# Wireless vs non wireless



## feathery (Oct 5, 2009)

Personally I hate things that have wires however wireless technology can behave poorly at times. Just because something has no wires does not make it better do they? What is your opinion.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 5, 2009)

Wires have the advantage of nearly-instantaneous communication with whatever's connected. That means minimal latency, since it's an electrical signal. Wireless devices have to have their data carried via RF technology - radio waves. This requires antennae - at least one on either end - and if there's only one on either end, it requires them to switch modes between sending and receiving (hence the adoption of MIMO in 802.11n to improve response time and transfer speed overall). Wireless technology can be pretty good, but radio waves aren't very fast by comparison to electronic signals or light pulses, and it won't ever match the low latency, potential speed and most importantly, signal integrity of a cable.

Of course, all of this is meaningless if you don't need that performance. Just the ability to use something without a cord provides a higher degree of performance for most people; In fact, as I understand it, the X-Box 360's controllers, for example, among other console-based wireless controllers, have a relatively high latency as compared to traditional corded controllers, but through compensation and the convenience factor, it turns out to perform better, for most people, than if the controller was corded. It becomes even less important and even more convenient if you're not doing anything at all that requires fast motion and low latency.

In other words, yes, cords are now and probably will for the foreseeable future be a better performer than wireless. However, no, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're better for every application.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 5, 2009)

All I know is I wish wireless were a little more reliable.

Computer is good. Modem is good. Router is good. Money is being blown on the best speed that can be bought commercial. You still get dropped connections somehow. It pisses me off.


----------



## Tudd (Oct 5, 2009)

Wireless seems to be the one thing that never works as planned yet no one seems to be able to live without it. Just look at cell phones...


----------



## net-cat (Oct 5, 2009)

I use wired for just about everything. Except when browsing websites from bed. Then I use wireless.


Runefox said:


> Wires have the advantage of nearly-instantaneous communication with whatever's connected. That means minimal latency, since it's an electrical signal. Wireless devices have to have their data carried via RF technology - radio waves. This requires antennae - at least one on either end - and if there's only one on either end, it requires them to switch modes between sending and receiving (hence the adoption of MIMO in 802.11n to improve response time and transfer speed overall). Wireless technology can be pretty good, but radio waves aren't very fast by comparison to electronic signals or light pulses, and it won't ever match the low latency, potential speed and most importantly, signal integrity of a cable.


A signal actually propagates faster through air than copper. What kills wireless is the low SNR. (Yay retransmits.)


----------



## feathery (Oct 5, 2009)

Tudd said:


> Wireless seems to be the one thing that never works as planned yet no one seems to be able to live without it. Just look at cell phones...



Well it is true cell phones are not that reliable time and me again, however in the end everything will most likely be wireless and we will all have to make due. As for me im sticking with wires as long as there amuck.


----------



## Volpino (Oct 5, 2009)

I was very anti-wireless for a long time. I blame my military background for my security paranoia. But I also run six computers out of one room and I started noticing that I was losing a switch, router, and card about once a year.

Low latency on a wired connection presupposes three things: either an amplified signal or connections less than 45 feet. (over 45 feet, it's usually still well better than wireless) The other important factor is background electro-magnetic interference. 

While background EMI affects both, a build-up of charge along the wired connection can short out hubs, switches, and network cards.

To overcome problems normally associated with wireless, such as dead-spots and low transfer rates, make sure you go with an "N" standard wireless network. It's more expensive than the old "G" networks and you'll probably have to update any wireless cards that came with a computer because manufacturers are too cheap, but its well worth the extra money.

Also, if you do go with a wireless, make sure you use some kind of security on the signal. This prevents others from sharing your signal without permission and slowing down your d/l speed.

In short, wired connections are best all around, but especially for short connections that won't be running near any kind of power supplies. Insulated wired connections can be used in large areas that have a lot of EMI on all levels. Wireless should be "N" type and is better for broader areas, or areas that have a lot of wire level EMI. 

A final caveat on wireless connections. Manufacturers are notorious for not specifying the number of connections a wireless router can handle. If you have more than four connections, make sure that the manufacturer is willing to say how many before you buy. If it doesn't say: assume it can't handle more than four.


----------



## feathery (Oct 5, 2009)

Volpino said:


> I was very anti-wireless for a long time. I blame my military background for my security paranoia. But I also run six computers out of one room and I started noticing that I was losing a switch, router, and card about once a year.
> 
> Low latency on a wired connection presupposes three things: either an amplified signal or connections less than 45 feet. (over 45 feet, it's usually still well better than wireless) The other important factor is background electro-magnetic interference.
> 
> ...



Yeah interference has generally been an issue with me. I Have a N Based wireless network card costing me a fair 80$. It works excellent in fact i am using it right now, however it shorts out at the most inconvenient moment however its all i have for the moment so i don't complain. I Had a wireless mouse at one point to and they just never seemed to get the job done, glitching up whenever they wanted to making my job much more strenuous then it already needed to be.


----------



## Revy (Oct 5, 2009)

Wireless is only needed if you want your computers outdoors or if you want to sit somewhere not near a wall.

Its only advantages unless you want 1000 feet of cable.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 5, 2009)

Actually, wireless networking has very practical advantages even indoors.

Wireless devices are great as long as they're not infrared.  There's nothing like propping up in an easy chair and discovering that your keyboard doesn't work except at the most awkwardly uncomfortable of positions.  *shakes fist at IBM*  Thankfully, almost every wireless input device uses radio waves, so that's not a problem anymore.

Wired devices are better if the cables lend themselves to being run in the right direction.


----------



## Revy (Oct 5, 2009)

I was kinda speaking of wireless networking but yea...


----------



## Kryn (Oct 5, 2009)

I can't stand using wireless for anything but just browsing the web. My computer is roughly 75 feet plus many walls from my wireless access point. I can't even pick up a signal so I just bought a 100 foot cat5e cable and ran it through the basement, works perfectly.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Oct 5, 2009)

I don't usually use wireless unless I have to. Sometimes when I want to use my laptop and desktop at the same time, I'll use wireless on the laptop, since I only have one wired port in my room. But generally, I'll avoid wireless. Too slow, and rather unreliable. Half the time, the wireless cuts out when someone in my house uses the phone, even though I've fixed that problem numerous times.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 5, 2009)

Actually, there are three things that matter in WiFi:

Antenna
Antenna
Antenna

I've got a Mac mini and a Gateway tablet. Both running Windows. Both with Atheros chipset wireless. Set the two right next to each other about twenty feet from the router. 

The laptop has an antenna that loops around the screen and it streams video just fine.

The mini has a crap antenna. It's like a little PCB inside the case. It is constantly buffering and stopping.


----------



## Shino (Oct 5, 2009)

My rule of thumb is simple: keep all tech wired unless you don't have a choice and are forced to go wireless, or it's not worth the hastle of maintaining a wired connection. This may stem from the fact that my first introduction to wireless I-net was 802.11*a*, but it's still holds true today...

My only exception to this is my Logitech wireless mouse... throughly awesome.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 5, 2009)

i hade good and bad experiences with wireless connections. 
-the wireless 360 controller is pretty awesome for example. i have a wired controller that i use most of the time (simply because i hate swapping batteries) but i cant see any real differences between both pads^^

-i had a wireless network card that came with a pretty good antenna. the connection was rock solid and almost as good as the wired connection.

-a few weeks ago i was using a wireless USB network stick. 
it was a mess... i randomly lost the connection, it was slow as hell and after a few days the stick died >.>
now i have a wired connection and everything is super fast again!

id say it depends very hard. you can get very good wireless equipment and you can get crappy equipment. but the wired connection is mostly faster and more stable than the wireless connection.


----------



## pitchblack (Oct 5, 2009)

I'm stuck on an 802.11g wireless network, and I try to play games x.x

It's usually not that bad, but every once in a while I just get these massive lagspikes that I never did when I was wired. Not fun.


----------



## hitokage (Oct 5, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Wireless devices are great as long as they're not infrared.  There's nothing like propping up in an easy chair and discovering that your keyboard doesn't work except at the most awkwardly uncomfortable of positions.  *shakes fist at IBM*  Thankfully, almost every wireless input device uses radio waves, so that's not a problem anymore.


Are you talking about the PC Jr keyboard, or did they make that mistake twice?


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 5, 2009)

hitokage said:


> Are you talking about the PC Jr keyboard, or did they make that mistake twice?



PCjr keyboard, chiclet keys or no.  I still remember the Charlie Chaplin rip-off they sold it with.

I had the misfortune of using an H.263 video conferencing room that was controlled by an infrared keyboard just five years ago.  No one used it more than once, for that reason.


----------



## Lazydabear (Oct 6, 2009)

Wireless works well if the Signal is stronger.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 6, 2009)

Sorry for the late chime-in - not posting as much while on vacation.

Speaking professionally, I hate wireless; not because it's bad or doesn't work, but rather because public perception of it is that it should work as well as wired, and that's just not going to ever happen.

Wireless, but the nature of who radio signals work, is always going to be subject to interference.  That interference can come from a ton of different sources, be them structural, natural, or man-made (aka, other radio signals).  As such, trying to provide stable, strong coverage from an AP perspective is very tricky.  The University of Western has wireless available all across campus, but it takes hundreds of APs, dozens of control devices, and many man hours of research and testing to try and lay down the best possible coverage.  

The user is also part of the problem in that every laptop that uses wireless works a little differently in the form of their antennas, wireless hardware, signal strength, Operating Systems, etc.  Add to this the complication that past a certain size, your wireless network actually requires a secondary wireless network to police the first one, and it's really a miracle it all works at all!

Then there's the software/logical side of things too - wireless is more vulnerable to attack and hacks by the nature of what it is.  Though there exists some very good security you can deploy, this fact will never change.  That doesn't mean wired is invulnerable, just much harder to intercept things by comparison. 

The obvious advantages of wireless networks is of course mobility and ease of use, which is why they are popular.  For me, I use wired network connectivity whenever it is available over wireless for the solidity and security of it.  My laptop at both home and work is connected to a wired Ethernet connection when at my desk.  When I go to the meeting room, I switch to a wired connection there.  When I travel, I will ask the hotel for wired access over wireless every time it is available.  I basically only use wireless when there is no other choice, or wired is simply not feasible.


----------



## Hir (Oct 6, 2009)

I take my laptop to school and use its wireless to download torrents at really high speeds.

Yay wireless.


----------



## feathery (Oct 6, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Sorry for the late chime-in - not posting as much while on vacation.
> 
> Speaking professionally, I hate wireless; not because it's bad or doesn't work, but rather because public perception of it is that it should work as well as wired, and that's just not going to ever happen.
> 
> ...


 
The advantages of Wires i beleive very much out weighs that of Wireless for sure. However as hipocritical as i am, i will only use wireless based internet due to its flexibility and mobility. Bad news with that is a connection to the internet is never absolute, even in this day in age were everything is becoming wirefree with routers stationed everywhere and hot spots galore its rather difficult to find a steady connection when I or anyone else for that matter needs it.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 6, 2009)

feathery said:


> The advantages of Wires i beleive very much out weighs that of Wireless for sure. However as hipocritical as i am, i will only use wireless based internet due to its flexibility and mobility. Bad news with that is a connection to the internet is never absolute, even in this day in age were everything is becoming wirefree with routers stationed everywhere and hot spots galore its rather difficult to find a steady connection when I or anyone else for that matter needs it.



Yeah, just what I meant - the interference items out there are incredible.  Here at my mates, the wireless only works perfectly smoothly when there are no walls between me and the AP.  At home, it works a bit better 'cause the house I rent is 125 years old, and has no metal in the frame.  There's just a lot of things it depends on.  

Sidenote: You live in Barrie!  Cool - I used to live there from '84 to '93.  Used to live up on Farmingdale, which back then was as far north as the city went.  Looks a wee bit bigger now than when I moved there.


----------



## Carenath (Oct 6, 2009)

Half my network is wired, and I'm pretty sure in such a way that puts half the hosts into the same collision domain.. its a kludgy mix of GigE, Fast ethernet, HomePlug, a 'dumb' switch, a wireless-n router as an AP and another as a switch.

This kludgy mix, works, not sure how messed up the collision domains are though, and is the only practical method I had, to provide network connectivity to all the machines in the house.

I use wired ethernet whereever possible, wireless wont match the bandwidth or performance anytime soon. Wireless is convenient.. but providing good coverage in the house is difficult without multiple access points.. it works okay in one half of the house, and if I *really* needed it, I have 3 more wireless-routers... about the only thing that home-user gear is good for


----------



## feathery (Oct 6, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Yeah, just what I meant - the interference items out there are incredible. Here at my mates, the wireless only works perfectly smoothly when there are no walls between me and the AP. At home, it works a bit better 'cause the house I rent is 125 years old, and has no metal in the frame. There's just a lot of things it depends on.
> 
> Sidenote: You live in Barrie! Cool - I used to live there from '84 to '93. Used to live up on Farmingdale, which back then was as far north as the city went. Looks a wee bit bigger now than when I moved there.


 
You to wow..yeah its a prison here for me, its holding me back in life and quite frankly its seems impossible to leave. Sorry for the drama there ^v^;; its not THAT bad, just lived here for two decades is all.


----------



## The Blue Fox (Oct 7, 2009)

Wireless

Pros - EZ instal not that much to hook up. 

If you are in an building you are renting or an historic building its the way to go. 

Mobile computing. weather at home or on the job. At the place i work every truck has a In cab computer the is connected to the 3g cellular network. They also work as a Wireless AP so you can have wireless internet when your not in the truck.

Cons- not secure. No matter what kind of incription you use it can still be hacked.

Slower. if you must send large file over your net work or stream music or video you may have problems.

Unstable. Walls and other electric devices can cause you to disconnect or have slow downs.

wired

Pros - Speed. GiGa bit Ethernet.

Secure Networking. You must have access to a Ethernet port. or splice in to the cable witch requires to to be in the building. 

More reliable. You are directly connected to the internet. 

Cons - If you are in an building you are renting or an historic building. Drilling holes in the wall is probably not a good idea.


----------



## feathery (Oct 7, 2009)

The Blue Fox said:


> Wireless
> 
> Pros - EZ instal not that much to hook up.
> 
> ...


 
Windows fire wall/ Defender/ Spybot/McAfee and good enough? I Thought it was safe, wow you learn somnthing new every day.


----------



## Arcadium (Oct 9, 2009)

I can't wait till everything becomes wireless. Right now, It's possible, but it's far as efficient and useful as it probably will in the future.

For example, there's the Zune HD. It can do Wireless sync, the Zune social features, the network things like Internet and such. What's only missing is Wireless charging and then it honestly doesn't need a cable. Add bluetooth and I would ditch the headphones too.

But right now, there is no Wireless charge, so I need to dock it with my PC. Wireless sync is crippled for both Wi-Fi network speeds that aren't as good and fast as USB 2.0, but the fact I have a dock, and don't need to use the feature all that much. Bluetooth A2DP isn't even near the quality you get from Wired headphones either.

We would need things to get a little more reliable and speedy, and it'll take off. I can't wait till I can just drop my Zune or Phone on the table and have it charge and do the very awesome Automatic Wireless Sync. Never would need to even buy a sync dock again. :grin:


----------



## Sinjo (Oct 9, 2009)

Gotta love that Wireless Radiation!


----------

