802.11 ? Which wireless is best for my situation?

I'm about to complete my wife's laptop, and setup a wireless network so she
can finally surf the web in our livingroom. I'm not sure which standard
would be best. I can get 802.11b Netgear items very cheap, after some
mail-in rebates.
Here is my situation.
Internet: High-Speed Cable Modem
House: Split-Foyer (Though I might have to work a solution if the signal
won't reach the top floor.)
Laptop: Compaq Armada V300
Intel Celeron 466Mhz with 96MB RAM & 24x CD-ROM, plus floppy.
Has USB ports and one unused PC Card slot. I plan to install
Windows ME once I find a harddrive and caddy.
Traffic usage of the network will be: Mainly to browse the internet, print
to the other computer's printer, and on occasion transfer a
file or two.

Would 802.11 be suffecient, or should I look for a different standard?
Thank you,
Mark

D&T wrote:
> I'm about to complete my wife's laptop, and setup a wireless network so she
> can finally surf the web in our livingroom. I'm not sure which standard
> would be best.

> I plan to install
> Windows ME once I find a harddrive and caddy.



Why would you want to use the least-respected OS Windows has ever sold?
Especially because networking now works better, I'd recommend upgrading
all the PCs on your home network to Win XP.

Doug (Whose opinion is worth what you paid for it)

"D&T" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cnj4t0$8q$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm about to complete my wife's laptop, and setup a wireless network so
she
> can finally surf the web in our livingroom. I'm not sure which standard
> would be best. I can get 802.11b Netgear items very cheap, after some
> mail-in rebates.

Get yourself a decent wireless router with 4 wired ports. Connect your
desktop to a wired port and fit a wireless PC card in the laptop. Much
easier to do this than mess with Microsoft Internet Connection sharing in my
view. The laptop can also access the Internet when the Desktop PC is off.

eg like this....

http://www.internet-computer-checkup...lan-router.jpg

The PC cards from Socket seem to have a good reputation and low power
consumption but are about the most expensive. Personally I would avoid cards
from D-link but thats because I've had two in a row go faulty on me.

See also this page on wireless LAN security from which the above diagram
came.

http://www.internet-computer-checkup...eless-lan.html

D&T wrote:

> Traffic usage of the network will be: Mainly to browse the internet, print
> to the other computer's printer, and on occasion transfer a
> file or two.
>
> Would 802.11 be suffecient, or should I look for a different standard?

My opinion is probably worth even less than the free advice you get from
others, but the second of your uses - "print to the other computer's
printer" - would suggest to me that the faster standard ("802.11g")
would be worth the money to you. I've been very happy with my 802.11b
network, except when I'm trying that kind of printing.

Paul

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:40:50 -0600, D&T <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I'm about to complete my wife's laptop, and setup a wireless network so she
>can finally surf the web in our livingroom. I'm not sure which standard

1. "Surfing" is something one does in the ocean.

2. If you go with 802.11b be prepared to be offering access to
your computers and internet connection to passers-by and the
neighbors. That version has essentially no effective security.
(Though if you're really concerned about security you wouldn't
be installing a wireless network in the first place, of course.)

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

(E-Mail Removed) (Roger Blake) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> 2. If you go with 802.11b be prepared to be offering access to
> your computers and internet connection to passers-by and the
> neighbors. That version has essentially no effective security.
> (Though if you're really concerned about security you wouldn't
> be installing a wireless network in the first place, of course.)
>

That's complete bullshit. For the majority of people, disabling SSID
broadcast, enabling WEP and changing the channel and network name are
plenty secure.

Some people are more paranoid than others. The majority of wi-fi hackers out
there only know how to access a wireless connection if ZERO security is
turned on. Enabling even the simplest form of security will baffle 99.8% of
the drive-by hackers and they'd rather simply drive another block to find
another wi-fi spot that is not secured anyway, rather than waste time trying
to crack yours (which, as I already mentioned, they probably don't know how
to do any way).

The ones smart enough to do the cracking probably wouldn't be bothered with
small potatoes like us any way unless you did something to upset or insult
them.

It's just like locking the doors on your car. If someone wants your car,
there is nothing you can do about it. But thieves like things that are fast
and easy and will move on to the next car with the windows rolled down
rather then fuss with yours (unless yours is really rare and worth a lot of
money).

"Jim Berwick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns95A816DA6479Djimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Roger Blake) wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> 2. If you go with 802.11b be prepared to be offering access to
>> your computers and internet connection to passers-by and the
>> neighbors. That version has essentially no effective security.
>> (Though if you're really concerned about security you wouldn't
>> be installing a wireless network in the first place, of course.)
>>
>
> That's complete bullshit. For the majority of people, disabling SSID
> broadcast, enabling WEP and changing the channel and network name are
> plenty secure.

"Carey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:SwYnd.186$(E-Mail Removed):

> It's just like locking the doors on your car. If someone wants your
> car, there is nothing you can do about it. But thieves like things
> that are fast and easy and will move on to the next car with the
> windows rolled down rather then fuss with yours (unless yours is
> really rare and worth a lot of money).

Exactly. I do a bit of wardriving every weekend. After 20 minutes on
the road, I usually stumble on about 50 networks in my neighborhood. Of
those, 8 are currently employing some type of encrytpion (most WEP). I
do not know how many networks are there that do not broadcast SSID. If I
wanted to do something malicious on a wi-fi network, would I spend the
time breaking into a hidden (no SSID broadcast), WEP secured network, or
just pick one of the 42 completely wide open ones instead? Also, if
someone is intelligent enough to disable SSID broadcast, change the
channel, SSID, and slap 128 bit WEP on it, doesn't it stand to reason
they are intelligent enough to A) also use some type of mac filtering and
B) look at their log files occasionally and go "Hey, that is most
definitely not me connected to my WAP!"?

There is always a way to break into anything (car, wi-fi, house, etc).
Average hacker/script kiddy is not going to spend his time with a locked
down network, they'll see the little lock icon in netstumbler, go around
the block and hop on someone else's open wi-fi.

"Jim Berwick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns95A84FA7ED28jimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26...
> Exactly. I do a bit of wardriving every weekend. After 20 minutes on
> the road, I usually stumble on about 50 networks in my neighborhood. Of
> those, 8 are currently employing some type of encrytpion (most WEP). I
> do not know how many networks are there that do not broadcast SSID. If I
> wanted to do something malicious on a wi-fi network, would I spend the
> time breaking into a hidden (no SSID broadcast), WEP secured network, or
> just pick one of the 42 completely wide open ones instead? Also, if
> someone is intelligent enough to disable SSID broadcast, change the
> channel, SSID, and slap 128 bit WEP on it, doesn't it stand to reason
> they are intelligent enough to A) also use some type of mac filtering and
> B) look at their log files occasionally and go "Hey, that is most
> definitely not me connected to my WAP!"?
>
I used to disable SSID broadcasts, but Microsoft somewhere advised that was
not a good idea. They think it is useful for allowing your neighbors to
know which channel you are on, to avoid interference. Also, it is easier
for a client to establish connections, and re-establish connections when
dropped, saving some time and network overhead. And apparently sophisticated
war drivers can find your SSID anyway by using sniffers, though I don't know
the details. Using a MAC filter is probably enough for most purposes, but I
use WEP also. As you suggest, no one is going to crack WEP just to steal
some bandwidth, or try to get some info from a home use. A commercial
operation is another question.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:42:16 -0700, Carey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>It's just like locking the doors on your car. If someone wants your car,
>there is nothing you can do about it. But thieves like things that are fast

Security on a traditional wired network is far and away superior to
anything offered by wireless. What anyone else does is their own business
of course, but as a data processing professional for nearly 30 years I
can state that I personally will never make use of wireless networking.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)