At 13:04 08/07/2004, Christopher McNabb wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:40:13 +0000, Jules Richardson
><julesrichardsonuk_at_yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > (Interestingly, there seems to be a huge drive toward wireless at the
>
>I think that wireless installations that are slow and/or unreliable
>probably have configuration issues or interference from other sources.
I have wireless here, but it's only for a single laptop that gets carted
all about the house. Everything else is mostly connected by Cat5 Ethernet,
at 100Mbps. It works OK...
Most dodgy connection I know of was put in at a customer ages back.. they
had two separate units on an industrial estate. Line of sight, barely,
from back of one, to front of the other, but about 200M distance, with
other units and a road and car-park in the way. They HAD been using a
direct-dial ISDN link between the units, but it was costing them a
fortune. Somebody said they could use wireless LAN, and muggins here had
to implement it within a stupid low budget. We ended up sticking an cheap
access point on the back of one building, and a USB wireless network card
on the front of the other. (they had to go outside, as was metal cladding
on the building, but put them in sealed plastic boxes.)
It saved them a fortune on phone calls and ISDN rental, and it even worked
most of the time...
Received on Thu Jul 08 2004 - 08:01:01 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:50 BST