|
My house is set up so that the wireless router is downstairs, with my desktop and laptop upstairs in my room. My desktop has a wireless card, as well as a wired connection; my laptop has just a wireless card. Considering the distance from my router to my room (plus the barriers of walls and the floor), and the fact that my laptop is right next to my desktop, would it be faster for me to set up an ad hoc network broadcasting from my desktop, and connect my laptop to the internet that way, or am I better off just connecting my laptop to the router?
showing 5 of 7
show all
|
|
I personally would connect directly to the router so you would not hog the bandwidth of the desktop. I'm not sure about speed though. I'm pretty sure they would be about the same speed though. |
|
Adhoc is a network topology, Wi-Fi is a form of network communication. Adhoc doesn't imply speed, Wi-Fi does. Wi-Fi doesn't imply network topology, Adhoc does. You can't really compare the two, unless you're comparing them by semantics ("what they mean") as opposed to functionality (or "speed"). Okay, I guess I had the purpose of an ad hoc network wrong. I was assuming that an ad hoc network was the same as wifi, just broadcast from a computer as opposed to a router. Therefore I assumed that being closer to the connection source would result in a stronger signal strength, and therefore higher connection speed. You might be correct, however adhoc is a topology. Think of it in the way of a diagram. A star network has a central hub or switch, and is represented as a star diagram... this is what you're referring to as "wifi", and it's the most common type of network. An adhoc network is one that has no central hub or switch, and requires little planning, and is represented as... well it could look like anything! when a computer connects to another computer a line is drawn. Add another computer and another line is drawn... Okay, that makes sense. So the main difference is the origin of the signal. While wifi has a set point from where the signal is broadcast, ad hoc jumps from computer to computer to computer. Is that right? Correct. If you have 4 computers in an adhoc line (though it may not necessarily be a line at all), going from one end to the other might require going through the 2 middle computers. If they're in a star network, then you only go through the 1 middle computer (which is a router) so your ping might be a bit lower... If you just have 2 computers, then the router (1 middle computer) would lead to a ping that might be a bit higher than if it were just the adhoc network without a router in between... There are other things to consider, but this is the basic... Alright, thanks. So it seems that it will just be faster and easier for me to connect directly to the router. Plus, this way, I don't have to keep my desktop turned on to be able to connect to the internet on my laptop. Correct. Routers are fairly efficient little beasts anyway. You likely won't notice a difference. I've been thinking of running an IRCd on my router for some time now :P Oh, there's a neat idea. I probably wouldn't be able to pull that off, as I'm not good at getting people to join websites I set up, not to mention IRC channels. Anyway, I guess I'll go with connecting to the router, and hopefully I'll be able to set up my second router upstairs with minimal problems. :P You shouldn't need a second router, unless your rooms are lined with chicken mesh or lead or something strange like that. The wireless signal that my router throws is good for 20-30 metres with 3 brick walls in between! Yes, I've actually tried it :P Really? Wow, okay. But even so, if I place the second router in my room, and use it as a hub for the wired connection, then I can get a higher connection speed without having to go out and buy an actual hub.
showing 5 of 9
show all
|
|
i think it would be a lot better if you just go and buy a router (preferably the same with the one you already have, or just the same brand, for compatibility ) and set it up upstairs connect it to the one you have already with the cable that is already installed and this way you will have excellent signal at both floors plus the ability to connect an extra 20 devices on the wireless and no (internal network) speed sacrifice needed there also it will be a very clean network a bit hard to manage unless you use the UPNP technologie that will make your life so much more easy. P.S. i have that setup with 3 router on 3 floors and my network/NAS/stream/downloader pc directry connected on the main router. work like a charm and everyone in the house can have excellent signal at all times and if someone needs a speed boost for a file transfer just plugs a cable in a router. |
|
Ad-hoc networks are just temporary networks. If you are going on the Internet constantly, it's best to use a router. |
|
1
I don't actually like that technology. There are too many potential issues. 1. Completely incompatible with solar grid inverters and UPS systems. Could be incompatible with other devices too. 2. Slows down when you run the washing machine. 3. Possible network signal reaching neighbours (though pretty unlikely I reckon). 4. Lightning strike could be harmful, coupled with the fact that surge protectors strip the signal thus removing the purpose of the device. Yeh, that about summarizes it... |
I recommend checking out 
|
I would have to go with wifi, It can pretty much get to any speed you want and ad hoc gets set to a certain speed. |
|
I understand what you mean by Ad Hoc vs. WiFi. For the Ad Hoc, you're having your desktop receive through LAN and output through wireless, so that your laptop could grab that network. For your WiFi, you're saying just connect straight to your base station. I currently have way too many computers (mostly old ones) down in this room and I regularly use two: My laptop, and my Mac Mini. Since my home wireless network doesn't play well with Apple devices, I had to hard wire my Mini to a router that goes upstairs to the main base station which broadcasts the WiFi. I had previously tried having my laptop, also hardwired, broadcast a signal for all wireless computers in this room, but Vista, then 7, kept disconnecting the network when it shut down without reconnecting upon reboot, so I would have to set it up every day. So now I have both my regularly used computers wired and I have my Mac Mini's Airport card broadcasting a wireless N network - faster than the G that is the main router. I have my iPod Touch connected to the Mini's network, since it gets disconnected from the regular network, being an Apple device. I experience just about the same speed on both networks, and my Mini's speed doesn't suffer at all. I think it's because my DSL speed is so slow. Any WiFi can go faster than my actual connection to the Internet, so G/N still have bandwidth to spare. The ethernet is 100mbps, so that's more than fast enough for almost 100 devices to run on one line. (Yes, the DSL is THAT slow!) So honestly, it depends on how easy it will be to keep the "Ad Hoc" network running. If it's automated, like on my Mini, then why not. If you find that it slows down stuff, then just go back to how it is normally. |
|
If your desktop is wired to the router why not just get a switch? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166034 ^^^^ 10$ i have one of these when im at school in my apt i use it to connect my 2 laptops and ps3 |
Thumbs down? Did I do something wrong?
If I am reading correctly, I am assuming your desktop is hardwired to your router. I would get a cheap switch or hub, put it in your room and hard wire the lap top too, if you are experience low/weak wireless signal. Another option if you are wired to your room would be get another wireless router and set it up as an access point in your room. You could keep your desktop wired by plugging into the new router/switch. You should be able to do both options for under $50.
I have considered getting a hub for my room, but my laptop isn't always there, and I didn't want to spend close to $50 just for the times when it was. However, I might pull out an old router that's in the attic and try to set it up for upstairs.
I do not know what router you have, but most routers if you turn off "Automatic DHCP" they will work find as a switch.
The router that I'm using now is a Netgear, and the one I've got in my attic is a Belkin. I can't remember, but I'd imagine that the Belkin's got the option to turn off the automatic DHCP. I'll have to pull it out and look, though.
There is other configuration you need to do before turning off auto DHCP... In fact, most of the time you don't need to turn off auto DHCP, you can just configure a static IP and the router will be fine with that. If you turn off DHCP before you configure the other settings you may not be able to access the internet ;) This is why I like to get the settings from ipconfig before I disable DHCP
Oh, okay. Thanks! I probably would have screwed that up if I just jumped in and started messing with the router settings. I have a tendency to do that with stuff, and it usually doesn't end up working out too well :P