Computing.Net > Forums > Networking > Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5

Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5

Reply to Message Icon

Original Message
Name: Esse
Date: February 23, 2001 at 12:05:49 Pacific
Subject: Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5
Comment:

I work for a private school and we are in the process of moving. The owner of the school wants to go completly wireless when we make the move. I'm concerned about security issues and access time of data transfers. The company who is bidding for the job states that these are not issues that I need to be concerned about, but I am the Administer of the Network so I feel these are valid concerns. Any advice will be appreciated. Right now we are running a Tl and have been for the last 3 years and I have minimal problems.


Report Offensive Message For Removal

Response Number 1
Name: Peer
Date: February 23, 2001 at 13:14:28 Pacific
Subject: Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5
Reply: (edit)

Wireless is slower and more expensive, you may experiance problems if too far from a reciever, but is usefulll if you have a bunch of laptops running around. A lot of stationary desktops would work fine on a Cat5 network.

With ethernet, if you use hubs all packets are transmitted to all nodes so passwords can be easily sniffed. With Switches it only goes to the required one resulting in increased speeds and security.

Maybe have land lines for computerlabs, etc and a couple wireless.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 2
Name: joe
Date: February 23, 2001 at 20:41:44 Pacific
Subject: Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5
Reply: (edit)

Peer's answer is complete, I would also suggest ethernet unless you will be implementing portable labs.

However, I don't think you should impliment cat5, it has been all but replaced by cat5e. I would also strongly consider cat6, most reputable cable manufactures are guarenteeing thier cat6 will meet specs when published.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 3
Name: Gman
Date: February 27, 2001 at 12:59:14 Pacific
Subject: Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5
Reply: (edit)

I agree with the other two ethernet is the way to go. Wireless in more of a pain then its worth. Its slow more expensive and can be very suseptble to interference. I done my own wireless networking as well as building my own wireless network from scratch for a project in college. It was nothing but a pain. Ethernet is more reliable and less of a pain once the hard part of running the cable is done.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 4
Name: bob
Date: April 10, 2001 at 19:22:28 Pacific
Subject: Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5
Reply: (edit)

Today we use networks as a means of communication, sharing files, and sharing other data. We use mostly UTP Cat 5 (Unshielded Twisted Pair Category 5) cable to connect computers to form a network. But what if it was possible to connect with out using cables and wires. Would this make an impact on the networking world? Wireless computer networks let you access all of the network resources that you have rights to without conventional network cabling. WLANs (wireless local-area networks) give users freedom and mobility as well as connectivity away from the wired LANs (local-area networks).
Wireless networks rely on equipment that uses radio frequencies to transmit and receive data between computers. Wireless networks offer all of the functionality of wired networks plus the mobility of simplified network installation because there are no wires to run between networked computers. New nodes (client computers) are easily added to a wireless network without calling in a wiring specialist to run network cables through your walls. With wireless networking components, you simply install the wireless networking adapter into a computer that needs to access the network.
Wireless computer networks not only provide many advantages over LANs, they are sometimes a necessity. If you need to install a computer network, and running conventional network cabling, such as Cat 5 (the standard computer networking cable), is too costly because of structural hurdles, a WLAN may be the only option.
Wireless networking components made not long ago would only work with equipment from the same manufacturer. In other words, you could not go and purchase a wireless access point (a wireless network hub) from one vendor and use a wireless network adapter from another vendor on the same system. A new standard called 802.11, or WI-FI, has be developed to offer interoperability among wireless networking equipment. WECA (Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance), made up of several large companies such as 3Com, Lucent, and Cisco, sets the standard and tests products from various manufacturers to make sure that new products conform to the WI-FI standard. Before the WI-FI standard, companies created their own wireless networking protocols for use with their own equipment. This forced users to stick with the same company’s equipment and did not permit network connections between office or campus networks that used different brands of wireless networking equipment. Besides creating compatibility between brands, WI-FI has forced wireless networking manufacturers into pricing competition with one another, lowering the cost to end users and making wireless technology an affordable alternative to hard-wired computer networks. If you own a WI-FI approved network access point from company A, and company B puts a wireless network adapter on sale, you can feel confident that your new wireless network adapter will work with the access point and wireless network you already own.
The hardware needed for wireless networking includes an access point, various types of client adapters, and possibly a wireless bridge. Access points are generally connected to a conventional hard-wired computer network via a standard CAT 5 cable allowing for connection to both 10Mbps (megabits per second) and 100Mbps networks. Once connected, wireless access points allow access to information or a network server that is located on the hard-wired LAN.

Multiple access points on your network give you greater wireless coverage. When using multiple access points, wireless network users can walk between wireless coverage areas without any problems. Access points are capable of “handing-over” users to other access points that provide better reception. For example: If a user is in the middle of surfing the Web on a notebook computer and passes between wireless coverage zones, the user would have no interruption in Internet service, and the transition between zones would be transparent to the user browsing the Web.

Wireless client devices are available as PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) cards, ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) cards, and PCMCIA (Personal Computer Memory Card International Association) cards for laptops. As prices continue to fall for wireless networking, products and demand for them keep growing. It won’t be long before computer manufacturers start bundling wireless network adapters with new systems.
After a wireless network adapter is installed into a computer, the computer treats it just like any other network adapter, letting you bind normal network protocols and client software to it. One of the latest trends in wireless networking involves no “true” antenna as found in former wireless networking gear. Wireless networking components work using the same 2.4GHz frequency range used by long-range cordless telephones, which allows the networking signal to travel through walls and other obstacles. This high frequency rate lets users go up to 300 feet from a centrally located access point.

Wireless bridges are typically used to connect two hard-wired computer networks at distances of up to 1 mile. Long-range wireless bridges are commonly used to connect office buildings, allowing users in the different locations access to a corporate network. If you need to connect LANs wirelessly, you will require two bridges and antennas (one for each site). Wireless network bridges are normally connected to an antenna that is mounted outdoors with a clear line of site to the other bridge’s antenna, located at the other site.

When choosing wireless networking equipment, it is a good idea to stick with some of the larger wireless vendors such as 3Com, Lucent, Cisco, and Nokia. Wireless network access points run $750 and up. PCI wireless networking adapters (for desktops) and PC Cards (for notebook computers) run between $200 and $300 each. Wireless bridges are more expensive than the other wireless networking gear and run $1,500 and up, depending on what is required to achieve the distance between the networks to be connected
While wireless networks are getting faster and improving over the wireless networking products that were available just a few years ago, none of the wireless products on the market compare in performance to a typical hard-wired 100Mb (megabit) Ethernet network in terms of price and performance, as well as speed and reliability. Networking components for 100Mb networks still cost only a fraction of the price of new wireless networking equipment.

While the price has been coming down, wireless networking adapters still cost up to four times the amount of standard 100Mb Ethernet adapters. Wireless networks are great for reaching those hard-to-cable areas and for giving users the freedom to move around the office. But desktop computers that remain stationary and can have standard Cat 5 cabling wired to them have no need of wireless technology and should be kept on a cabled network.

If you are installing a small network and running wires from your computers to a central location where installing a network hub is not out of the question—do it. Until wireless technology catches up with the throughput and reliability of conventional hard-wired networks, it is more suited to users who demand mobility than for general use.


Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal







Use following form to reply to current message:

   Name: From My Computing.Net Settings
 E-Mail: From My Computing.Net Settings

Subject: Wireless Network vs Wired CAT5 

Comments:

 


  Homepage URL (*): 
Homepage Title (*): 
         Image URL: 
 
Data Recovery Software