Network Adapters: USB vs PCI

I just purchased a computer and I am about to include it to our
wireless home network. Before I buy a network adapter for this
computer, I was wondering which one is faster: USB vs PCI.

I'm trying to decide between a USB wireless networking adapter or a PCI
card wireless networking adapter. Speed of download is my main concern
here.

So.. USB vs. PCI?

Thanks!

:: Roger

PCI

"Call me Roger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>I just purchased a computer and I am about to include it to our
> wireless home network. Before I buy a network adapter for this
> computer, I was wondering which one is faster: USB vs PCI.
>
> I'm trying to decide between a USB wireless networking adapter or a PCI
> card wireless networking adapter. Speed of download is my main concern
> here.
>
> So.. USB vs. PCI?
>
> Thanks!
>
> :: Roger
>

> I'm trying to decide between a USB wireless networking adapter or a PCI
> card wireless networking adapter. Speed of download is my main concern
> here.
>
> So.. USB vs. PCI?

If you've just bought a new computer then it's likely to have USB 2.0
which supports data rates of up to 480Mbps. Throughput is typically
less than this although you didn't say what speed internet connection
you had but I doubt it's as fast as that?

In practice, you won't see a difference because USB vs PCI speeds when
the typically handfull Mbps internet speeds are the bottleneck. PCI
will have lower processor overhead but again, with a new PC, that
shouldn't manifest itself as a bottleneck.

David.

David Taylor wrote:
>>I'm trying to decide between a USB wireless networking adapter or a PCI
>>card wireless networking adapter. Speed of download is my main concern
>>here.
>>
>>So.. USB vs. PCI?
>
>
> If you've just bought a new computer then it's likely to have USB 2.0
> which supports data rates of up to 480Mbps. Throughput is typically
> less than this although you didn't say what speed internet connection
> you had but I doubt it's as fast as that?
>
> In practice, you won't see a difference because USB vs PCI speeds when
> the typically handfull Mbps internet speeds are the bottleneck. PCI
> will have lower processor overhead but again, with a new PC, that
> shouldn't manifest itself as a bottleneck.
>
> David.
If it's a brand new computer opening it up to install a PCI card may
invalidate the warranty(if it has one).The USB is also useful because of
it's flying lead which enables it to be positioned for best performance
and not stuck under a desk(like the PCI card in mine)

> If it's a brand new computer opening it up to install a PCI card may
> invalidate the warranty(if it has one).The USB is also useful because of

Since when???

Cheers, Rob.

Roger,

Jeff is the expert on this forum.
For just browsing any adapter is overkill.
If you are transferring files between computers on your home network
that is another story.
The Zydas based USB adapters are among the easiest to set up of any of
the adapters.
Most of the generic USB pen style adapters use this chipset.
Have had not as great success with either the Linksys USB adapters or
D-Link pen type adapter.
The metal of the computer case or surrounding objects ( file cabinets
etc.) may block reception of PCI adapters at the back of the computer
wheras the usb adapter can be placed on a usb cable and / or extension
cable away from the computer for better reception.
Be interesting to note if the experts here recommend having a matching
brand of adapter and router for speed and ease of setup .
As well tech support can not send you elsewhere by blaming the other
manufacturer's product on setup.
The biggest problem often encountered is neighbours with routers
intefering with recepton of you functional wireless internet signal.

Call me Roger wrote:
> I just purchased a computer and I am about to include it to our
> wireless home network. Before I buy a network adapter for this
> computer, I was wondering which one is faster: USB vs PCI.
>
> I'm trying to decide between a USB wireless networking adapter or a PCI
> card wireless networking adapter. Speed of download is my main concern
> here.
>
> So.. USB vs. PCI?
>
> Thanks!
>
> :: Roger

Rob Nicholson wrote:

>> If it's a brand new computer opening it up to install a PCI card may
>> invalidate the warranty(if it has one).The USB is also useful because of
>
> Since when???

Since you bought a machine with that sort of restriction. It's not perhaps
usual for a desktop system (it _is_ for a laptop - Dell's warranty
specifically says that the only think you can open is the memory access to
add memory) - but there's nothing to stop a manufacturer telling you that.
There _are_ laws in some countries preventing the manufacturer from voiding
your warranty in that case, though.
--
derek

"Call me Roger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com:

> I just purchased a computer and I am about to include it to our
> wireless home network. Before I buy a network adapter for this
> computer, I was wondering which one is faster: USB vs PCI.
>
> I'm trying to decide between a USB wireless networking adapter or a
> PCI card wireless networking adapter. Speed of download is my main
> concern here.
>
> So.. USB vs. PCI?
>
> Thanks!
>
>:: Roger
>

Just to offer my 2c on this topic: In a real world situation, if you are
using the internet, you will not notice a difference between them. File
transfer in a local network, as mentioned, is affected.

However, in a normal home internet-surfing application I would definetly
recommend a USB adapter. I have had many clients who couldn't get a
signal with their PCI cards, and simply switching them to USB allowed a
more flexible placement of the antenna, and thus solved the problem.

Any major brand adapter should be painless to set up.

Ryan

> using the internet, you will not notice a difference between them. File
> transfer in a local network, as mentioned, is affected.

Have you actually tried this on a USB2 adapter? Just wondering because
I can connect an external drive via USB2 and it's fast, way faster than
the piddling 24Mbps throughput that the wireless card is going to
deliver MAX. The processor overhead on a new machine should not be
noticed even in a file sharing scenario.

Having said that, I haven't tried a USB2 wireless adapter but if someone
can post numbers from actual tests, I'd be interested to see them
because a lot of the theory seems to be hungover from the USB1.1 days.

David.

David Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) d.com:

>> using the internet, you will not notice a difference between them.
>> File transfer in a local network, as mentioned, is affected.
>
> Have you actually tried this on a USB2 adapter? Just wondering
> because I can connect an external drive via USB2 and it's fast, way
> faster than the piddling 24Mbps throughput that the wireless card is
> going to deliver MAX. The processor overhead on a new machine should
> not be noticed even in a file sharing scenario.
>
> Having said that, I haven't tried a USB2 wireless adapter but if
> someone can post numbers from actual tests, I'd be interested to see
> them because a lot of the theory seems to be hungover from the USB1.1
> days.
>
> David.
>

I think that you misunderstood me. I simply meant that wireless itself
will have a noticeable affect on speeds locally, however it shouldn't be
that noticable when using the "Internet". Perhaps if using a BitTorrent
server, or downloading large files from Usenet, but usually, as
mentioned, the throughput of the wireless connection exceeds the
throughput of the internet connection.

Maybe I am confused as to what you meant?