Wireless networks (was Free stuff (UK) again)

From: David V. Corbin <dvcorbin_at_optonline.net>
Date: Thu Jul 8 08:31:55 2004

>>> In our experience, wireless is fine for casual internet
>>> connections, thin clients (terminal services, citrix, rdp)
>>> but much too slow for anything that involves any level of
>>> data transfer. We sell and support medical software that
>>> transfers very large databases. I have lost count of how
>>> many offices have implimented wireless networks without
>>> checking with us first. They usually scream bloody murder
>>> when we inform them they will have to revert back to wired
>>> networks. It seems mostly the doctors brother-in-law
>>> reccomended wireless.

Wireless communicatios do have significant issues, but can play an
invaluable role in many business situations.

You are 100% correct that almost every client WILL have problems if they
take a heavy traffic application what was designed for
high-speed/high-reliability connections and just decide to run it over a
wireless connection. On the other hand, I have been involved in the
development of a number of applications [including imaging] that moves
significant data over a wireless link. The big difference is that these
applications were designed from the ground up to work with this type of
link. Among other things this required: background processing of all
transfers, ability to resume transfers over broken connections, additional
steps to secure the data.

For my development environment, I am lucky. My core develop [currently 11]
run on a 1GB switched [combination fiber and copper] environment. My other
fixed machines [currently 5] run on wired 100MB [fully switched] and I am
running 802.11g for the mobiles (this is scheduled for an upgrade to Super
802.11g once the market stablizes a bit).

David.
Received on Thu Jul 08 2004 - 08:31:55 BST