Wires to Wireless - Network

This is a discussion on Wires to Wireless - Network ; I would like to know if cat-5 wires or any other types of cable is better than wireless, or wireless is better than cable? Which one will cost more, be more reliable to a network?...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Wires to Wireless

  1. Wires to Wireless

    I would like to know if cat-5 wires or any other types of cable is
    better than wireless, or wireless is better than cable? Which one
    will cost more, be more reliable to a network?

  2. Re: Wires to Wireless

    Each method (wired vs. wireless) has got its own
    advantages/disadvantages so it's not possible to say which is better
    than the other - they serve quite different purposes.

    Generally speaking, wired networks are more reliable, and they certainly
    operate faster. Using standard CAT-5 cabling you could get up to 1000
    bits per second providing you have gigabit ethernet equipment to hand -
    but more commonly you would be using 100 base. Still, that comes to
    approximately 10mb per second (12mb?) as a theoretical maximum - and
    that's much quicker than you would get out of any wireless network...
    most don't do much better than 3Mbps despite claims of 54Mbps wireless
    LAN's. As far as reliability is concerned - providing you don't snap or
    damage a cable (unlikely if you don't touch it), they are very reliable,
    and secure. Assuming that the network is wired properly, it should also
    not suffer from interference (though don't lay your cables near
    powerlines!). In terms of cost, wired equipment is much cheaper than
    wireless. The only potentially expensive thing is the wiring cost
    (labour, not the wires) - but if you've got a simple network topology
    then this should not be a problem.

    Wireless networks have all the comparative disadvantages inferred from
    the wired advantages mentioned above. It goes without saying though that
    wireless networks make for extremely flexible networking as far as
    clients are concerned, and can also be more aesthetically pleasing. If
    you're not bothered about either of these points... personally i'll
    stick to a wired network.

    Or you can consider sneakernet :-)

    Terence


    > I would like to know if cat-5 wires or any other types of cable is
    > better than wireless, or wireless is better than cable? Which one
    > will cost more, be more reliable to a network?



  3. Re: Wires to Wireless

    I am a fan of wireless these days, I am an installer of wireless
    networks for a company in Arizona. I have been spoiled with installing
    and maintaining higher end equipment such as Symbol, Cisco, Buffalo
    and Proxiam gear.

    Wireless is a great alternative to wired networks when it comes to
    sites that may be a challenge to wire. My house for example has no
    attic so conduit would have to be run on the roof to connect from room
    to room. I have worked in wherehouses where the supervisors office is
    in the middle of the wherehouse beyond the 100 meter limitation of
    Cat5E or may be too costly to run fiber to.

    Wireless is not for database intensive applications, this would be an
    application that may hit an oracle database or SQL server several
    times a second for data, it is also a poor choice for downloading
    large files from local servers. Wireless works fine for most
    applications such as web surfing email and everyday office work. Many
    times wireless speed is 3-4 times faster than a standard cable modem
    or T-1 connection so a small amount of computers on an access point is
    not a big deal.
    I have 3 computers hard wired in my house and 1 laptop that is
    wireless with cisco and I cannot tell the difference in speed in every
    day work.

    Good luck on your choice, dont be afraid to wait for the new 802-11G
    standard to come out from linksys or Buffalo, the new standard is cool
    with lots of range. Wireless will also open security issues on your
    network, WEP encryption is a must to keep out the average hacker.




    Terence Parker wrote in message news:...
    > Each method (wired vs. wireless) has got its own
    > advantages/disadvantages so it's not possible to say which is better
    > than the other - they serve quite different purposes.
    >
    > Generally speaking, wired networks are more reliable, and they certainly
    > operate faster. Using standard CAT-5 cabling you could get up to 1000
    > bits per second providing you have gigabit ethernet equipment to hand -
    > but more commonly you would be using 100 base. Still, that comes to
    > approximately 10mb per second (12mb?) as a theoretical maximum - and
    > that's much quicker than you would get out of any wireless network...
    > most don't do much better than 3Mbps despite claims of 54Mbps wireless
    > LAN's. As far as reliability is concerned - providing you don't snap or
    > damage a cable (unlikely if you don't touch it), they are very reliable,
    > and secure. Assuming that the network is wired properly, it should also
    > not suffer from interference (though don't lay your cables near
    > powerlines!). In terms of cost, wired equipment is much cheaper than
    > wireless. The only potentially expensive thing is the wiring cost
    > (labour, not the wires) - but if you've got a simple network topology
    > then this should not be a problem.
    >
    > Wireless networks have all the comparative disadvantages inferred from
    > the wired advantages mentioned above. It goes without saying though that
    > wireless networks make for extremely flexible networking as far as
    > clients are concerned, and can also be more aesthetically pleasing. If
    > you're not bothered about either of these points... personally i'll
    > stick to a wired network.
    >
    > Or you can consider sneakernet :-)
    >
    > Terence
    >
    >
    > > I would like to know if cat-5 wires or any other types of cable is
    > > better than wireless, or wireless is better than cable? Which one
    > > will cost more, be more reliable to a network?


+ Reply to Thread