stevebubs
|
| posted on 16/12/08 at 10:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by splitrivet
Wireless is great for the average modern house but go above that and for business its a waste of space.
??? I'd disagree. Most days, our WLAN has 200+ users on it spread across 50 access points and you can freely walk around the campus to any
meeting rooms and work without having to plug in. If you want to work in the fresh air, you can even sit on a bench outside as there are external
antenna covering the courtyards..
Domestically, it's all about ease of install - plug an Access Point in an not have to worry about running cables etc...also gives you the
freedom to work wherever you want to (living room while watching Mythbusters, for example...)
[Edited on 16/12/08 by stevebubs]
|
|
|
|
|
Jubal
|
| posted on 16/12/08 at 10:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by robocog
Quote deleted at request of robocog
I have four. It's sad that they interfere but I have to say that just because a new technology tramples on an old established one it's
no reason the new is bad per se. I also fail to see how BT can be shipping thousands of the things if they don't meet appropriate RF standards
and are "illegal" in use.
If Ofcom come knocking on my door then I'll stand my ground. Your hobby isn't any better than mine, just different.
[Edited on 3/1/09 by Jubal]
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 16/12/08 at 11:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stevebubs
??? I'd disagree. Most days, our WLAN has 200+ users on it spread across 50 access points
And each of those access points is probably a Cisco unit that cost close to £500. 'Proper' wireless kit is a world away from the cheap
wireless routers you'll find in a home.
The wireless bridges we use at work have a theoretical range of 20km, interference isn't so much of an issue over 500m connections  The
problems are all to do with keeping the script-kiddies out. Anyone with a laptop and google can break into a WEP encrypted network in about 5 minutes
these days. It won't be too long before WPA goes the same way, vulnerabilities are starting to be uncovered.
Cable/fibre is still a country mile ahead in terms of speed as well. Individual users may not notice much of a difference as a PC rarely uses an
ethernet connection at anywhere near capacity, but for backbone connections in larger networks there is no contest.
If you want it to be reliable either spend £££ on wireless, or run a cheap cable. If you want it fast and secure, cable.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 17/12/08 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
I frequently ship very large files (distro iso files, loads of pictures, etc) between machines on my home network - the speed of cable makes a big
difference!
I also ship tar files from my main Linux box to other PCs on the network, as a means of backing up my data. I would not want to do that on a slow
network.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/12/08 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
I frequently ship very large files (distro iso files, loads of pictures, etc) between machines on my home network - the speed of cable makes a big
difference!
I also ship tar files from my main Linux box to other PCs on the network, as a means of backing up my data. I would not want to do that on a slow
network.
But how many normal(?!) home users actually do move multi giga byte file around a home network not many, OK you and I do it but most home users
don't. Even when I do an compressed full backup of a 4gb directory it is usually an unattended scheduled bi-weekly back up --- the rest of
the backups are compressed and for the most part only partial.
For most home users the bottle neck isn't the wireless comnection to the router it is the broadband link with an average actual speed of 3meg
or less in the UK and the servers at the far end.
Of course with films tv and other multimedia being increasingly delivered via broadband home network speed will become much more important
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
