,
> but in marginal situations it could be the difference between connecting
and
> not connecting.
>
> I hadn't considered the higher overhead of USB vs. PCI - might be
> interesting to try both ways and see if you can see a difference in actual
> use.

Last time I felt nerdy, I worked out USB (v1) as having 10.8mbit of
effective bandwidth, after framing and CRC overheads. There's sure to be
other factors to equate into this (such as other devices using the USB bus,
etc), you can be sure that the USB bus itself is the bottleneck, even with a
wireless connection - providing you are maxing out the bandwidth of course.

In terms of CPU utilisation, I've lost the university page which accurate
described and graphically detailed the difference, but because of extra
processing needed, USB was shown to be considerably more demanding on the
host processor than its PCI counterpart.

> I admit that I made the assumption that Internet access would be the
primary
> purpose of this home network - you're absolutely right that if he's going
to
> be doing a lot of large file transfers between his home machines, a wired
> network might be a better choice.

I personally run four desktop machines here, alongside a Sony VAIO laptop.
The workstations are cabled, using 2x3Com, 1xIntel and 1xNetgear 100mbit
cards, directly to a 100mbit switch. However, the laptop has a PCMCIA WiFi
card, and connected to the switch is a wireless access point. I feel this is
the best trade-off between cabled and wireless, since if needs be I could
just put the laptop down on the desk, and run a CAT5 cable off from the
switch directly to the onboard Ethernet, and enjoy 100mbit speeds. Having an
access point greatly reduces the problems associated with a 1:1 ad-hoc
network, since the access point acts as a gateway to the rest of the LAN.

HTH, cheers Brian.

G.

Gareth

2002-09-13, 8:28 pm

"Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
news

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My apologies
if
> it came across differently.

Gladly accepted

Davies

2002-09-14, 4:29 pm

I'm currently using a D-LINk 614+ router with a DSL connection, 2 PC's
with physical connections (1 running XP Pro and the other 95) and then
I use the wireless for my laptop. The one thing that you might have
to sacrifice with 5 PC's in your home all being wireless is security
and/or performance. I support a large wireless network at my place of
employement and have actually seen devices on our network that don't
belong to us. I have a friend in Vegas who sets up a few wireless
networks for small clients like Mortgage offices and such and he has
actually caught people in the parking lots with their laptops
connected to his network!!! OK so it was once but that's one too many
times. Using WEP with 128 bit encryption but then you really lose out
on performance.

With my router it can go dual channel and if I use the same brand
whatever cards then I can get up to 22 Mb on my LAN. 802.11a is here
but it's still exspensive. If you could care less about performance
then just make sure that your cards and router/AP's can handle 128 bit
encryption. At work I drove out on the road and was able to capture
some NT LAN MAN hashes running accross the RF and I wasn't even logged
onto our network. Ofcourse, we aren't using WEP and I have my
reasons for that. I didn't crack the hash because I already knew what
the passwords were but you get the picture.

The odds of somebody coming by and doing something like that are thin
but I like to always be in as much control as possible. Plus you might
you might not care.

- If you want performance and security, Cable your house. $200

- If you don't really care or can't run cable just make sure that the
level of security that you want is supported by the AP/S and the end
devices. $350

- Surfing the web while you're on the John or outside watching the
kids............Priceless

Do Both!!!!!!

"Gareth" <gaz@gaz.org> wrote in message news:<alu0gs$t4n$1@knossos.btinternet.com>...
> "Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
> news

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My apologies
> if
> > it came across differently.
>
> Gladly accepted

>
>
> > On the subject of USB vs. PCI NICs, I've played around a little bit with
> PC
> > Card wireless cards and USB wireless NICs, and I've definitely been able
> to
> > get a connection with the USB version when I couldn't with the PC card,
> all
> > things being equal. The signal quality, as shown by the wireless LAN
> > configuration utility, definitely changes when moving the USB antennae
> > around. Your mileage may vary depending on how your house is
> constructed.
> > I'll agree that in a lot of situations, it really won't make a difference,
> > but in marginal situations it could be the difference between connecting
> and
> > not connecting.
> >
> > I hadn't considered the higher overhead of USB vs. PCI - might be
> > interesting to try both ways and see if you can see a difference in actual
> > use.
>
> Last time I felt nerdy, I worked out USB (v1) as having 10.8mbit of
> effective bandwidth, after framing and CRC overheads. There's sure to be
> other factors to equate into this (such as other devices using the USB bus,
> etc), you can be sure that the USB bus itself is the bottleneck, even with a
> wireless connection - providing you are maxing out the bandwidth of course.
>
> In terms of CPU utilisation, I've lost the university page which accurate
> described and graphically detailed the difference, but because of extra
> processing needed, USB was shown to be considerably more demanding on the
> host processor than its PCI counterpart.
>
>
> > I admit that I made the assumption that Internet access would be the
> primary
> > purpose of this home network - you're absolutely right that if he's going
> to
> > be doing a lot of large file transfers between his home machines, a wired
> > network might be a better choice.
>
> I personally run four desktop machines here, alongside a Sony VAIO laptop.
> The workstations are cabled, using 2x3Com, 1xIntel and 1xNetgear 100mbit
> cards, directly to a 100mbit switch. However, the laptop has a PCMCIA WiFi
> card, and connected to the switch is a wireless access point. I feel this is
> the best trade-off between cabled and wireless, since if needs be I could
> just put the laptop down on the desk, and run a CAT5 cable off from the
> switch directly to the onboard Ethernet, and enjoy 100mbit speeds. Having an
> access point greatly reduces the problems associated with a 1:1 ad-hoc
> network, since the access point acts as a gateway to the rest of the LAN.
>
> HTH, cheers Brian.
>
> G.

Davies

2002-09-14, 5:29 pm

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My apologies
> if
> > it came across differently.
>
> Gladly accepted

Wes Iiames

2002-09-14, 10:29 pm

I'm the chairman of the Property Management Department at my church. Our
old network was (10 Base 2) was rapidly deteriorating, so last March I
decided it was time for action. I tried to take the "easy" way out and go
wireless, but the connectivity was spotty at best. We couldn't connect from
one office to another less than twenty feet away with two cinder block walls
in between. ... Yeah, I know he probably doesn't have cinder block walls at
home. Fortunately, Staples has a very liberal return policy and took all
the gear (1 Access Point, 4 USB kits and 1 PCMCIA kit) back, no questions
asked. Then I decided to suck it up and learn a new trick and got a CAT 5
kit (crimper, 50 RJ45s, cable tester and spool of cat5e)from Tiger Direct.
Spent about 6 hours with two other guys on a Saturday and used the old coax
to pull the cat 5. Went in on my day off a few days later and terminated
the cables, and it was like magic. EVERYTHING WORKED, and we've been
continuously connected ever since! I've got my Pastor, all the staff, and
half of the congregation thinking this dumb truck driver is a genius. Now
I'm studying for A+, and Net+ is next.

As to equipment, I went Linksys end to end, except for 1 machine which has
onboard 10/100, because of good results at home. Using an 8-Port router and
a 5-Port hub. Although as one poster said, this stuff has just about
reached commodity status now and I'm sure D-Link equipment is just as good.

"Davies" <rlnc@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d450dc4a.0209141338.34a8c2a3@posting.google.com...
> I'm currently using a D-LINk 614+ router with a DSL connection, 2 PC's
> with physical connections (1 running XP Pro and the other 95) and then
> I use the wireless for my laptop. The one thing that you might have
> to sacrifice with 5 PC's in your home all being wireless is security
> and/or performance. I support a large wireless network at my place of
> employement and have actually seen devices on our network that don't
> belong to us. I have a friend in Vegas who sets up a few wireless
> networks for small clients like Mortgage offices and such and he has
> actually caught people in the parking lots with their laptops
> connected to his network!!! OK so it was once but that's one too many
> times. Using WEP with 128 bit encryption but then you really lose out
> on performance.
>
> With my router it can go dual channel and if I use the same brand
> whatever cards then I can get up to 22 Mb on my LAN. 802.11a is here
> but it's still exspensive. If you could care less about performance
> then just make sure that your cards and router/AP's can handle 128 bit
> encryption. At work I drove out on the road and was able to capture
> some NT LAN MAN hashes running accross the RF and I wasn't even logged
> onto our network. Ofcourse, we aren't using WEP and I have my
> reasons for that. I didn't crack the hash because I already knew what
> the passwords were but you get the picture.
>
> The odds of somebody coming by and doing something like that are thin
> but I like to always be in as much control as possible. Plus you might
> you might not care.
>
> - If you want performance and security, Cable your house. $200
>
> - If you don't really care or can't run cable just make sure that the
> level of security that you want is supported by the AP/S and the end
> devices. $350
>
> - Surfing the web while you're on the John or outside watching the
> kids............Priceless
>
>
> Do Both!!!!!!
>
>
> "Gareth" <gaz@gaz.org> wrote in message
news:<alu0gs$t4n$1@knossos.btinternet.com>...
> > "Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
> > news

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > > No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My
apologies
> > if
> > > it came across differently.
> >
> > Gladly accepted

> >
> >
> > > On the subject of USB vs. PCI NICs, I've played around a little bit
with
> > PC
> > > Card wireless cards and USB wireless NICs, and I've definitely been
able
> > to
> > > get a connection with the USB version when I couldn't with the PC
card,

> > all
> > > things being equal. The signal quality, as shown by the wireless LAN
> > > configuration utility, definitely changes when moving the USB antennae
> > > around. Your mileage may vary depending on how your house is
> > constructed.
> > > I'll agree that in a lot of situations, it really won't make a
difference,
> > > but in marginal situations it could be the difference between
connecting
> > and
> > > not connecting.
> > >
> > > I hadn't considered the higher overhead of USB vs. PCI - might be
> > > interesting to try both ways and see if you can see a difference in
actual
> > > use.
> >
> > Last time I felt nerdy, I worked out USB (v1) as having 10.8mbit of
> > effective bandwidth, after framing and CRC overheads. There's sure to be
> > other factors to equate into this (such as other devices using the USB
bus,
> > etc), you can be sure that the USB bus itself is the bottleneck, even
with a
> > wireless connection - providing you are maxing out the bandwidth of
course.
> >
> > In terms of CPU utilisation, I've lost the university page which
accurate
> > described and graphically detailed the difference, but because of extra
> > processing needed, USB was shown to be considerably more demanding on
the
> > host processor than its PCI counterpart.
> >
> >
> > > I admit that I made the assumption that Internet access would be the
> > primary
> > > purpose of this home network - you're absolutely right that if he's
going

> > to
> > > be doing a lot of large file transfers between his home machines, a
wired

> > > network might be a better choice.
> >
> > I personally run four desktop machines here, alongside a Sony VAIO
laptop.
> > The workstations are cabled, using 2x3Com, 1xIntel and 1xNetgear 100mbit
> > cards, directly to a 100mbit switch. However, the laptop has a PCMCIA
WiFi
> > card, and connected to the switch is a wireless access point. I feel thi
s is
> > the best trade-off between cabled and wireless, since if needs be I
could

> > just put the laptop down on the desk, and run a CAT5 cable off from the
> > switch directly to the onboard Ethernet, and enjoy 100mbit speeds.
Having an
> > access point greatly reduces the problems associated with a 1:1 ad-hoc
> > network, since the access point acts as a gateway to the rest of the
LAN.
> >
> > HTH, cheers Brian.
> >
> > G.

Wes Iiames

2002-09-14, 11:29 pm

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > > No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My
apologies
> > if
> > > it came across differently.
> >
> > Gladly accepted

~Nitestar~

2002-10-02, 12:50 pm

<snip>
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 04:13:20 GMT, "Wes Iiames" <rwiiames@cinci.rr.com>
wrote:

>I'm the chairman of the Property Management Department at my church. Our
>old network was (10 Base 2) was rapidly deteriorating, so last March I
>decided it was time for action. I tried to take the "easy" way out and go
>wireless, but the connectivity was spotty at best. We couldn't connect from
>one office to another less than twenty feet away with two cinder block walls
>in between. ... Yeah, I know he probably doesn't have cinder block walls at
>home. Fortunately, Staples has a very liberal return policy and took all
>the gear (1 Access Point, 4 USB kits and 1 PCMCIA kit) back, no questions
>asked. Then I decided to suck it up and learn a new trick and got a CAT 5
>kit (crimper, 50 RJ45s, cable tester and spool of cat5e)from Tiger Direct.
>Spent about 6 hours with two other guys on a Saturday and used the old coax
>to pull the cat 5. Went in on my day off a few days later and terminated
>the cables, and it was like magic. EVERYTHING WORKED, and we've been
>continuously connected ever since! I've got my Pastor, all the staff, and
>half of the congregation thinking this dumb truck driver is a genius. Now
>I'm studying for A+, and Net+ is next.
>
>As to equipment, I went Linksys end to end, except for 1 machine which has
>onboard 10/100, because of good results at home. Using an 8-Port router and
>a 5-Port hub. Although as one poster said, this stuff has just about
>reached commodity status now and I'm sure D-Link equipment is just as good.

Holy Jeeezuz!!! ...And did you also give internet access to the Virgin
Mary??? What's her email address??? :-)

>"Davies" <rlnc@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:d450dc4a.0209141338.34a8c2a3@posting.google.com...
>> I'm currently using a D-LINk 614+ router with a DSL connection, 2 PC's
>> with physical connections (1 running XP Pro and the other 95) and then
>> I use the wireless for my laptop. The one thing that you might have
>> to sacrifice with 5 PC's in your home all being wireless is security
>> and/or performance. I support a large wireless network at my place of
>> employement and have actually seen devices on our network that don't
>> belong to us. I have a friend in Vegas who sets up a few wireless
>> networks for small clients like Mortgage offices and such and he has
>> actually caught people in the parking lots with their laptops
>> connected to his network!!! OK so it was once but that's one too many
>> times. Using WEP with 128 bit encryption but then you really lose out
>> on performance.
>>
>> With my router it can go dual channel and if I use the same brand
>> whatever cards then I can get up to 22 Mb on my LAN. 802.11a is here
>> but it's still exspensive. If you could care less about performance
>> then just make sure that your cards and router/AP's can handle 128 bit
>> encryption. At work I drove out on the road and was able to capture
>> some NT LAN MAN hashes running accross the RF and I wasn't even logged
>> onto our network. Ofcourse, we aren't using WEP and I have my
>> reasons for that. I didn't crack the hash because I already knew what
>> the passwords were but you get the picture.
>>
>> The odds of somebody coming by and doing something like that are thin
>> but I like to always be in as much control as possible. Plus you might
>> you might not care.
>>
>> - If you want performance and security, Cable your house. $200
>>
>> - If you don't really care or can't run cable just make sure that the
>> level of security that you want is supported by the AP/S and the end
>> devices. $350
>>
>> - Surfing the web while you're on the John or outside watching the
>> kids............Priceless
>>
>>
>> Do Both!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> "Gareth" <gaz@gaz.org> wrote in message
>news:<alu0gs$t4n$1@knossos.btinternet.com>...
>> > "Brian Schwarz" <brian@_no_spam_bluecollartech.com> wrote in message
>> > news

%ug9.4543$CJ5.668551@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>> > > No offense intended - just offering a different viewpoint. My
> apologies
>> > if
>> > > it came across differently.
>> >
>> > Gladly accepted

>> >
>> >
>> > > On the subject of USB vs. PCI NICs, I've played around a little bit
> with
>> > PC
>> > > Card wireless cards and USB wireless NICs, and I've definitely been
> able
>> > to
>> > > get a connection with the USB version when I couldn't with the PC
> card,
>> > all
>> > > things being equal. The signal quality, as shown by the wireless LAN
>> > > configuration utility, definitely changes when moving the USB antennae
>> > > around. Your mileage may vary depending on how your house is
>> > constructed.
>> > > I'll agree that in a lot of situations, it really won't make a
> difference,[color
=darkred]
>> > > but in marginal situations it could be the difference between
> connecting
>> > and
>> > > not connecting.
>> > >
>> > > I hadn't considered the higher overhead of USB vs. PCI - might be
>> > > interesting to try both ways and see if you can see a difference in
> actual
>> > > use.
>> >
>> > Last time I felt nerdy, I worked out USB (v1) as having 10.8mbit of
>> > effective bandwidth, after framing and CRC overheads. There's sure to be
>> > other factors to equate into this (such as other devices using the USB
> bus,
>> > etc), you can be sure that the USB bus itself is the bottleneck, even
>with a
>> > wireless connection - providing you are maxing out the bandwidth of
>course.
>> >
>> > In terms of CPU utilisation, I've lost the university page which
> accurate
>> > described and graphically detailed the difference, but because of extra
>> > processing needed, USB was shown to be considerably more demanding on
> the
>> > host processor than its PCI counterpart.
>> >
>> >
>> > > I admit that I made the assumption that Internet access would be the
>> > primary
>> > > purpose of this home network - you're absolutely right that if he's
> going
>> > to
>> > > be doing a lot of large file transfers between his home machines, a
> wired
>> > > network might be a better choice.
>> >
>> > I personally run four desktop machines here, alongside a Sony VAIO
>laptop.
>> > The workstations are cabled, using 2x3Com, 1xIntel and 1xNetgear 100mbit
>> > cards, directly to a 100mbit switch. However, the laptop has a PCMCIA
> WiFi
>> > card, and connected to the switch is a wireless access point. I feel thi
>s is

>> > the best trade-off between cabled and wireless, since if needs be I
> could
>> > just put the laptop down on the desk, and run a CAT5 cable off from the
>> > switch directly to the onboard Ethernet, and enjoy 100mbit speeds.
>Having an

>> > access point greatly reduces the problems associated with a 1:1 ad-hoc
>> > network, since the access point acts as a gateway to the rest of the
>LAN.
>> >
>> > HTH, cheers Brian.
>> >
>> > G.
>[/color]

Sponsored Links