Broadband

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting conflicting
advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging their equipment
than anything else.

My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the same
broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both PCs on
broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?) cable and using
the ordinary modem.

I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is the
right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS is Win.XPPro
(SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The ethernet card will be a must,the connection to the modem looks like a
telephone jack,but is much larger.2 cards,one modem w/cable,youre set.
A router would give you a dual connection at one time,plus an added firewall.

"annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com" wrote:

> Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
> broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting conflicting
> advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging their equipment
> than anything else.
>
> My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the same
> broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
> transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both PCs on
> broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?) cable and using
> the ordinary modem.
>
> I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is the
> right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS is Win.XPPro
> (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com" <annonymous@fsnet.cvo.uk>
wrote in news:OXmRYNsVFHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

> Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide
> us with broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am
> getting conflicting advice from the ISPs who are more interested
> in flogging their equipment than anything else.
>
> My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on
> the same broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must
> have a radio transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me
> that I can have both PCs on broadband by connecting one to the
> other with a Ethernet(?) cable and using the ordinary modem.
>
> I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me
> which is the right advice or give me another solution to the
> problem? MY OS is Win.XPPro (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.
>
>
>
>
If you choose an ISP that supplies a BT Voyager 205 ADSL Router
instead of a modem, you can connect two PCs. One is via Ethernet,
the other USB. BT, PlusNet and Bulldog supply it, no doubt there
are others. Otherwise, buy an ADSL modem router - you could then
use wireless or wired connections to your PCs.

Don't fart around with internet connection sharing solutions -
flaky and requires first PC to be booted for the second PC to get a
connection.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
> Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
> broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting
> conflicting advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging
> their equipment than anything else.
>
> My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the
> same broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
> transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both
> PCs on broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?)
> cable and using the ordinary modem.
>
> I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is
> the right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS
> is Win.XPPro (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.

Go wireless. I have two systems connected via a Netgear 834GT hub -
fantastically reliable and a 'no-brainer' to set up. I can share
everything - files, printers, drives, etc., too. Cost? £100 including a
wireless card for the other system.

--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <LZHge.36681$a25.31092@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
test@test.com says...
> annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
> > Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
> > broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting
> > conflicting advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging
> > their equipment than anything else.
> >
> > My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the
> > same broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
> > transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both
> > PCs on broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?)
> > cable and using the ordinary modem.
> >
> > I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is
> > the right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS
> > is Win.XPPro (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.
>
> Go wireless. I have two systems connected via a Netgear 834GT hub -
> fantastically reliable and a 'no-brainer' to set up. I can share
> everything - files, printers, drives, etc., too. Cost? £100 including a
> wireless card for the other system.

Advising someone to "Go Wireless" without including STRONG warnings
about security is like telling people that Floride is good for them.

Wireless should be avoided except where no other solution is possible.
It's slower than wired, lots slower, prone to signal losses, is open and
exposed by default (most vendors products).....

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ced42202ef9a28f9896fe@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
In article <LZHge.36681$a25.31092@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
test@test.com says...
> annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
> > Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
> > broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting
> > conflicting advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging
> > their equipment than anything else.
> >
> > My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the
> > same broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
> > transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both
> > PCs on broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?)
> > cable and using the ordinary modem.
> >
> > I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is
> > the right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS
> > is Win.XPPro (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.
>
> Go wireless. I have two systems connected via a Netgear 834GT hub -
> fantastically reliable and a 'no-brainer' to set up. I can share
> everything - files, printers, drives, etc., too. Cost? £100 including a
> wireless card for the other system.

Advising someone to "Go Wireless" without including STRONG warnings
about security is like telling people that Floride is good for them.

Wireless should be avoided except where no other solution is possible.
It's slower than wired, lots slower, prone to signal losses, is open and
exposed by default (most vendors products).....

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Wireless is slower than wired for the LAN. It is more than fast enough for
consumer broadband. I have worked on many ADSL and cable internet connection
wired and wireless and have yet to be able to tell which I'm using. I have
my house wired upstairs with a wireless link to downstairs. I can do
streaming audio with 256 bit mp3s and be working on/repairing two computers
downstairs with the computers downloading windows updates all through the
wireless link and have no noticeable slowdown. This is with a D-Link router
and D-Link wireless bridge which run at 22 Mbps. Wireless-G would be even
faster.

I agree with your warning about security. I can see three other wireless
networks right now. Mine is the only one with any security.

Kerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

95% of broadband routers DO NOT have firewalls in them. Don't confuse
a firewall with broadband routers that provide NAT. They are NOT the
same thing.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:51:03 -0700, Andrew E. <eckrichco@msn.com>
wrote:

> The ethernet card will be a must,the connection to the modem looks like a
> telephone jack,but is much larger.2 cards,one modem w/cable,youre set.
> A router would give you a dual connection at one time,plus an added firewall.
>
>"annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com" wrote:
>
>> Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
>> broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting conflicting
>> advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging their equipment
>> than anything else.
>>
>> My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the same
>> broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
>> transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both PCs on
>> broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?) cable and using
>> the ordinary modem.
>>
>> I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is the
>> right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS is Win.XPPro
>> (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:36:54 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <LZHge.36681$a25.31092@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
>test@test.com says...
>> annonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
>> > Very shortly my telephone exchange will be upgraded to provide us with
>> > broadband facility. Trying to prepare for this I am getting
>> > conflicting advice from the ISPs who are more interested in flogging
>> > their equipment than anything else.
>> >
>> > My problem is that I have two PC (one a standby). I want both on the
>> > same broadband. One ISP advises me that to do this I must have a radio
>> > transmitter and a PC Icode(?) The other tells me that I can have both
>> > PCs on broadband by connecting one to the other with a Ethernet(?)
>> > cable and using the ordinary modem.
>> >
>> > I would be very grateful for someone in the know to tell me which is
>> > the right advice or give me another solution to the problem? MY OS
>> > is Win.XPPro (SP2) and I live in UK.Thank you.
>>
>> Go wireless. I have two systems connected via a Netgear 834GT hub -
>> fantastically reliable and a 'no-brainer' to set up. I can share
>> everything - files, printers, drives, etc., too. Cost? £100 including a
>> wireless card for the other system.
>
>Advising someone to "Go Wireless" without including STRONG warnings
>about security is like telling people that Floride is good for them.

OMG - I haven't seen this debate since I left Texas. Tell me again
(even though it is off-topic) - why is flouride "bad" for me?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <9cu781prl5i5fhb5186be345j1eealqapr@4ax.com>, none@none.net
says...
> >Advising someone to "Go Wireless" without including STRONG warnings
> >about security is like telling people that Floride is good for them.
>
> OMG - I haven't seen this debate since I left Texas. Tell me again
> (even though it is off-topic) - why is flouride "bad" for me?

The hazardous waste substances used in 90% of fluoridation have never
been tested, either alone in distilled water, or in combination with
other chemicals and contaminants found in tap water. Explanation:

The most common substances now used for fluoridation are
hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are waste
products that are captured in scrubber systems of the phosphate
fertilizer industry. The resulting toxic waste can not be diluted by 1
million or even 3 million or 10 million to 1 and dumped in the ocean or
river or landfill, nor allowed to escape into the air because it would
kill all the plants and animals and people. And it can't be given away
because it would still be classified as a Class I toxic waste and have
to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a
cost of $1.40 per gallon, or more depending on how much cadmium, lead,
uranium, and arsenic are also present.

But, if destined for a water district that will pay $0.35 to $0.45 per
gallon for transportation, the 23% solution in industrial waste water is
magically pronounced benign and shipped, untreated, to be mixed into our
water.

If it was not a hazardous waste, it could have been added to salt or
some other universally accessible food source, just like iodine is, more
than fifty years ago. Each of us would then be free to choose for
ourselves.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <uzvME81VFHA.3488@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
tems.c*a*m says...
> Wireless is slower than wired for the LAN. It is more than fast enough for
> consumer broadband. I have worked on many ADSL and cable internet connection
> wired and wireless and have yet to be able to tell which I'm using. I have
> my house wired upstairs with a wireless link to downstairs. I can do
> streaming audio with 256 bit mp3s and be working on/repairing two computers
> downstairs with the computers downloading windows updates all through the
> wireless link and have no noticeable slowdown. This is with a D-Link router
> and D-Link wireless bridge which run at 22 Mbps. Wireless-G would be even
> faster.
>
> I agree with your warning about security. I can see three other wireless
> networks right now. Mine is the only one with any security.

Your news reader/agent isn't trimming signatures correctly.

In many cases, where one has two computers, they end up wanting to share
files. While a user that has never experienced a 100base network would
not notice the slowness of a wireless network, many that do know the
different will be pained by it.

I can always tell the difference, but I have both 100/1000 base in my
home and offices, my home Internet connection is 4mbps and I can feel
the difference when I'm on an access point vs wired, although it doesn't
make much difference most of the time (when I'm not working hard).

I quit using D-Link wireless, I use to purchase two bridge units and
found they failed frequently. I've not had one Linksys 11g bridge unit
fail yet.

One of the wireless units, can't remember the vendor, does 108mbps in a
special mode - but it doesn't allow for real security.

When I was with my father in a hospital (his illness, not mine), I would
bring my laptop with me to work from the hospital - I found more than 10
wireless networks I could connect to (it was a university hospital) and
a few that would not allow a connection.

The same is true with many of our clients locations - there always seems
to be one open access point nearby.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceddd0c9a199d4989718@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uzvME81VFHA.3488@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
> tems.c*a*m says...
>> Wireless is slower than wired for the LAN. It is more than fast enough
>> for
>> consumer broadband. I have worked on many ADSL and cable internet
>> connection
>> wired and wireless and have yet to be able to tell which I'm using. I
>> have
>> my house wired upstairs with a wireless link to downstairs. I can do
>> streaming audio with 256 bit mp3s and be working on/repairing two
>> computers
>> downstairs with the computers downloading windows updates all through the
>> wireless link and have no noticeable slowdown. This is with a D-Link
>> router
>> and D-Link wireless bridge which run at 22 Mbps. Wireless-G would be even
>> faster.
>>
>> I agree with your warning about security. I can see three other wireless
>> networks right now. Mine is the only one with any security.
>
> Your news reader/agent isn't trimming signatures correctly.
>

I know. It's OE and it only does it sometimes. Haven't had time to figure
out why.

> In many cases, where one has two computers, they end up wanting to share
> files. While a user that has never experienced a 100base network would
> not notice the slowness of a wireless network, many that do know the
> different will be pained by it.
>
> I can always tell the difference, but I have both 100/1000 base in my
> home and offices, my home Internet connection is 4mbps and I can feel
> the difference when I'm on an access point vs wired, although it doesn't
> make much difference most of the time (when I'm not working hard).
>

My cable provider won't say what speed the connection is other than to say
it's faster than DSL In some testing I've done it's usually somewhere
around 2.5 - 3.0 mbps for both in my area. Might be why I can't notice any
speed difference when using wireless.

> I quit using D-Link wireless, I use to purchase two bridge units and
> found they failed frequently. I've not had one Linksys 11g bridge unit
> fail yet.
>

LOL I've had the opposite experience. Two Netgear and one Linksys routers
have failed for me or a customer. I've never had a D-Link fail. With stuff
in this price range I think it's mostly the luck of the draw. It's all made
very cheaply.

> One of the wireless units, can't remember the vendor, does 108mbps in a
> special mode - but it doesn't allow for real security.
>
> When I was with my father in a hospital (his illness, not mine), I would
> bring my laptop with me to work from the hospital - I found more than 10
> wireless networks I could connect to (it was a university hospital) and
> a few that would not allow a connection.
>
> The same is true with many of our clients locations - there always seems
> to be one open access point nearby.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 01:08:33 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <9cu781prl5i5fhb5186be345j1eealqapr@4ax.com>, none@none.net
>says...
>> >Advising someone to "Go Wireless" without including STRONG warnings
>> >about security is like telling people that Floride is good for them.
>>
>> OMG - I haven't seen this debate since I left Texas. Tell me again
>> (even though it is off-topic) - why is flouride "bad" for me?
>
>The hazardous waste substances used in 90% of fluoridation have never
>been tested, either alone in distilled water, or in combination with
>other chemicals and contaminants found in tap water. Explanation:
>
>The most common substances now used for fluoridation are
>hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are waste
>products that are captured in scrubber systems of the phosphate
>fertilizer industry. The resulting toxic waste can not be diluted by 1
>million or even 3 million or 10 million to 1 and dumped in the ocean or
>river or landfill, nor allowed to escape into the air because it would
>kill all the plants and animals and people. And it can't be given away
>because it would still be classified as a Class I toxic waste and have
>to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a
>cost of $1.40 per gallon, or more depending on how much cadmium, lead,
>uranium, and arsenic are also present.
>
>But, if destined for a water district that will pay $0.35 to $0.45 per
>gallon for transportation, the 23% solution in industrial waste water is
>magically pronounced benign and shipped, untreated, to be mixed into our
>water.
>
>If it was not a hazardous waste, it could have been added to salt or
>some other universally accessible food source, just like iodine is, more
>than fifty years ago. Each of us would then be free to choose for
>ourselves.
>
>--
Thanks. I haven't laughed this hard in many days.

Many municipal water systems have been flouridating their water for
decades with no - zero - detrimental effects on the population. I
speak of this from personal experience, as I grew up drinking
flouridated water. Other than possibly preventing many trips to the
dentist for tooth decay, I (nor anybody I knew that lived there, or
still lives there) are experiencing any side effects of this horrible
toxic waste.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <bfka81llpkgdnvnutodtij6stjbb04t27s@4ax.com>, none@none.net
says...
> Thanks. I haven't laughed this hard in many days.
>
> Many municipal water systems have been flouridating their water for
> decades with no - zero - detrimental effects on the population. I
> speak of this from personal experience, as I grew up drinking
> flouridated water. Other than possibly preventing many trips to the
> dentist for tooth decay, I (nor anybody I knew that lived there, or
> still lives there) are experiencing any side effects of this horrible
> toxic waste.

I had floride in the water when I was a kid, the city we live in (all my
kids raised here) doesn't use it. The same level of cavities in both
cases (none).

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:58:40 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <bfka81llpkgdnvnutodtij6stjbb04t27s@4ax.com>, none@none.net
>says...
>> Thanks. I haven't laughed this hard in many days.
>>
>> Many municipal water systems have been flouridating their water for
>> decades with no - zero - detrimental effects on the population. I
>> speak of this from personal experience, as I grew up drinking
>> flouridated water. Other than possibly preventing many trips to the
>> dentist for tooth decay, I (nor anybody I knew that lived there, or
>> still lives there) are experiencing any side effects of this horrible
>> toxic waste.
>
>I had floride in the water when I was a kid, the city we live in (all my
>kids raised here) doesn't use it. The same level of cavities in both
>cases (none).
>
>--
I never said the flouride was the reason I've never had cavities. I
merely mentioned the possiblity that it was a reason. It certainly
didn't hurt.