Q: Cat5 v WiFi
-
Except an assignment statement. :) /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
But surely an assignment statement just tells a value to go to a memory location! :)
-
Cat5, never. Maybe Cat5e or Cat6. If it's a new home. If it's not, it's too much of a hassle to wire it all up, specially if the place has tight conduits available. I'd also consider using the FTP versions of both if the place has high EM noise which would mess with both wired and wifi options. The FTP are also good if you're wiring it alongside electrical cables.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
How many non-new homes have conduits available that are not being used for mains cable? There are good reasons (other than NEC ones) not to run data and power cables together.
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
I'm not against using Wifi, but if you have the opportunity to wire your house with structured cabling you should go for it. You may not know why you need a data-socket in your bathroom right now... but in 10-20 years you'll be glad when you have a virtual assist AI doctor capable to take a discreet look at your *you know what*, in the privacy of your own bathroom while it's connected directly to your civilian super-computer (which is quietly tucked away in the garage). :-\ It's not a question of why, it's a question of when. Also, once you have structured cabling installed (intelligently), you can easily replace it with a fiber-optic cables when the time is ripe. Just tie the new cables and your old Cat5e's in a knot and pull. Wireless will always be the weaker than cable, no matter how much faster or adequately secured it may be compared to cat5 in 5-10 years; that argument is irrelevant. Radio-waves have technical limitations that are harder to overcome than with physical connections and that limitation increases exponentially with distance. That's not an opinion, it's physics.
Giraffes are not real.
-
Definitely wired. I also have wireless. I wanted to make it secured, but my kid has a Nintendo DS that can use wireless, but won't use the latest security. If you have any devices that won't use security, or have guests to whom you don't want to have to give a password, you may find that wired is more convenient (provided it's in every room).
I went that way for a while then decided to secure my wireless and let the kids fend for themselves. I now see them playing DS on the stairs occasionally because that's where they get the best reception on the neighbour's WIFI. :-D
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
Wired, with Cat6. Security & bandwidth. I'd price single mode too to see if it can be competitive. Even if you never put ethernet on the cables, you may put some other signal. Don't forget to have some taps put in at key security camera mount points. PoE security cameras are getting ubiquitous.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
CAT 5 via D-Link's AC line adapters. I switched to that three months ago. Wireless in my house had to traverse three levels, and it was always fluctuating up and down in signal strength. CAT 5 solved that problem. CAT 5 dedicated cabling into all the rooms would be sensible if a good, hard look at the costs revealed no downside. Wireless is simple and cheap when it is located where it works well. Fit the solution to the problem.
-
But surely an assignment statement just tells a value to go to a memory location! :)
Peter R. Fletcher wrote:
tells a value to go to a memory location!
I believe the technical term is "scoot". :) /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I would install ample conduit and drops, regardless of what I end up putting into them. But, yes, wired every time vs. wireless where it's practical (i.e. not for my laptop that roams the house)
Wired all the way, not only is wifi much less secure, but it isn't anywhere near as reliable as wired. I stream all my movies from a share on my LAN and never a hiccup - it's a beautiful thing. I wish I had installed conduit. I wasn't aware of it when I finished my basement years ago. As it was I had to fight the electrician just to get him to install the cabling in the first place. He didn't see the need for it and I had to pull a "I'm paying for this and it's what I want". I even ended up capping my own cables.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
The maximum recommended length for cat5+gigabit is only 10 meters, you'd "need" 5 signal boosters just to get from one side of buckingham palace to the other. Or accept the potentially reduced performance.
-
Wired all the way, not only is wifi much less secure, but it isn't anywhere near as reliable as wired. I stream all my movies from a share on my LAN and never a hiccup - it's a beautiful thing. I wish I had installed conduit. I wasn't aware of it when I finished my basement years ago. As it was I had to fight the electrician just to get him to install the cabling in the first place. He didn't see the need for it and I had to pull a "I'm paying for this and it's what I want". I even ended up capping my own cables.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
Oh my god... are you guys all sitting in your rocking chairs shaking your canes at kids on your lawn? Security Pfft. The best security is ubiquity. Every house down the block is wireless. We're entirely wireless here. I stream video without a hiccup, too... I also take reasonable security precautions. The only real reason to go wired is bandwidth.
-
How many non-new homes have conduits available that are not being used for mains cable? There are good reasons (other than NEC ones) not to run data and power cables together.
Peter R. Fletcher wrote:
There are good reasons (other than NEC ones) not to run data and power cables together.
Yes, I know, but as I said, there might not be another solution (without breaking walls) for the problems and the FTP cables could be a solution.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
-
Max run length is set by the TIA/EIA. For Cat 5 is 100 meters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAT_5[^]
-
Oh my god... are you guys all sitting in your rocking chairs shaking your canes at kids on your lawn? Security Pfft. The best security is ubiquity. Every house down the block is wireless. We're entirely wireless here. I stream video without a hiccup, too... I also take reasonable security precautions. The only real reason to go wired is bandwidth.
Sorry, I've never been on a wireless network that's as reliable as a wired one. I didn't say I don't have wireless. I just prefer wired over wireless any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The only network issues I ever have are wireless ones - 'nuf said.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
WiFi all the way!!! I currently have my old Billion cranking out 802.11g and I have no problems whatsoever. It is secured with WPA2-PSK and I download torrents at speeds around 1.5 MB/s some times. A good download server like microsoft download sees me download @ around 1.8 MB/s (My ADSL2+ is Syncing to the DSLAM @ ~19mbs)and so wireless g is more than enough as it is faster than my internet anyway....and LAN wise I do the odd media streaming and thats bout it so I'm fine with g and couldn't even be bothered upgrading to n. If for somereason you do live in a palace, you can get wifi range extenders (repeaters) to re-transmit your wifi into dead spot areas......cables are a thing of the past.....get with the times!!!!
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Cat5 isn't great at medium distance gigabit ethernet (you may get away with short distances),
He's talking about a standard suburban home, not buckingham palace. :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com You've gotta read this : Using lambdas - C++ vs. C# vs. C++/CX vs. C++/CLI
-
I installed Cat5 in most (not all) rooms. Ironically, all our machines (desk/laptops) as well as phones/TV use wifi. But I would strongly recommend doing it. It'll only cost 60-70 bucks / point when it's a new construction. It'll cost way more to do it later or you'll have to bear with the external-wire-ugliness.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com You've gotta read this : Using lambdas - C++ vs. C# vs. C++/CX vs. C++/CLI
IMO, the fact that you actually don't use it, although you did it, is the proof in the pudding - with nowadays wireless technology, wiring is useless. I'd go with wiring if you plan to use 20 desktops which heavily load the network all the time - which is why I consider wiring reasonable for companies and office buildings. But for home use wireless is IMO a no-brainer.
-
hypothetically... if you were building a new house, would you install cat5 in all the rooms, or would you just use WiFi ?
WiFi only. Whatever cabling you do, YAGNI.