Wireless lan

Hi
I've got a small home network going through an SMC Barricade7004BR, and it works great. I now need to add a wireless connection to my laptop and was thinking of getting the SMC EZ access point which seems OK. I have been thinking though, about the wireless Barricade which is not much more expensive than the access point. So what do you think would be the better solution, keep the old Baricade and add the access point, or replace it with the new wireless barricade 7004awbr? I'm more concerned about the better performance because like I said they are very nearly the same price. I am considering the Orinoco for the laptop PC card, what do you think of that?
Oh, does anyone know if the power supply that comes with the SMC704AWBR, is a 120/240 volts or 120 volts only? ( I'll be usiong it in Europe)
Thanks in advance for your help
Lawrence

1. RE: Wireless lan
lbyard Apr-17-02 11:04 AM
In response to message 0

The KISS principle detects that fewer boxes is better. I looked at the spec sheet on SMC's web site for the unit and it does not have the input AC power info on the converter. I would E-Mail them or call a local vendor. Larry

2. RE: Wireless lan
qajfat Apr-18-02 09:53 AM
In response to message 1

Hi Larry, I don't really know what the KISS principle is but I am assuming you think getting the wireles router would be a better solution. Thanks for your help. Lawrence

4. Definiton of the KISS Principle
lbyard Apr-18-02 12:12 PM
In response to message 2

KISS = Keep It Simple Silly = Keep It Simple Stupid = Keep It Stupidly Simple and other variations. Or, Simple is usually better than Complex and less prone to problems. Larry

5. RE: Definiton of the KISS Principle
qajfat Apr-18-02 03:47 PM
In response to message 4

Thanks Larry for your explanation. I guess as usual I'll follow your advise. Lawrence

12. Wired vs. Wireless
lbyard Apr-18-02 04:52 PM
In response to message 5

Well, I think I'll have a one last “word” of advice. I would not go wireless unless portability is a necessity. Wire is faster and more reliable than wireless (I presume from other experience since I have not done a wireless LAN). Lacking experience in this area, I'll rely on a quote:
"The specified transfer rate for 802.11b at close range (under 100 feet in an office environment) is 11Mbps, but this can drop to only 1Mbps as you approach 300 feet indoors. After coping with interference, system overhead, and other factors, real-world, close-range throughput for 802.11b is often 400 Kbps to 700 Kpbs. (Yes, that’s roughly five percent of the speed found with Ethernet and .5 percent of Fast Ethernet.)”
From page 6, Reseller Advocate Magazine, RAM:05
Although that speed may be OK for sharing an Internet connection and occasional file transfers, I know that it is far too slow for my taste from work I did testing phoneline networks (http://duxcw.com/digest/Reviews/Network/intel/anysum.htm and http://duxcw.com/digest/Reviews/Network/dlink/dhn910/dhn910.htm) for the usual things I do with networks. Also, it costs a lot more--if you run cable yourself and do not figure-in the one-time cost of the labor required to run it.
Guess I’m going to have to set one up and test it… don’t hold your breath.
I would very much like some more input on wireless networks from readers who have experience with them. Larry

13. RE: Wired vs. Wireless
qajfat Apr-19-02 11:47 AM
In response to message 12

Larry, once again thank you for making things clear. The fact is that I wil be using the wireless connection only for fun - sharing internet on my balcony where I have a great view! I would still used wired for anything else. Thanks again and keep the great work up!! Lawrence

14. RE: Wired vs. Wireless
BBATES Apr-19-02 04:34 PM
In response to message 13

They do have a new standard for the wireless lan that runs at 50Mbps. It is 802.11a
Fairly expensive, but it does give back some of the speed.