Wireless networking - any experts out there ?
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.
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
Adrian
Dave Liquorice
> Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC)
<snip>
> If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
> cables!
Don't know those cards, are they using the WiFi frequencies around
2.5GHz? If so there are only 3 channels that don't mutually interfere
with each other (1, 6 and 11 IIRC). See if you can find a channel
that has the least number of other (visible) devices on it. In an
urban area you may well find every channel chocker block with stuff
and there will be stuff you won't be able to see with your LAN kit
like video senders etc.
Cables work reliably and will be quicker unless you have a 10BaseT
LAN rather than 100BaseT, even the the 10BaseT could out perform many
wireless links. Oh and don't forget security...
--
Cheers
Dave.
Tim..
"Adrian Brentnall" <adr...@ambquality.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hhsben$8sb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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.
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 09:12
> 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...
That sounds like a Windows issue. The WIFI going tits up will not cause
those symptoms per-se, unless:
a) you are running a remote screen over WIFI (eg VNC, rdesktop, Citrix).
b) You have a server on the other end of the WIFI link that the PC depends
on, but even then I've not seen those symptoms before - only applications
accessing network shares tend to go bad in the worst case.
If it's only just happened it make be the fault of the WIFI driver (which is
different to it being the fault of WIFI).
> 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.
Totally normal. Those numbers are a general indicator only. Think fo a
temperature scale that runs 0-100. All you can be reasonably sure about is
80 is hotter/better than 60.
> The detailed stats show (amongst other things) rx retry of 20% -
> and a whole bundle of RX CRC errors..
>
OK - I have 36 RX errors out of 1224798 and 5 dropped TX packets. Yours
sounds higher.
> 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)
It does sound more like bad drivers. Perhaps some other windows experts here
(I do linux mostly) have come across these? Especially as the driver loading
procedure seemed broken - expecially as you have XP - there is no excuse for
stupid driver loading procedures. MS for all their faults have had
standards for driver writers to follow for years now, same as applications.
Are the cards made by the company perchance and is this the actual card you
have?
http://www.newlinkproducts.co.uk/prodinfo.asp?catID=2&prodID=251
In which case their contact details are:
Domain name:
newlink.co.uk
Registrant:
Newlink Products Limited
Registrant type:
UK Limited Company, (Company number: 4483417)
Registrant's address:
10 Stadium Business Court
Millennium Way Pride Park
Derby
DE24 8HP
United Kingdom
You should be able to dig out a phone number.
The other option is will CPC take it back so you can buy a better card (I'm
thinking Linksys: expensive, or Netgear: cheap).
> So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
No, it's not normal. Either your card and/or its driver are crap (most
likely) or you just got unlucky and Windows decided to go mental
coincidentally.
> If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
> cables!
No - as I mentioned, just get a decent brand card. Doesn't have to be
expensive - the Netgear WG311 on on Dabs is all of 17 quid - but what I
would do is check some reviews first to see if that card has thrown up
hoards of problems or not.
Cheers
Tim
--
Tim Watts
This space intentionally left blank...
Harry Bloomfield
> So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
> If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
> cables!
Over such a very short range, no it is not normal - but wired always
beats wireless for speed and reliability. There are a number of free
pieces of software, which can make use of your wireless card to see
what other wifi systems are running around the same area - not all work
with all wifi adaptors, but one is almost certain to. They will show
what else is around, how strong their signals are and which channels
are in use.
You need to find a clear channel with at least one clear channel either
side of it - make sure your card is configured to use UK channels and
turn your router off whilst it scans. These things are only able to
identify wifi interference from other wifi systems, but there are many
other sources of interference such as microwave ovens etc. able to wipe
the signal out.
FYFI - I have a wifi router which provides a reliable fixed link over
0.5Km in a very built up area using directional antennas. Just so you
know it can be done.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
MM
I wouldn't touch wireless networking with a bargepole. Cat 5e cabling
for me every time.
MM
Adrian Brentnall
Thanks for the reply... comments inline
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:12:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
>
>> Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC)
> <snip>
>> If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
>> cables!
>
> Don't know those cards, are they using the WiFi frequencies around
> 2.5GHz? If so there are only 3 channels that don't mutually interfere
> with each other (1, 6 and 11 IIRC). See if you can find a channel
> that has the least number of other (visible) devices on it. In an
> urban area you may well find every channel chocker block with stuff
> and there will be stuff you won't be able to see with your LAN kit
> like video senders etc.
I don;t think you could call us 'urban' <g>
Our nearest neighbour is about 250 ft away - next one after than is half
a mile or so (and they're in the 80's - so not heavy users of wireless
technology!)
I did try changing channels - and it seemed to work on this PC but not
on the important one (my wife's PC!)
>
> Cables work reliably and will be quicker unless you have a 10BaseT
> LAN rather than 100BaseT, even the the 10BaseT could out perform many
> wireless links. Oh and don't forget security...
>
Yes - I think it's back to cables.
Wife's PC is already back on the wired connection - I think I'll do the
same with this one...
Thanks (lesson learned!)
Roger Mills
Adrian Brentnall <adr...@ambquality.co.uk> 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!]
If you *really* want to stick with wireless, disable the router's DHCP
server function and give each PC a fixed IP address. That will immediately
eliminate one common type of wireless connectivity problem.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
Adrian Brentnall
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
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 10:56
> 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!]
>
> If you *really* want to stick with wireless, disable the router's DHCP
> server function and give each PC a fixed IP address. That will immediately
> eliminate one common type of wireless connectivity problem.
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.
Adrian Brentnall
Tim W wrote:
> Adrian Brentnall <adr...@ambquality.co.uk>
> wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 09:12
>
>> 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...
>
> That sounds like a Windows issue. The WIFI going tits up will not cause
> those symptoms per-se, unless:
>
> a) you are running a remote screen over WIFI (eg VNC, rdesktop, Citrix).
>
> b) You have a server on the other end of the WIFI link that the PC depends
> on, but even then I've not seen those symptoms before - only applications
> accessing network shares tend to go bad in the worst case.
>
> If it's only just happened it make be the fault of the WIFI driver (which is
> different to it being the fault of WIFI).
Yes - happened today - wifi installed yesterday....
>
>> 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.
>
> Totally normal. Those numbers are a general indicator only. Think fo a
> temperature scale that runs 0-100. All you can be reasonably sure about is
> 80 is hotter/better than 60.
Ah - right - thanks
>
>> The detailed stats show (amongst other things) rx retry of 20% -
>> and a whole bundle of RX CRC errors..
>>
>
> OK - I have 36 RX errors out of 1224798 and 5 dropped TX packets. Yours
> sounds higher.
Looking at this card (I've already switched my wife's PC back to a Cat5
connection) I see the following
TX ok 125970
TX error 5
Tx retry 1259
Tx beacon ok 0
Tx beacon error 0
RX ok 179473
Rx packet count 179473
Rx retry 44375
RX CRC Error (0-500) 5051
RX CRC Error (500-1000) 397
RX CRC Error ( >1000) 12570
RX icv Error 0
Whatever that might mean ! <g>
>
>> 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)
>
> It does sound more like bad drivers. Perhaps some other windows experts here
> (I do linux mostly) have come across these? Especially as the driver loading
> procedure seemed broken - expecially as you have XP - there is no excuse for
> stupid driver loading procedures. MS for all their faults have had
> standards for driver writers to follow for years now, same as applications.
>
> Are the cards made by the company perchance and is this the actual card you
> have?
>
> http://www.newlinkproducts.co.uk/prodinfo.asp?catID=2&prodID=251
Yes - that's the one
>
> In which case their contact details are:
>
> Domain name:
> newlink.co.uk
>
> Registrant:
> Newlink Products Limited
>
> Registrant type:
> UK Limited Company, (Company number: 4483417)
>
> Registrant's address:
> 10 Stadium Business Court
> Millennium Way Pride Park
> Derby
> DE24 8HP
> United Kingdom
>
> You should be able to dig out a phone number.
You'll have noticed the complete lack of a 'support' button on the
website ? - bit poor that.
Presumably it's just a warehouse full of far-east-manufactured kit -
not ideal....
>
> The other option is will CPC take it back so you can buy a better card (I'm
> thinking Linksys: expensive, or Netgear: cheap).
I've got an even better idea <g>
CPC can take it back and I'll plug the Cat5 back in !
They'll not love me - I had a wireless mouse (Trust) from them before
Christmas that refused to work on any of the 4 PCs here -
so they sent the man in the van out to collect that one as well....
>
>> So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
>
> No, it's not normal. Either your card and/or its driver are crap (most
> likely) or you just got unlucky and Windows decided to go mental
> coincidentally.
My thought was 'drivers'.
They also supplied the drivers on a mini-cd - which, whilst being 'cute'
and saving the company a penny per CD, meant that it was impossible to
load the driver CD-let on my wife's slimline dell tower unless you laid
the tower over on its side.... - plain silly !
>
>> If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
>> cables!
>
> No - as I mentioned, just get a decent brand card. Doesn't have to be
> expensive - the Netgear WG311 on on Dabs is all of 17 quid - but what I
> would do is check some reviews first to see if that card has thrown up
> hoards of problems or not.
Couldn't see anything on a quick scan -
think I'll ditch the idea as adding just another layer of unnecessary
complication <g>
Thanks
Adrian
The Natural Philosopher
> 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.
>
TNPS advice to people contemplating replacing a wired Ntework
Dont.
> 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...
>
Welcome to the wide wonderful world of WiFi.
Shit chipsets, even shittier drivers and then Windows/...
ONLY reliable wireless machines I know of do NOT run windows. Macs are
actually good. Linux is pretty good IF you can find the drivers.
> 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..
>
usual crap. Probably got some other 2.4 gear running. Try a different
channel?
> 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!
>
best advice really.
I spent two- weeks trying to get a wireless enabled printer to talk to a
router 5 feet away. Gave up and ran a cable.
Tried 3 routers
NFG.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:12:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
>
>> Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC)
> <snip>
>> If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good old
>> cables!
>
> Don't know those cards, are they using the WiFi frequencies around
> 2.5GHz? If so there are only 3 channels that don't mutually interfere
> with each other (1, 6 and 11 IIRC).
Not strictly true.
There are 11 channels IIRC, and all to an extent interfere with each other.
Dave Osborne
>
> 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?
DaveyO
Mike Barnes
>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.
--
Mike Barnes
Yellow
news:hhsben$8sb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
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.
Clive George
news:hhshpl$63f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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.
+ 1 on this. I've not had a problem with wifi since we changed to using
laptops a couple of years ago. It also works reliably in other places.
I'd consider wired for fixed kit if cabling is easy, but otherwise am very
pleased with the radiation cooking my brain :-)
Timothy Murphy
> 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.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Bill
George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>I'd consider wired for fixed kit if cabling is easy, but otherwise am
>very pleased with the radiation cooking my brain :-)
As someone else with a cooked brain, may I throw in another thought.
A wifi router is set to a channel and can work fine to one laptop. Add
more machines and they are all in contention on the same channel.
It seems to me that if any users work with substantial amounts of data -
eg working with audio or video data, or if there are reasons to copy
much data across the wifi network, everything can knit itself into a
fine mess.
Am I right? And does this also apply to the mains carrier systems?
--
Bill
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 11:24
> ONLY reliable wireless machines I know of do NOT run windows. Macs are
> actually good. Linux is pretty good IF you can find the drivers.
That's usually most of the time now. Broadcom and Intel chipsets are well
supported (even if it means a binary driver) and then there's NDIS
wrapper...
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 11:38
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 ;->
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 12:13
> In message <LbKdneu20LwXS9zW...@brightview.co.uk>, Clive
> George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>I'd consider wired for fixed kit if cabling is easy, but otherwise am
>>very pleased with the radiation cooking my brain :-)
>
> As someone else with a cooked brain, may I throw in another thought.
>
> A wifi router is set to a channel and can work fine to one laptop. Add
> more machines and they are all in contention on the same channel.
Yes.
> It seems to me that if any users work with substantial amounts of data -
> eg working with audio or video data, or if there are reasons to copy
> much data across the wifi network, everything can knit itself into a
> fine mess.
It shouldn't turn into a mess - it's designed to cope with that scenario.
But it will cause all the other connections to slow down.
> Am I right? And does this also apply to the mains carrier systems?
Yes.
All systems are limited to a typical number of bits/sec. Once you overload
that, of course things suffer.
But you obviously have to try a bit harder to overload a fileserver serving
at gigabit speeds than one serving over a 30ish Mbit/s Wifi link.
I wire my core machines together with gig. My laptop runs fine on 802.11g
unless I have a lot of data to move, then I plug it in. My link to the
Internet is currently over WIFI too as I don't have the cables in place -
but that's 6Mbit/sec over a 30-ish Mbit/sec capable link so no problems...
Adrian
saying:
>> A wifi router is set to a channel and can work fine to one laptop. Add
>> more machines and they are all in contention on the same channel.
> Yes.
Not quite.
A network is set to a channel.
That network shares a maximum theoretical bandwidth - 54mbps or whatever
- between the entire network. Think of an old-style hub, rather than a
switch.
Where the channels become an issue is when there's multiple networks
within reach. All of the channel frequencies overlap their neighbours
slightly. Get too much traffic on an overlapping frequency, and your
connection can get a bit flaky.
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 12:43
This is also true - more depth than I bothered to mention. With 802.11g,
this is where the idea of "there are basically 3 usable channel groups" came
from - if your neighbours are running 802.11g (54Mb) then you want to divvy
up the channel space into about 3 blocks and work with those. You don't want
to be using adjacent real channels if you can help it.
Bill
<tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>Tim W <t...@dionic.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>> A wifi router is set to a channel and can work fine to one laptop. Add
>>> more machines and they are all in contention on the same channel.
>
>> Yes.
>
>Not quite.
>
>A network is set to a channel.
>That network shares a maximum theoretical bandwidth - 54mbps or
>whatever - between the entire network. Think of an old-style hub,
>rather than a switch.
But if you are copying files between two wifi machines via a router, I'd
have expected (based on no knowledge beyond guesswork) that there would
be more overheads. Is wifi really full duplex in this situation?
Copying files between laptops here certainly seems slow, although maybe
that's just another Vista feature.
--
Bill
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 12:57
I've just measure mine with iperf
WIFI laptop to server via a single WIFI hop is giving around 17Mbit/sec
Laptop to another wifi client gives around 8-10mb/sec
So yes, it appears as you expected.
Jules
> 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
What the heck is wrong with you!? :-)
Don't do it. Keep the wired network.
cheers
Jules
Dave Osborne
OK, I thought I was missing some important new development!
Toby
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhsjpk$4oq$1...@news.albasani.net...
Not quite true
If you look here..
http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/2point4freq.cfm
1,2,3,4,5 are stacked, so channel 1 is not overlapped with Channels higher
then 5
6 is overlapped by 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
11 is overlapped by 7,8,9,10,12,13,14
So 1 is the lest overlapped channel.
Toby...
Adrian Brentnall
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'.
If the manufacturer offered some sort of online support then I might
give that a go... but they don't...
Thanks
Adrian
Adrian Brentnall
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> TNPS advice to people contemplating replacing a wired Ntework
>
> Dont.
<g> - Now you tell me !
>
>> 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...
>>
>
> Welcome to the wide wonderful world of WiFi.
>
> Shit chipsets, even shittier drivers and then Windows/...
C'mon - what do you _really_ think <g>
>
> ONLY reliable wireless machines I know of do NOT run windows. Macs are
> actually good. Linux is pretty good IF you can find the drivers.
>
>
>
>
>> 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..
>>
>
> usual crap. Probably got some other 2.4 gear running. Try a different
> channel?
No - nothing else on this property -
the only other wirelessy kit is the weather station and that's on 800mhz
>
>
>
>
>> 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!
>>
>
> best advice really.
Thanks - I've emailed them to convey my admiration <g>
>
> I spent two- weeks trying to get a wireless enabled printer to talk to a
> router 5 feet away. Gave up and ran a cable.
>
> Tried 3 routers
Yes - file under 'life's too short' <g>
Thanks
Adrian
The Natural Philosopher
Wifi is much like non switched ethernet.
The more traffic, the more lost packets and backoff you have to do.
CDA rules.
Lets face it, wireless is WORSE than ethernet with coaxial cables and 50
ohm terminators was.
it may be GOOD ENOUGH for twits who just want to watch porn and play
with themselves in bed, but it wont push files to a server like 100Mbps
cable will.
AND the more people use it, the worse it gets.
Adrian Brentnall
Mike Barnes wrote:
> Adrian Brentnall <adr...@ambquality.co.uk>:
>> 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?
Naive optimism ? <g>
Seemed like a good idea at the time...
> 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.
Yes - I think you're right...
To be honest, I don't know how much of an issue the 'locate router at
Master Socket' thing might be - but this new landline broadband
connection's not the fastest ever, though it does seem more consistent
than the microwave link we've used for the last 3 years - and moving the
router to the Master Socket was one more thing to try.
TBH it could be done perfectly easily with a wired connection - so
maybe I'll try that...
>
> Have you looked at Homeplugs (ethernet over mains)? More expensive than
> wireless, but IMO much better in every respect except portability.
>
No great need for portability - see above.
Thanks
Adrian
Man at B&Q
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.
MBQ
The Natural Philosopher
> In message <7qe646...@mid.individual.net>, Adrian
> <tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>> Tim W <t...@dionic.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>> A wifi router is set to a channel and can work fine to one laptop. Add
>>>> more machines and they are all in contention on the same channel.
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> A network is set to a channel.
>> That network shares a maximum theoretical bandwidth - 54mbps or
>> whatever - between the entire network. Think of an old-style hub,
>> rather than a switch.
>
> But if you are copying files between two wifi machines via a router, I'd
> have expected (based on no knowledge beyond guesswork) that there would
> be more overheads. Is wifi really full duplex in this situation?
>
> Copying files between laptops here certainly seems slow, although maybe
> that's just another Vista feature.
Everything about windows is crap. Get used to it.
Adrian Brentnall
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....
Thanks
Adrian
Adrian Brentnall
Jules 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
>
> What the heck is wrong with you!? :-)
Y'know - sometimes I wonder the same thing ! <g>
>
> Don't do it. Keep the wired network.
Makes sense!
Thanks
Adrian
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wibbled on Monday 04 January 2010 11:24
>
>
>> ONLY reliable wireless machines I know of do NOT run windows. Macs are
>> actually good. Linux is pretty good IF you can find the drivers.
>
> That's usually most of the time now. Broadcom and Intel chipsets are well
> supported (even if it means a binary driver) and then there's NDIS
> wrapper...
>
still rubbish now ;-)
The Natural Philosopher
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.
secondly those are indeed the channel centers about which the
frequencies are 'spread' but in practice, power is very low, so they do
not necessarily do as much to each other as you might think.
The Natural Philosopher
multipath in a typical place full of cables, foil backed plasterboard.
pipes and nails is ghastly.
I've got wifi here. It can ONLY penetrate from here to the bedroom
across the corridor. I cant get it in the kitchen blow that wedroom and
certainly NOT parked in a car outside the house.
Friend has a mac book and that DID get it in the kitchen.
OTOH we regularly fly model planes on the technology at ranges up to
about 3 km with 100mW sets. And in excess of a kilometer with 10mW sets.
(Yes, we know how far, because friends GPS sensing UAV went out of
control on a 10mW set at about 3/4 of a mile over the village.
Fortunately the failsafe GPS gradually brought it back to where he could
get control again..)
I was on telemetry duty..and reported that the telemetry, on about a
watt of illegal spectrum was reporting it slowly turning towards us, and
maintaining a reasonable height and airspeed..;-)
Havent had so much fun since we let off coal gas filled balloons with
fuses over west london and caused a UFO panic..
> Thanks
> Adrian
>
Clive George
> 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
Now there's a mug's game. Store the key in a file on the computer, then
paste it in each time. It irritates me that windows treats it as a secret
password with *s as you type, where it its pretty unlikely that it's that
important to hide it.
Mike Barnes
>On Jan 4, 11:37�am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Adrian Brentnall <adr...@ambquality.co.uk>:
>>
>> >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.
>
>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
tony sayer
<Dave...@SPAMymail.com> scribeth thus
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
Yellow
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.
tony sayer
<adr...@ambquality.co.uk> scribeth thus
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
Adrian Brentnall
Thanks - cost for a card about 2x what CPC wanted - but then, I guess
their card might work ! <g>
Thanks
Adrian
Dave Liquorice
>> 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.
Dave Liquorice
> 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.
Chris Bartram
> 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.
Mark
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:12:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
><adr...@ambquality.co.uk> 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.]
Clive George
news:k5g6k51vlioq6hp75...@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 shit, 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).
Maris
<adr...@ambquality.co.uk> wrote:
>HI Tim
>
>Tim.. wrote:
>>
>> "Adrian Brentnall" <adr...@ambquality.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hhsben$8sb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> 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
MM
With Zen I specifically asked for a wired version.
MM
MM
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
Clive George
news:5pq6k59gokhqiu8e8...@4ax.com...
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...
geoff
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
--
geoff
MM
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
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
MM
Or BBC Parliament. I'm currently watching a recording of yesterday's
Select Committee meeting on DNA retention - but thanks for your
suggestion anyway.
MM
dennis@home
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:had8k51tcibfnpog7...@4ax.com...
>>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.
The Natural Philosopher
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.
Tim W
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...
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
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
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> 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? ;->
>
100 Mbps is fast enough, mostly.
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 12:02
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...
Clive George
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.
Terry Fields
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 here:
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adsl_technology.htm#frequencies
TF
Dave Liquorice
> 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.
Tim Streater
[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
Jules
>>Better for d/loading porn, eh ?
>
> Or BBC Parliament. I'm currently watching a recording of yesterday's
> Select Committee meeting on DNA retention
Well, everyone has their fetishes ;)
Clive George
news:gdidnbgDGvyDPNnW...@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.
MM
Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.
MM
MM
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
But it IS slower, is more hassle and more open to hackers.
MM
MM
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
It was Dianne Abbott who reeled me in...
MM
Clive George
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.
Clive George
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.
chris French
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
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
MM
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
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
MM
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"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
dennis@home
"Tim Streater" <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:gdidnbgDGvyDPNnW...@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?
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. ;-)
dennis@home
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v8f9k5hrbvts39d2v...@4ax.com...
> 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.
dennis@home
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6le9k5t900asgbdep...@4ax.com...
> 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.
dennis@home
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y_ydncT7uqBAVdnW...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> 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.
Mike Barnes
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
The Natural Philosopher
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.
The Natural Philosopher
Its not easy at all to hack a wired network
Mike Barnes
>Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
>the browser.
Don't forget that for some of us, a lot of important stuff doesn't go
anywhere near a browser.
>Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.
It's only easy for networks outside the premises. We're talking about a
network inside the premises.
--
Mike Barnes
Tim W
wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 09:51
Do you trust everyone in your ISP. And the next ISP and the next until the
other end?
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 09:51
>
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:Y_ydncT7uqBAVdnW...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> Its not easy at all to hack a wired network
>
> Do you trust everyone in your ISP. And the next ISP and the next until the
> other end?
>
yes, its POSSIBLE to monitor packet level stuff IF the right kit is in
place and IF you make some very obvious alterations to the hardware.
But you cant simply hook a sniffer on a ISP backbone. Its switches
everywhere. You have to get to a main feed carrying ALL traffic (and
that's usually optical) and insert a boxes in all traffic lines. It can
be done..but its heavyweight kit.
More typically traffic monitoring is dine via invisible web proxies etc.
But they wont be intercepting e.g. ssh traffic and the like.
Clive George
news:hi4aq4$4e0$3...@news.albasani.net...
> Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
> their credit card details.
You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?
Clive George
>>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!
How much work do you think there is to "consider" the security implications?
IME the routers supplied by ISPs come with WPA turned on. One of them you
have to press a button to allow the computer to connect as well. The
password is written either on the box or a little piece of paper. It really
isn't hard at all - and in many cases, easier than running a cable.
Clive George
>>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.
Whereas I'm wondering why you're struggling quite so much with the idea that
supplying a wireless router by default makes sense for the majority of
people, and thus makes commercial sense for ISPs.
> Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
> the way it's gonna stay.
You're missing the point that you're a special snowflake. Yes, your needs
are a bit different from the mainstream. Acknowledge that, accept that as a
result you may not be using the default package mainstream providers give
you, move on.
Mark
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>news:k5g6k51vlioq6hp75...@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 shit, 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.
I disagree. If you need wireless then an separate access point is
better than having everything combined. The ideal location for the
access point is not always the same place as the best place for the
router.
IME wireless does not work well for most people. I hear frequent
cases of interrmittant operation, slow speeds and areas where no
wireless access is possible.
Laying cable is not that difficult (this /is/ a DIY ng) and for those
that can't there's always homeplug.
>(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've got
>the wire in place).
--
(\__/) 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.]
dennis@home
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JomdnYFe7Np6StjW...@brightview.co.uk...
I can, if I want to.
Its just as easy on a wired network as it requires a hack on the target
router and it makes no difference if its wireless or not.
dennis@home
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi4ar0$4e0$4...@news.albasani.net...
> Its not easy at all to hack a wired network
Oh come off it, its dead easy as nobody puts any security on it as they
think its safe.
I bet you think linux is safe and don't bother with any extra security
either.
dennis@home
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi4ii6$ht1$1...@news.albasani.net...
> But you cant simply hook a sniffer on a ISP backbone. Its switches
> everywhere. You have to get to a main feed carrying ALL traffic (and
> that's usually optical) and insert a boxes in all traffic lines. It can be
> done..but its heavyweight kit.
Look up port mirroring..
how do you think we test the stuff and analyse traffic?
dennis@home
"Mike Barnes" <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:$q9ZI23S...@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid...
So if I want to hack in I just wait for an open door, walk in and plug in a
wireless bridge somewhere and you are none the wiser and I can so what I
like.
Its just a matter of being worth the effort or do i just trick you into
loading a keylogger program or put a keylogger hardware bit in while I am
hacking the LAN.
Its all easy to get stuff so be careful.
Then there are the others you can do by hacking the targets router before
you get onto what you can do to an ISPs links out there in the green
cabinets.
The Natural Philosopher
http://news.softpedia.com/news/SSL-Security-Broken-101075.shtml
The Natural Philosopher
MM
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>
>"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6le9k5t900asgbdep...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.
>
>Not if you have to pay for installation it isn't.
DIY
>nor is it cheaper if you have to redecorate after putting it in.
A 10mm hole in the ceiling?
>Wireless routers cost the same or less than wired ones and are usually free.
So I can pop into PC World and demand a free wireless router, yes?
>laptops come with wireless these days so it is free.
I don't have a laptop.
>desktops cost about �8 to make wireless.
That's eight cheeseburgers!
>wireless isn't a trip hazard.
Neither is properly routed cable.
>wireless doesn't export potentials outside the building if you have your
>server in the shed.
I don't. I don't even have a shed.
>most people don't do anything where the speed difference between wired and
>wireless matters.
Whenever I use a friend's or relative's wireless network, it always
stalls for a half-second, then recovers. A few minutes later it stalls
again. Seems to be a feature, and one I can do without, as I do, in
fact, with my wired network.
>Don't imagine that if you have something worth stealing that the "extra"
>security of wired will stop someone stealing it.
But it's obviously easier to gain access to a wireless network unless
suitable measures are taken.
MM