W-Fi Finders?

Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
model?

" MS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eMe$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
> model?
>
>

I use a Cirrus Logic finder that I got for free at the CES earlier this
year. Works great.
--
Bearman
If it's got tits, tires, tubes, or transistors, it's trouble.

I tried one, and don't find it very useful. I'll be returning it to the
store. I wondered if some are better.

Actually a rather high-end one I got--the Kensington "Wi-Fi Finder Plus".
(It was on sale, so price not bad.) The couple times I tried it, I haven't
found it very useful. I think it only registers a signal if it is pretty
high, not registering at all lower signals that might still be usable.

It has IMO a very questionable feature--it shows Bluetooth signals (separate
indicator-a blue light) as well as wi-fi signals. I use Bluetooth a lot,
actually, have a BT phone and headset, etc. But no one searches for
"Bluetooth hot spots", etc., no such thing exists. People who use BT have
their own BT devices that connect to one another, they do not search for a
BT signal, no need for a "BT Finder".

The thing is--the device cannot show both a Wi-fi and a Bluetooth signal at
the same time. If both are present, it can only show one or the other. It is
supposed to give preference to wi-fi in such a situation, but I don't always
find that to be the case. I have seen the BT light go on (and no wi-fi
indicator) when I know a wi-fi signal is present and usable. As I always
have BT with me (carrying the BT phone and headset), that bluetooth
indicator can get in the way of the wi-fi indication. (Besides being a waste
of power, for that blue light to go on often.) (No way to turn off the BT
indicator, from what I can see.)

Anyhow, I'm planning to return this one, and wonder whether some really work
well.

From responses so far, I see the following--

Bearman writes that the Cirrus Logic one that he got for free works well. (I
don't recall seeing that one for sale anywhere though.)

Dan R writes that the Hawking model picks up wi-fi signals, but also
wireless phones and microwave ovens, and cannot distinguish between them.
That doesn't sound like a good model.

Frankster writes: "They work fine". Could you please be more specific,
regarding the word "they" here? Which ones have you used, that work fine? I
have not got good results with the Kensington model I tried, and Dan did not
get good results with the Hawking model he tried. Those two models
obviously did not "work fine" for us. I doubt you (Frankster) could have
tried every model available, so could you please elaborate on which models
you have tried, and how they worked. (Of course, as you write, the "finder"
cannot tell for you if the wi-fi connection is open or protected. But please
tell us how well the one or ones you have used pick up and indicate wi-fi
signals of different strengths, and whether they also, as Don's Hawking
model did, pick up unwanted signals such as microwave ovens and telephones.

Thanks to all for your responses.




"Frankster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_o-dnaU1Qa479M_eRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
> > model?
>
> They work fine. I guess it depends on your need. You can identify wireless
> locations, but you still have to login to your computer to determine
whether
> they are protected or open.
>
> -Frank
>
>

"DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BgD4f.2259$(E-Mail Removed) ...

> This might be a good one.
> http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/1647

That product is really a whole different ball game than ordinary wi-fi
finders. It is supposed to detect security, which protocols, etc., and is
also a USB wi-fi adapter. Nice idea, if it really works as advertised, and
is accurate in its readings. It looks like its price is around 3-5 times as
much as normal wi-fi finders, so it really is a whole different class of
product.

" MS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eMe$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
> model?
>
>
Haven't bought one yet but if I did it would be the Canary HS-10 currently
$59.99.
Shows SSID, signal strength, encryption status, and channel. For the price
I find it simpler to just carry around my laptop.

http://www.canarywireless.com/

Ted

"Ted" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Haven't bought one yet but if I did it would be the Canary HS-10 currently
> $59.99.
> Shows SSID, signal strength, encryption status, and channel. For the
price
> I find it simpler to just carry around my laptop.
>
> http://www.canarywireless.com/
>
> Ted

That is similar to the one DanR referred to (Zyxel) in the Realtech article.
That one actually has a couple advantages over the Canary one, in that it is
1)smaller, more pocketable, 2)doubles as a USB wi-fi adapter, and 3) detects
A as well as B and G. It is a little more expensive though, the lowest price
I saw was at $69.99 (* URL below, re-branded as "Allspot") , and up from
there.

(http://www.allnet-usa.com/html/shop.php?kat=WiFi+54Mbit

(Scroll down that page to find it.)

Certainly those two models (I wouldn't be surprised if more are coming)
offer much more functionality than a normal "wi-fi finder", but at a much
higher price. I would certainly want to read reviews of them before shelling
out that kind of money, to see how well they actually work.

"Frankster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Va2dnSssGoeAUs7eRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...

> Coupla things... your original post did not state *ANY* requirements! My
> response was as generic as your original posting. Next, considering the
> above quote, you have numerous requirements. I haven't tested for any of
> your requirements because I don't care about them. So... gook luck.

Hmm--What "numerous requirements" did I state, that you don't care about? I
don't see any requirements that I stated. Perhaps you see a lot of words,
and without bothering to read them, assume I am stating "requirements".

There is no need for "requirements" in order to specify which of these
devices you have tried that work well, rather than just writing "they work
well". I guess you don't want to tell us which of these devices you have
tried, or perhaps have not tried any.

> As for discriminating between wi-fi, wireless phones, cell phones and
> such... I wouldn't expect any of them to do that, because all those
devices
> use the same 2.4Ghz frequency.

Well, that's a funny statement, coming from someone who wrote of these
devices "they work well". Perhaps distinguishing what is really a wi-fi
signal is one of those "requirements" that you "don't care about". (I don't
see how anyone could use one of these devices and not care if that
(registering any kind of 2.4gHz signal) happened, which would make the
device completely useless.) How could a device that indicated any type of
2.4 ghz signal be described as "works well"? Have you found that useful to
you, having a wi-fi finder (brand still not specified) that shows you there
is a wi-fi signal, when actually it is picking up signals from phones and
ovens, with no wi-fi signal?

From your first post to this thread I thought you had a good experience with
a wi-fi finder, so of course I asked you which brand and model it was. After
reading this defensive second post, I suspect you have actually never used a
wi-fi finder, and were just BSing with your other reply. That's OK, there is
tons of BS on the Internet, good to know that's what it was.

> From responses so far, I see the following--
>
> Bearman writes that the Cirrus Logic one that he got for free works well.
> (I
> don't recall seeing that one for sale anywhere though.)
>

It was a giveaway at the CES. I don't even remember which booth I got it
from. It does work, though.
--
Bearman
America: Land of the free because of the brave.