On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:45:03 -0600, D.K. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:43:36 GMT, daytripper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:55:27 -0600, D.K. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The situation:
>>>
>>>Thw computers:
>>>
>>>A rather old Celeron/Win98 desktop that is connected to cable
>>>and does not have wireless card.
>>>
>>>A new PentiumM/WinXP laptop with wireless capability that came
>>>with an access point (it was one of those free offers).
>>>
>>>I thought it is easy to connect the access point so that
>>>I and my wife/kid could share the cable Internet connection.
>>>That is, without making the desktop wireless.
>>>
>>>Such a possibility, however, is not mentioned in the access
>>>point's installation guide and I cannot find any pointers.
>>>Is it at all possible? If yes, then where should I look
>>>for the basic instructions?
>>>
>>>We do not necessarily need a real netwrok between the two
>>>computers and I'd rather not buy a wireless card for the old
>>>desktop.
>>>
>>>Any clue for the clueless? Thanks!
>>
>>If you started with a cable modem and a pc with a single network card, that
>>free wireless access point isn't going to be enough to add your laptop to your
>>home network.
>>
>>Three solutions:
>>
>>- add a second network adapter to your desktop system, connect the wireless
>>access point to that second adapter, and enable Win98's connection sharing.
>>
>>- buy a router, stick that between your cable modem and your desktop, and plug
>>the wireless access point into a second LAN port on the router.
>>
>>- give the free wireless access point to someone who can use it, then buy
>>yourself a combination router/access point, and install that between your
>>cable modem and the desktop system.
>
>Thank much for the reply! I'll consider all three options. The first one
>seems to be cheapest and the third one is the most expensive (true?).
>What about performance/other things to cosider between them? If I opt to
>add an $20 ehternet adapter (option 1 above) - will I be much worse than
>if I'll go with cable router with wireless support?
>
>DK
Yes, 1 is the cheapest to build. Not necessarily the cheapest TCO over, say,
the first year, depending on how many hours your desktop system is powered-up
just so you can reach the internet from your laptop.
3 is likely to be the most expensive, but not by a whole lot verses 2. But in
any case, unless you can't find a wired-only router for less money than
wired/wireless combo routers, option 2 makes the most sense to me for you
situation. See my other reply in this thread.
Performance should not be an issue with any of the three options provided,
unless the desktop pc is a total bowser (I mean, a pre-Pentium or pre-K5
doggy). NAT doesn't take much horsepower to service a handful of clients,
never mind a single laptop. And there's the long latency/skinny pipe on the
other side of the modem that'll be the throttle under almost any circumstance,
anyway.
All in all, I'd go (and have indeed went ;-) with option 2...
/daytripper
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
