less wires, but more headache

less wires, but more headache

I looked at the specs of two network devices after a bad experience with it this morning while deploying an AP at Music. It says 91 m to 457 m operating range (depending on the interference of course) for both. But weird things happened. Now i’m confused wether these two really are similar, performance wise.

The story goes like this. The notebook i brought does not have a built-in wireless card. I was then required to bring a WPC**** Wireless Network PC card for testing. I also brought a WUSB** Network Adapter to be lent to them for today’s event. So there, after finding a free LAN port (i.e, freeing up a port at the hub :D. Whoever owns it must’ve immediately called 2050.), i used the pc card to connect to the AP. I was connected easily @ 11Mbps and 3 bars of signal strength. Using another nb, i used the usb adapter and tried the same thing. I can’t see the wireless network, much more connect to one. I changed spot, went very near, and i was connected 11Mbps, but unable to browse a site. Connection times out due to very low signal strength of 1 to 2 bars. With the thought that (just) maybe, the computer has a role on this discrepancy (i tell you, it’s a headache.. with spyware and all…), i switched to my nb. No improvements were observed though. Connected but unable to browse. Aarrgh!

I don’t trust the usb adapter. This is the 2nd time it had happened. During the first, i had no point of comparison. This time i do. Hmm, i’m not sure. I might not recommend this device. We’ll see. I might be wrong, i need more investigation. Time to play with the gadgets, and get geeky.

P.S. I had the network admin’s approval before pulling up the cable. At one instance, it was even the connection of someone in the same room. But we got through it. (Lusot!) 😀

P.P.S In the title, i’m referring to this case alone. Otherwise, wireless technology is a gift to human race (exagg!).

Comments are closed.