If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by tim on August 7, 2008, 4:17 am
show/hide quoted text
> Steve Barker DLT wrote:
>
>>
>> > Bullshit. Wireless cannot approach the speed or reliability
>> > of wired. Wireless is ok, it is certainly not better than
>> > wired in any respect except that it is easier to install.
>> at best, an internet connection MIGHT be 10Mb/s. Seems to me
>> that 54 is more than 10. So unless you're actually
>> transferring files within your own network , you'll never need
>> the wire for the speed.
>
> Except that wireless connections seldom meet their rated
> throughput, the throughput being measured under lab conditions
> that don't exist in the real world. And all wireless connections
> aren't 54 Mbps. Mine runs about 3.2 Mbps, and I'm ten feet away.
> My wired connection is about 87 Mbps. If I could pry my wallet
> loose and buy a gigabit router, my wired connection would speed
> up by a factor of 10. I transfer files within my own network all
> the time. My bookkeeping file is about 40 MB. I can't use it
> wirelessly.
>
> Having structured wiring is a great selling point when you put
> your house on the market.
>
The point I was trying to make was that the OP said there were
areas where it would be hard to run wire. Wireless is a quick and
easy way for MOST users to avoid running additional wire. How many
people do you know that have the need to move large amounts of data
around withing their home on a regular basis? Yes, within a few
years having your media centers as part of your network and/or
having fiber to the house will stress wireless as it exists today.
But it is still a quick and easy solution for 90% of current home
users.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
Posted by Steve Barker DLT on August 7, 2008, 4:29 pm
I move large groups of 4-5MB pictures around on my wireless all the time.
(perhaps sometimes 100 photos) I can't imagine it taking any less time.
It's a nothing point really. Wireless is the way to go unless you're
building from scratch.
show/hide quoted text
> The point I was trying to make was that the OP said there were
> areas where it would be hard to run wire. Wireless is a quick and
> easy way for MOST users to avoid running additional wire. How many
> people do you know that have the need to move large amounts of data
> around withing their home on a regular basis? Yes, within a few
> years having your media centers as part of your network and/or
> having fiber to the house will stress wireless as it exists today.
> But it is still a quick and easy solution for 90% of current home
> users.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
Posted by RT on August 17, 2008, 4:45 pm
>> Steve Barker DLT wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > Bullshit. Wireless cannot approach the speed or reliability
>>> > of wired. Wireless is ok, it is certainly not better than
>>> > wired in any respect except that it is easier to install.
>>> at best, an internet connection MIGHT be 10Mb/s. Seems to me
>>> that 54 is more than 10. So unless you're actually
>>> transferring files within your own network , you'll never need
>>> the wire for the speed.
>>
>> Except that wireless connections seldom meet their rated
>> throughput, the throughput being measured under lab conditions
>> that don't exist in the real world. And all wireless connections
>> aren't 54 Mbps. Mine runs about 3.2 Mbps, and I'm ten feet away.
>> My wired connection is about 87 Mbps. If I could pry my wallet
>> loose and buy a gigabit router, my wired connection would speed
>> up by a factor of 10. I transfer files within my own network all
>> the time. My bookkeeping file is about 40 MB. I can't use it
>> wirelessly.
>>
>> Having structured wiring is a great selling point when you put
>> your house on the market.
>>
>The point I was trying to make was that the OP said there were
>areas where it would be hard to run wire. Wireless is a quick and
>easy way for MOST users to avoid running additional wire. How many
>people do you know that have the need to move large amounts of data
>around withing their home on a regular basis? Yes, within a few
>years having your media centers as part of your network and/or
>having fiber to the house will stress wireless as it exists today.
>But it is still a quick and easy solution for 90% of current home
>users.
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Well, yes, I am well aware of wireless and I use it for the laptops.
however, I use media center and transfer large amounts of data of the
wire to several computers running media center. I also use a hdhomerun
which picks up HD signals from cable and transfers it over cat5. Those
HD feeds are not small. Do a couple at the same time and wireless
won't cut it unless I invest in wireless N on all computers. Even
then, I'd have to throw in repeaters to get great coverage (4200 sqft
home, part is basement).
I've managed to run 2 cat5's so far. Still, biggest problem seems to
be to drop down from the attic to a wall. Horizontal studs block it.
|
|
Posted by SteveBell on August 17, 2008, 8:52 pm
RT wrote:
show/hide quoted text
>
> >
> >> Steve Barker DLT wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > Bullshit. Wireless cannot approach the speed or reliability
> >>> > of wired. Wireless is ok, it is certainly not better than
> >>> > wired in any respect except that it is easier to install.
> > > >
> >>> at best, an internet connection MIGHT be 10Mb/s. Seems to me
> >>> that 54 is more than 10. So unless you're actually
> >>> transferring files within your own network , you'll never need
> >>> the wire for the speed.
> >>
> >> Except that wireless connections seldom meet their rated
> >> throughput, the throughput being measured under lab conditions
> >> that don't exist in the real world. And all wireless connections
> >> aren't 54 Mbps. Mine runs about 3.2 Mbps, and I'm ten feet away.
> >> My wired connection is about 87 Mbps. If I could pry my wallet
> >> loose and buy a gigabit router, my wired connection would speed
> >> up by a factor of 10. I transfer files within my own network all
> >> the time. My bookkeeping file is about 40 MB. I can't use it
> >> wirelessly.
> >>
> >> Having structured wiring is a great selling point when you put
> >> your house on the market.
> >>
> >
> > The point I was trying to make was that the OP said there were
> > areas where it would be hard to run wire. Wireless is a quick and
> > easy way for MOST users to avoid running additional wire. How many
> > people do you know that have the need to move large amounts of data
> > around withing their home on a regular basis? Yes, within a few
> > years having your media centers as part of your network and/or
> > having fiber to the house will stress wireless as it exists today.
> > But it is still a quick and easy solution for 90% of current home
> > users.
> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> Well, yes, I am well aware of wireless and I use it for the laptops.
> however, I use media center and transfer large amounts of data of the
> wire to several computers running media center. I also use a hdhomerun
> which picks up HD signals from cable and transfers it over cat5. Those
> HD feeds are not small. Do a couple at the same time and wireless
> won't cut it unless I invest in wireless N on all computers. Even
> then, I'd have to throw in repeaters to get great coverage (4200 sqft
> home, part is basement).
> I've managed to run 2 cat5's so far. Still, biggest problem seems to
> be to drop down from the attic to a wall. Horizontal studs block it.
Invest in a flex-bit or two. They're cheap and available in amazingly
long versions. (I got one six-footer free when I bought a house one
time, left by the previous owner. I suspect he got it free from the
owner before him, based on the crude repairs he also left.)
Here's a sample link:
http://www.altex.com/Flex-bit-Drill-Bits-for-Cable-Installation-12-x-72-
FLX1272-P139808C10902.aspx
You might also need an extension if your wall is really tall.
--
Steve Bell
New Life Home Improvement
Arlington, TX
|
|
Posted by Art on August 7, 2008, 5:31 pm
Steve Barker DLT wrote:
show/hide quoted text
>
>> Bullshit. Wireless cannot approach the speed or reliability of wired.
>> Wireless is ok, it is certainly not better than wired in any respect
>> except that it is easier to install.
>> --
>> Art
>
>
> at best, an internet connection MIGHT be 10Mb/s. Seems to me that 54
> is more than 10. So unless you're actually transferring files within
> your own network , you'll never need the wire for the speed.
>
> s
>
>
(Top posting fixed)
Wireless, if it is secured, has quite a bit of overhead added so even if
you could get the theoretical 54Mb speed it still wouldn't be half of
100Mb wired connection. In reality it's closer to 25%.
Networks are good for a whole lot more than just internet sharing. Once
setup people find they are ideal for backups, file consolidation and
sharing. If you setup a wireless you just limit yourself down the road.
Cat5 or Cat6 is fairly cheap. If you put a little effort into pulling
wire you can have a 100 or 1000Mb network with room to grow.
FIOS is just around the corner and will be provide considerably faster
download speeds than most wireless can handle.
If someone is willing to put in a wired network you really shouldn't try
to tell them a wireless is better or just as good cause it's not and
never will be. They are just not in the same league.
Wireless is good for renters, hotels, wifi spots, outdoors areas, and
other places where wires just cannot be run. (and for the lazy.)
--
Art
|
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Load Bearing Partition- wood frame residential | March 15, 2007, 9:31 am |
| Home Frame - Floor Structure, Ceiling Structure - Joists | October 3, 2007, 9:48 am |
| Home Frame - Floor Structure, Ceiling Structure - Joists | October 22, 2007, 11:50 am |
| Wood/Wood floor question | March 3, 2008, 2:28 am |
| Electrical Wiring Q | July 20, 2006, 8:50 pm |
| It's raining on my frame | October 18, 2006, 6:41 pm |
| Underground Wiring | February 9, 2007, 11:21 am |
| re: kitchen wiring | February 3, 2008, 1:42 am |
| 1920's wiring.... | October 26, 2009, 11:38 am |
| Dock lift wiring | September 19, 2006, 2:19 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>
>>
>> > Bullshit. Wireless cannot approach the speed or reliability
>> > of wired. Wireless is ok, it is certainly not better than
>> > wired in any respect except that it is easier to install.
>> at best, an internet connection MIGHT be 10Mb/s. Seems to me
>> that 54 is more than 10. So unless you're actually
>> transferring files within your own network , you'll never need
>> the wire for the speed.
>
> Except that wireless connections seldom meet their rated
> throughput, the throughput being measured under lab conditions
> that don't exist in the real world. And all wireless connections
> aren't 54 Mbps. Mine runs about 3.2 Mbps, and I'm ten feet away.
> My wired connection is about 87 Mbps. If I could pry my wallet
> loose and buy a gigabit router, my wired connection would speed
> up by a factor of 10. I transfer files within my own network all
> the time. My bookkeeping file is about 40 MB. I can't use it
> wirelessly.
>
> Having structured wiring is a great selling point when you put
> your house on the market.
>