[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recommended Orinoco PCMCIA card?

On Dec 21, 2003, at 11:16 AM, Michael Shields wrote:

In message <34C27D5E-2F48-11D8-886A-000A95A0485E@allthingscomputed.com>,
Barry Hawkins <ly5t5@allthingscomputed.com> wrote:
	It looks like the Proxim Orinoco wireless cards work well with
	those needing to avoid the Broadcom-based Airport Extreme
	cards in Apple portables.  Any recommendation or enlightenment
	on whether the Silver World card versus the Gold World card
	makes a difference regarding Linux use?

They should both work, but the silver supports only 40-bit WEP, while
the gold supports 104-bit WEP which is less weak.  Both should work
equally well if you're using non-WEP access points.

Are folks getting
	802.11g throughput in addition to 802.11b?

Note that the "Orinoco" 802.11g cards are entirely different from the
802.11b cards.  The 802.11b versions are the same as the venerable
Lucent "WaveLAN IEEE", which is extremely well-supported and is the
same chipset as in the first-generation Apple Airport base stations
and cards.  The newer versions with a and g support use Atheros
chipsets, which do not have stable Linux drivers.

There are other chipsets that are supported under Linux for 802.11g;
do some searching.

Yes, unfortunately I have confirmed the incompatibility with a purchased card. I have an Orinoco Silver 802.11b/g card which I bought thinking I would be OK since it had an 802.11b mode. Sadly, I cannot even get it to work in OS X, much less Linux. The card is not even recognized by both the IOXperts driver for OS X and the open-source wireless driver at http://wirelessdriver.sourceforge.net/ The past couple of weeks have been expensive reminders of the "costs" of free software. I will Google for the 802.11g-compatible Linux chipsets as you mentioned. If anyone has good links for Linux and wireless, please feel free to post them.

Barry C. Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.allthingscomputed.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com

Reply to: