Hi Mike, Just wanted to throw my two bobs worth in.
Ronni's explanation is on the money. At the risk of losing you I thought I'd add a ramble too (apologies if you know all of this). The issue with all network design is that it is not just about the quoted speed, especially when it comes to wireless. You need to take into account the whole network end to end. Speeds are quoted in Megabits per second (not bytes as is sometimes misunderstood). We deal in files that are bytes, kilobytes, Megabytes and Gigabytes. There are overheads when sending data over the network to ensure it gets where it is supposed to go and other things such as encryption (generally 30%-40%). So if you have a Gigabit Ethernet connection you are not really getting 1000 bits per second, more like 600-700 bits per second (this varies). Similarly with wireless. 802.11b provides for wireless 'up to' 11Mb/s, and 802.11g 'up to' 54Mb/s. These are both delivered on the 2.4Ghz frequency, the same as most cordless handsets, microwaves and other wireless equipment. 'b' & 'g' are compatible because of this. There are products that boost the signal strength and speed but they are proprietary and not standard. 802.11a is also 54Mb/s but is delivered on the 5GHz frequency range, meaning less conflict with other equipment. 802.11n is designed to provide faster speeds and better range. Where it comes into it's own is when you are doing video streaming and other multimedia applications, or have several devices that need higher speeds. Most people spend lots of money on network gear because it is the latest and fastest without considering the use. There is no point having a 140Mb/s wireless connection so that you can access videos online, if you have an ADSL connection of 2Mb/s. No matter how hard you try, you'll only get 2Mb/s (minus overheads!). If you are sharing files across your own network then the faster speeds become worthwhile, as long as the network adapters in the computers can connect at those speeds. I think for most people at home, the 802.11g modem/router/access point(s) are adequate, even with a number of computers, since most of them are generally only sharing the Internet connection. I think you'll find Ronni's old base station will do the trick! Cheers, Stuart On 5/08/09 1:29 PM, "Mike Fuller" <blis...@tpg.com.au> wrote: > > I want to thank James, Mal and Ronni for their replies which I've > found quite helpful. > > In particular I want to thank Ronni for her detailed explanation and > her generous offer of trying out her "g" base station, which I am > accepting. I will let the group know how it handles when I've set it up. > > Cheers > > Mike Fuller > > > -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- > Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml> > Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml> > Unsubscribe - <mailto:wamug-unsubscr...@wamug.org.au> > -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml> Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml> Unsubscribe - <mailto:wamug-unsubscr...@wamug.org.au>
