Re: Sorry, slightly OT: WLAN
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:12:39PM +0100, Benjamin Swatek wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 07:02, Dave Thayer wrote:
[...]
> > While I agree with the above, it should be pointed out that it's a
> > *lot* easier to relocate a hardware AP for better coverage than a
> > desktop machine, so if your router box is located in a bad location,
> > you may want to buy a harware AP for the additional flexability.
> >
> > dt
> >
> Does this mean that a normal card doesn't send a signal strong enough to
> cover my 70 squarmeter flat?
> I don't think that the walls are that big though, and the farest box
> would be about 10 meters away from the access-point..
Actually, I would imagine that the output power of the card and the AP
are probably equal, being dictated by government regulations. The
important thing to remember is that these are low power devices
running at microwave frequencies, so sometimes moving the antenna even
a short distance can make a big difference in signal strength or
interference rejection.
Now, in the case of your flat, you probably won't notice much
difference due to the short range (and you might appreciate the
reduced clutter of a built-in card).
dt
--
Dave Thayer | If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about
Denver, Colorado USA | cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all
dave@thayer-boyle.com | the time, for no good reason. - Jack Handey
Reply to: