Wireless network advice/recommendations

Hi everyone

I'm sure someone here will be able to advise me of what I need here!
;-)

I have broadband (BT) working on my pc via a D-Link DSL504 router,
connected to the pc via a network card.

Waht I am looking to do is:

1. Allow my ipaq 5550 to connect to the pc wirelessly

and

2. Share my Internet connection with another pc in my flat.

So in essence I suppose I want to share my Internet connection with
another 2 devices, one a handheld and the other a desktop pc.

Any recommendations on the best way to do this? I'm thinking of going
to PC World tomorrow, and they seem to do a fairly good range of
wireless networking products which might do the job. Trouble is I'm
new to wireless networking, but do like the sound of it.

To be honest the ipaq is more important than that other pc and I
understand it also has wireless capability built-in (haven't bought it
yet!).

Any advice on what to buy (or NOT to buy) would be welcomed.


Thanks.

On Sat, 01 May 2004 22:00:24 +0100, BriB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Any advice on what to buy (or NOT to buy) would be welcomed.

as you already have a router you should look for a simple wireless
access point (AP). Plug this into one of the ethernet ports of the
router.

Buying a D-link AP may simplify suport issues if you have any.

802.11b will be faster than you net connection and a bit cheaper, this
is what the Ipaq has. 802.11g gives higher speed if you need it for
the local LAN and is 802.11b compatible.

Do not buy 802.11a. Do not buy a wireless router as it may conflict
with the current router.

Phil

Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>Do not buy 802.11a.

Not relevant to the OP but why do you not recommend "a" ?

I have been thinking about upgrading my existing "b" network and liked the
idea of the lower tx wattages of "a" and it seems a more elegant solution
that g

I know it is more expensive than g but is it bad ?

TIA

Andy

On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:54:51 +0200, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Not relevant to the OP but why do you not recommend "a" ?

because the OP had a b equipped device.

>I have been thinking about upgrading my existing "b" network and liked the
>idea of the lower tx wattages of "a" and it seems a more elegant solution
>that g

lower wattages ? I think you'll find a is higher to overcome its
higher attenuation due to higher frequency

>I know it is more expensive than g but is it bad ?

its not bad, just its not common for hotspots etc. For your own
network this may not matter but there is no b or g compatibility (it
being on a different frequency) so if you want to use a laptop or PDA
elsewhere you'll need a multistandard a/b/g card or two cards.

'g' gives the same speeds as 'a' without the same distance
limitations. 'a' has more non-overlapping channels and being less
widely used is less likely to have interference problems from other
users. As its less popular 'a' might be more expensive, too.

Phil

Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:54:51 +0200, "(E-Mail Removed)"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Not relevant to the OP but why do you not recommend "a" ?
>
>because the OP had a b equipped device.
>
>>I have been thinking about upgrading my existing "b" network and liked the
>>idea of the lower tx wattages of "a" and it seems a more elegant solution
>>that g
>
>lower wattages ? I think you'll find a is higher to overcome its
>higher attenuation due to higher frequency

Sorry what I was meaning was the auto negotiation of the tx power i.e.
reduction of the client was near etc.

>
>>I know it is more expensive than g but is it bad ?
>
>its not bad, just its not common for hotspots etc. For your own
>network this may not matter but there is no b or g compatibility (it
>being on a different frequency) so if you want to use a laptop or PDA
>elsewhere you'll need a multistandard a/b/g card or two cards.
>
>'g' gives the same speeds as 'a' without the same distance
>limitations. 'a' has more non-overlapping channels and being less
>widely used is less likely to have interference problems from other
>users. As its less popular 'a' might be more expensive, too.
>
>Phil

Thanks for your input. I think I will wait a few more months.

Andy

On Tue, 04 May 2004 10:19:03 +0200, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Sorry what I was meaning was the auto negotiation of the tx power i.e.
>reduction of the client was near etc.

didn't realise 'a' did that.

Phil

Phil Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 May 2004 10:19:03 +0200, "(E-Mail Removed)"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Sorry what I was meaning was the auto negotiation of the tx power i.e.
>>reduction of the client was near etc.
>
>didn't realise 'a' did that.
>
>Phil

That was one of the main things that the standards people were pushing "a"
for as it hugely reduces interference between nearby networks in urban
areas by only transmitting enough power to connect to the client.

Having said that as you pointed out nearly everything for sale seems to be
"b" or "g" so I guess this could be another time that the technically
superior standard loses the war :-)

Andy

On Sun, 02 May 2004 10:09:21 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> shot his/her mouth off again, this time
saying:

>On Sat, 01 May 2004 22:00:24 +0100, BriB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Any advice on what to buy (or NOT to buy) would be welcomed.
>
>as you already have a router you should look for a simple wireless
>access point (AP). Plug this into one of the ethernet ports of the
>router.
>
>Buying a D-link AP may simplify suport issues if you have any.
>
>802.11b will be faster than you net connection and a bit cheaper, this
>is what the Ipaq has. 802.11g gives higher speed if you need it for
>the local LAN and is 802.11b compatible.
>
>Do not buy 802.11a. Do not buy a wireless router as it may conflict
>with the current router.
>
>Phil

Phil

Thanks for the reply.

Ended up buying a Belkin Access Point which I plugged into the router.
Was up and running in less than 15 minutes and the iPAQ connected with
no bother. The AP has (I think, being new to all of this) fairly good
security, like MAC filtering, 128-bit encryption and WEP. Tested the
range and was walking up the road for about 60-70 metres with the iPAQ
playing a radio station streaming live from Guatemala! The AP's in my
bedroom (upstairs) at desk-level in the corner furthest from the
window (double-glazed), so the range isn't bad.

Fantastic all this technology! :-)