Wireless Vs. Ethernet Cord

V

vividvv

New Member
My main computer is a desktop, but there is another computer in my house about 100 ft away in another room.

Which would provide for a more powerful, reliable connecion?

Running ethernet cord through my attic attached to my Lynksys hub on my main computer?
OR
Buying a Lynksys wireless device to install into my 2nd computer, and use my Wireless-G 2.4GHz, 54Mbps Broadband Router that i already have?

My computer 2nd computer (the one i'm trying to get internet to) is a 2007 Vista with 3gb Ram.

If you need any more information, please post
 
If your running verizon fios or something, 100 ft is a joke. I'm not aware of your connection speeds but im sure you will have no real issue. Just don't expect the speed that you would get from a 3ft CAT5 cord haha. Although im sure even that would be hard to notice...
 
^ Ditto :)

The longest distance I have is +/- 70 feet running under my house, and it's three separate lengths of cable as opposed to one continuous run. I have no issues with speed whatsoever. Plus, easier to troubleshoot (wireless irks me).
 
My dad talked to some guy at best buy, and another at&t guy (not reliable sources in my opinion) and they both said that wireless would be the best bet.

I still like the wired idea, but i'm just looking for everyones input.

Thanks!
 
Wireless reduces less cable hassle and stuff, but the connection can be poor at times... and it's only 54MPB/s unless you have a 108MBP/s router...
 
We have a wireless network and it drives me CRAZY the thing is so unreliable it's funny. Go wired you will me much happier.
 
Yep, go wired Im having slowing issues with my sister's comp which has a wireless network card and her internet is slow most of the time.

And wire will always work!
 
FWIW, I just spent about 4 hours troubleshooting a friend's wireless network. Going through settings on each computer, multiple resets, 2 would work, then one fails...not pretty. The same problem on a wired network I would have had in about 15 minutes. I will always have some form of wired network in my home. Even with a secured wireless network, it's somewhat easy (not your average person can do it, but someone with a decent know-how can) to cut in and leech off it.
 
jimkonow said:
buy a cat6 cable...its faster than cat5 or cat5e
Click to expand...
not true... at least not at the moment anyway... cat5e is mroe than capable of tx/rx of 10/100/1000 its not only Cat6 that does gigabit networking. Saying that, to even get gigiabit you would need a router/switch/hub that supports it, along with a gigabit NIC for your PC, so for the moment there is no real world benefit of getting Cat6 cable, it just costs more
 
Having a longer wire would not decrease the internet speed. That just doesn't make sense at all. It's not like there isn't a cable cord running through your entire house from a cable line outside and then all the way to the cable company. An extra 100ft of cable wouldn't make a difference.

In my opinion, if you know how to deal with wireless hardware then it is much easier to use instead of dropping cables everywhere. I recently set up a wireless-draft-n connection and i'm about 80ft from the router and i'm still getting a 100% signal. downloads are at full speed as well (which isn't very fast where i am at the moment, it's capped at 350kb/s and 25kb/s upload.) If you really want as much bandwidth as you can get (ie for downloading lots of things at high rates) then get wireless-n but if you are just doing it to browse the web from not too far of a distance i'd say get wireless-g.
 
nexolus said:
Having a longer wire would not decrease the internet speed. That just doesn't make sense at all. It's not like there isn't a cable cord running through your entire house from a cable line outside and then all the way to the cable company. An extra 100ft of cable wouldn't make a difference.
Click to expand...
It would, and it does.... but not 100ft, that is a common misconception from people using the wrong measurement units, it's 100m (300ft) after which length you will need a repeater. I see where you're coming from saying that the cable is still there and theres no reason for it to degrade the connection speed, but it does, mainly due to the noise (electrical noise, not audible silly...) that is introduced when cables this long are used...

Just like you're not really supposed to have USB cables over 5m long without an active repeater in line with them, there is also an upper limit for VGA aswell, but i cant remember the number off the top of my head.
 
dragon2309 said:
It would, and it does.... but not 100ft, that is a common misconception from people using the wrong measurement units, it's 100m (300ft) after which length you will need a repeater. I see where you're coming from saying that the cable is still there and theres no reason for it to degrade the connection speed, but it does, mainly due to the noise (electrical noise, not audible silly...) that is introduced when cables this long are used...

Just like you're not really supposed to have USB cables over 5m long without an active repeater in line with them, there is also an upper limit for VGA aswell, but i cant remember the number off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

even if there is a decent amount of basic electrical noise interfering with a 1000ft cable it probably won't be enough to change your d/l speeds noticeably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top