Don wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Chad J wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Nick,
...
One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
small business's wireless network with a wired one.
And now I'll stop rambling ;)
Wired is not necessarily backwards. :) Despite the tangly lines, it's
just easier to keep secure.
-JJR
Yeah. It's a tradeoff. I use both wired and wireless. They
complement
each other nicely. In an ideal setup both are available.
Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that
wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a
little angry. I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just
pity them their ignorance. If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll
calmly explain why they are wrong ;)
Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.)
Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and
secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in
many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier
to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired
is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate
concern in certain cases).
eg when your house contains crawling babies <g>
That pretty much settled the issue for me :o).
I'd add that wired is not the speed bottleneck when connecting from home
to the Internet. The DSL/cable connections go well below wireless' 54
Mbps. That being said, whenever I want to transfer some large amounts of
data across my home computers, I invariably give up wireless in
frustration and end up rummaging through my drawer for a cable.
Andrei
