Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I have an old PII-400 machine that works great. It's currently connected to
my network with a PCI 10/100 NIC. I'd like to move it and connect it via
wireless.

Since it's USB 1.0, I don't seem to be able to use the USB to wireless
adapter. As best as I can tell, I'll need a PCI wireless NIC, like this
http://www.linksys.com/products/pr [...] &prid=621.

What I'd really like is to have an RJ-45 to wireless, like this:
http://www.linksys.com/products/pr [...] 6&prid=612, or
find a way to make this connect via USB 1.0.

Any suggestions?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I am using this Wireless USB Network Adapter on a PIII 550 machine and
it works fine

http://www.linksys.com/products/pr [...] 4&prid=435


Have it plugged into a Wireless-G Access Point

http://www.linksys.com/products/pr [...] 5&prid=608

and the WAP plugged into a Linksys BEFSR41 ver 2 router


your wasting your money if you go with 802.11g on USB 1.1

Tests I have done indicate even with USB 2.0 running on a windows 98
machine which is what i bet that PII of yours is running 802.11g
speeds wont be any faster than 802.11b speeds

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Here are results of test i did the other day



Downloading 100 meg file from Download.com

Wired Win XP DL was 226 kb/sec

Win 98 DL was 70 kb/sec


Win 98 802.11b DL was 70 kb/sec Done while using USB 1.1

802.11g DL was 70 kb/sec Done while using USB 1.1

802.11g DL was 75 kb/sec Done while using USB 2.0


Win XP 802.11g DL was 157 kb/sec Done while using USB 2.0

************************************************************

DSLREPORTS.COM Speed test 3 runs averaged



Wired XP Down 1418 Avg Up 144 Avg

Wired 98 Down 649 Avg Up 244 Avg

Win 98 802.11b Down 583 Avg Up 189 Avg Done while
using USB 1.1

802.11g Down 608 Avg Up 195 Avg Done
while using USB 1.1

802.11g Down 681 Avg Up 212 Avg Done
while using USB 2.0


Win XP 802.11g Down 1232 Avg Up 171 Avg Done while
using USB 2.0

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

This is exactly what I wanted to do originally. But My MB is an Asus P2B
440BX, which supports P-II.
I'm 95% certain it's USB 1.0, and the spec on this says USB 1.1 or better.

I was actually hoping somebody would say they've used this device on USB 1.0
and it worked fine. But
there must be a reason it supports only 1.1 or better.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"WJ" <wj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7E_yc.30384$1c4.29924@fed1read06...
> I have an old PII-400 machine that works great. It's currently connected
to
> my network with a PCI 10/100 NIC. I'd like to move it and connect it via
> wireless.
>
> Since it's USB 1.0, I don't seem to be able to use the USB to wireless
> adapter. As best as I can tell, I'll need a PCI wireless NIC, like this
> http://www.linksys.com/products/pr [...] &prid=621.
>
> What I'd really like is to have an RJ-45 to wireless, like this:
> http://www.linksys.com/products/pr [...] 6&prid=612, or
> find a way to make this connect via USB 1.0.

The above is not a RJ-45 to wireless solution but rather a USB solution.
What wireless components do you have now in your network? A wireless router
like a WRT54G?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The 1.0 slipped by me, had 1.1 on the brain. I have looked all over
net for specific specks on that boards USB and even the manual itself
and none mentions its speed.


Why not just toss a 2.0 card in it and do your thing.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:45:15 -0700, "WJ" <wj@nospam.com> wrote:

>I have an old PII-400 machine that works great. It's currently connected to
>my network with a PCI 10/100 NIC. I'd like to move it and connect it via
>wireless.
>
>Since it's USB 1.0, I don't seem to be able to use the USB to wireless
>adapter.

Why?
Most do not need or use USB2. USB1 data rate exceeds the data rate of a
wireless adapter.


As best as I can tell, I'll need a PCI wireless NIC, like this
>http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&scid=36&prid=621.

That or one of the other makes.

>
>What I'd really like is to have an RJ-45 to wireless, like this:
>http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&scid=36&prid=612, or
>find a way to make this connect via USB 1.0.

The internal PCI card will be faster, providing you have a good signal
strength. If you really _need_ the USB2 version for some reason, there
are USB2 PCI cards you could plop into the system for about $15. Best
prices are generally online, places like http://www.newegg.com

If you're springing for 802.11g anyway, you might consider some of the
makes with the "2X" feature, doubling the througput. I thought Linksys
made some of those as well, but do know other makes like D-Link have
products that support this, but it is proprietary, you can't assume two
different makes will use same "2X" method, be compatible beyond their
802.11g 54Mb speed (which will still be compatible of course).

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I either need a USB 2.0 card and get the device you linked to,
or a new NIC. I really didn't want to put any money into this box.
I could always use the external Wireless connector with another machine
in the future. But any new system I put together in the future will almost
surely
have USB 2.0 (at least) already.


I was hoping that the device you linked to would work with USB 1.0. :-)

Ah well, it's just money, right? :-)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> The above is not a RJ-45 to wireless solution but rather a USB solution.
> What wireless components do you have now in your network? A wireless
router
> like a WRT54G?


I don't have anything yet. Planning it now. I want to put one computer and
a printer on the wireless
network. I know the device I linked to is not RJ-45. But I was looking for
something just like it,
but with an RJ-45 connector instead of a USB connector. The machine I have
already has a 10/100 NIC
in it. If I found a device that's like this, except with an RJ-45, I'm
done.

Otherwise, I have to buy a new PCI NIC, or a USB 2.0 card and the device
Hawkeye is using.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> Why?
> Most do not need or use USB2. USB1 data rate exceeds the data rate of a
> wireless adapter.

Because this device
(http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=36&scid=44&prid=435)
says it supports only USB 1.1, not 1.0.

I don't know enough about the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 to know if it
will work or not.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:38:40 -0700, "WJ" <wj@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>> Why?
>> Most do not need or use USB2. USB1 data rate exceeds the data rate of a
>> wireless adapter.
>
>Because this device
>(http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=36&scid=44&prid=435)
>says it supports only USB 1.1, not 1.0.
>
>I don't know enough about the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 to know if it
>will work or not.
>

But are you sure you don't have USB1.1?
What motherboard, chipset?

USB network adapters often have the advantage of getting the antenna out
from behind the system so it has better range, but as for system function,
a PCI card is a better alternative. Best alternative would then be a
combination, the PCI card with a corded antenna... unfortuately most
places still want an arm and a leg for a few feet of coax with a couple of
SMA connectors on it.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> But are you sure you don't have USB1.1?
> What motherboard, chipset?

Asus P2B 440 BX. With a Pentium II-400 CPU

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:04:35 -0700, "WJ" <wj@nospam.com> wrote:

>> But are you sure you don't have USB1.1?
>> What motherboard, chipset?
>
>Asus P2B 440 BX. With a Pentium II-400 CPU
>
>

It does appear to have USB 1.0. though I'm suspecting the Network Adapter
would still work on USB1... The two were pretty similar, it was USB 1.1's
goal to keep interoperability between the two, I thought it was
bascially just a refinement, more detail provided, that given a particular
port that came out prior to the USB 1.1 spec, would be called USB 1.0, but
if same port had been released after USB 1.1 spec came out, would then be
a USB 1.1 port... not entirely sure about that but it was the impression I
had.

Even so unless you anticipate great distance from point to point you might
be as well off with a PCI card.