"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:k92lv2901anceic8v6ln2mjspms5oaonfj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:19 GMT, "Pete" <not@this.address>
> wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I'm looking to set up a wireless network and I'm a bit lost.
>
> First is to define what you need, like range, security, etc.
>
>
>>
>>My PC has a 2MB connection to Virgin Media(Telewest) via a DSL Surfboard
>>SB3100 cable modem. I also have an imac G3 400mhz with an ethernet socket
>>that wants to share the internet access.
>
> You mean you want it to? Because in general it would
> probably rather be connected to a router to share internet
> acess, which is more reliable, more secure, and relieves the
> burden of having to have that system running for some other
> to use the internet connection.
>
> Fortunately, wifi "routers" which are actually combo devices
> of router/switch/access-point, are perhaps the most common
> and oddly enough, often no more expensive than devices which
> only have a fraction of the features.
>
>
>>
>>I was told the best thing would be to get a wireless router and plug it
>>into
>>my existing cable modem, then connect the router via cable to my PC. Then
>>get a wireless ethernet bridge for the iMac to connect to the wireless
>>router.
>
> Modem->Wifi Router-> Wired and wireless systems.
>
> Whether you want your PC or iMac to connect by wire or
> wirelessly to the wifi router is up to you. You need no
> wireless ethernet bridge per se, just a wireless network
> adapter in each system that will connect wirelessly instead
> of using wires.
>
> You "could", in theory, get a wireless bridge to connect the
> iMac instead of a more typical PCI or USB wifi card, but
> unless you have a very long distance or very noisey 2.4GHz
> environment (like a lot of very nearby neighbors in an
> apartment building also using wifi), you aren't likely to
> need the bridge, the benefit to it is mostly that with an
> extrenal bridge type device you have a stronger send and
> receive signal - but most people don't need it.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>The thing is that from a quick look around, wireless ethernet bridges seem
>>to be quite expsensive at the moment and it seems I can get a "Buffalo
>>Airstation G54 Wireless Cable/DSL Smart Router " for the same price if not
>>less.
>
> Many wifi routers support bridging. It seems price is
> mainly a function of sales volume, that by buying the
> multifunction device (wifi router) that is most popular, you
> get it all for same or lower cost.
>
>
>
>>So i thought why not get 2 of them, connect one to the iMac, one to
>>the PC and let them chat.
>
> To me this makes no sense, you should just use one as a
> router and do as mentioned previously, a PCI or USB card.
> "IF" you wanted to use them in bridged mode, I'd set one up
> as the router, not shared from the PC, then set the other up
> as a bridge to it.
>
> This is just for typical usage, you don't mention any unique
> requirements.
>
>
>>The marketing information on the Buffalo Router
>>states "In addition to fast wireless performance, WHR-G54S features a
>>built-in external switch between wireless router and wireless bridge
>>access
>>point."
>
> That router will do the task, yes. It will be even more
> versatile if you flashed it to run "DD-WRT" (Google will
> find info), though DD-WRT is a bit advanced, the features
> might be overwhelming for someone not accustomed to
> configuring a wifi network.
>
> Also look into the Buffalo WHR-HP-G54, which is essentially
> the same thing but with a better antenna and higher signal
> strength. It paired with DD-WRT is a very powerful
> combination, but the stronger the signal the more important
> security is - otherwise you might find neighbors a house or
> two, or several walls away, can access it too.
>
>
>
>>
>>Would someone please confirm that this is saying what I think it is
>>saying?
>>Does this mean I could buy 2 of these and connected one to the existing
>>cable modem as a wireless router and connected the other one to the iMac
>>but
>>flick a switch on trhe imac router so that it acts as a wireless ethernet
>>bridge?
>
> You can buy two and set it up like that, but that's not what
> I thought you meant when I wrote "to me this makes no
> sense..." above as you'd written to connect one to the PC,
> as if you were going to use the PC for the internet
> connection sharing still, not using either router as a
> router but only as two wifi bridges.
>
> Yes you should get at least one wifi router like the
> WHR-G54S, and then you can either get a second one and use
> the second one as a bridge, or what I'd suggested above,
> that unless you expect atypically low performance due to
> some problem on-site, just get a PCI or USB wifi network
> adapter for the iMac (if there isn't one built in already,
> this i don't know).
>
>
>
>>I am assuming the ethernet bridge/router would work without me
>>having to install or configure anything on the iMac.
>
> Depends a bit on how it's currently configured, I plead
> ignorance to whether it will automatically reconfig itself
> to do this, but in general it is possible, not unlikely.
>
> However, as mentioned above you probably dont need a bridge
> configuration, bridges are more often to connect two
> networks, not just add one PC or MAC... for each individual
> system on a wifi network it is more typical, and usually
> cheaper and less intrusive (due to smaller networking device
> than a router is at the system/desk) to just get a wifi
> network adapter. Since the WHR-G54S supports up to 802.11g,
> keep that in mind. Well it might support 108Mbps mode with
> other Buffalo adapters, that I don't recall, but you will at
> some point have to decide if you want to spend more money
> for a MIMO type with longer range, or a pre-N with higher
> speed & range. To a certain extent speed depends on signal
> strength, getting a 54Mbps capable router means only that
> you get near(er) 54MBps (actually lower but as a starting
> reference point...) but the poorer the signal, the more the
> speed drops. For internet access and small file copying on
> the LAN this will not be a problem but if you had large
> files, like multimedia (video) sharing ongoing between the
> two systems, 802.11g is a little weak/slow for that, in
> which case I'd look at a "pre-N" router and network adapter
> for the iMac.
>
>>
>>I Hope what I have said makes sense as I'm not a network expert
>>
>>Would someone also confirm that I can physicaly connect my pc to the
>>router
>>rather than have a wirelesss connection?
>
> Yes absolutely, the router has a wired ethernet switch built
> in, you can connect (it's either 4 or 5, I forget which)
> cables to other systems or even other switches then even
> more other systems to expand a larger wired network from it,
> in addition to the wireless clients that connect.
>
> You might check out some basic wifi networking tutorials,
> Google will find some. I suppose the main point I can
> confirm as to your questions is "yes" any of the things
> mentioned are possible with that router. It's primary
> drawback is that it's only 80211g, not pre-N or MIMO, but
> these latter two cost more and you may not (or might, we
> can't know what speed or longer ranges you might need for
> your uses) need the extra speed. "Most" people just setting
> up a basic wifi network to get internet access and light
> file sharing can do so fine with that router. Typically the
> weaker link is the networking adpater used at the client end
> (the iMac), some have a lot of walls or noisey environment
> and will have more problems or lower speed than others.
>
> To get the maximum possible performance at any reasonable
> price, you would get two pre-N routers, and add-on
> directional antennas. This is a roughly $300 proposition,
> versus about $40 USB for the WHR-G54S plus $20 for a 802.11g
> PCI or USB network adapter for the iMac. Then again, I
> don't know how much more an adapter might cost for iMac
> versus PCs. Two WHR-G54S is not a bad idea, I didnt mean to
> discourage that, it's just a little bit more expensive.

Wow, thanks for the detailed response. I have checked out the higer speed
version of this device and decided i will go for that model if I decide to
go ahead with the plan.

To clarify; this is what I want to do; buy 2 of the WHR-HP-G54 wireless
routers, connect one to the existing cable modem as a wireless router and
connect the other one to the ethernet port on the iMac but flick a switch on
trhe imac router so that it acts as a wireless ethernet bridge

With the old iMac I have there is only one expansion slot for a dedicated
wireless adapter no other PCI slots or anything like that. I have been told
these specialized wireless cards are really expensive so essentially there
is no way to add wireless to the imac internally unless I want to pay a lot.
It may be able to use a USB device but I have also been told that there are
compatibility problems with these old iMacs. Certainly looking around on
ebay i can not find any USB wireless devices which explicitly state that
they support apple macs and you can bet that if you do find one it will be a
lot more expensive than the PC equivilant. This is why i was advised to get
a wireless ethernet bridge. It may be that all the USB devices would work, I
don't know but if they do why wouldn't the specs say so when they do say
they are compatible with 98, ME XP etc.

My logic in buying two WHR-HP-G54 wireless routers units instead of say, one
WHR-HP-G54 wireless router and one of the Buffalo WLI-TX4-G54HP Ethernet
controllers is as follows:
1) I have found a supplier who can sell me two WHR-HP-G54 wireless routers
for £10 UK less than I can buy one WHR-HP-G54 Wireless router and a
WLI-TX4-G54HP Ethernet controller. So it's the cheaper option.

2) I don't know that much about networking but it looks to me like the
WHR-HP-G54 wireless router has more features and flexibility than the
WLI-TX4-G54HP Ethernet controller and therefore may prove to be more future
proof / useful especially if I change the network configuration in the
future.

3) I assume that when the external switch is flicked on the WHR-HP-G54
wireless router to turn it into a wireless Ethernet bridge, it will
essentially become something like a WLI-TX4-G54HP Ethernet controller.

Does what I am doing make more sense now? I may as well get the more fully
featured hardware especially if I can pay less for it and it will do the
same job, have a stronger signal and give me more future upgarde options.

Will it work thought?

Thansk

pete

>
> So really it's do-able many different ways, it's just up to
> you to decide which you need.
>
>
>
>>Here's the marketing blurb:
>>
>
> <snipped out>
>
> I have a WHR-HP-G54, it does fine but I dont even remember
> the menu settings from the Buffalo firmware as I immediately
> flashed mine to DD-WRT. I vaguely recall people saying it
> worked ok with the Buffalo firmware but to me it is better
> to have more features even if they're not *all* used.
>