From: "Howard Winter" Received: from mxout2.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.166] verified) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.1) with ESMTP id 181013 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:30:29 -0400 Received: from mxin2.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.176]) by mxout2.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1Ftnc3-000CoQ-Ds for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:30:28 -0400 Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.51] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by mxin2.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1Ftnc0-0003kx-E6 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:30:24 -0400 Received: from hibernaculum.org.uk ([217.169.5.1] helo=t23w) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ftnbs-0006BL-9b for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:30:16 +0100 To: "OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:30:13 +0100 (BST) Reply-To: "Howard Winter" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.10.2010 for OS/2 Warp 4.05 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: WDS firmware for WRT54G X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Message-ID: Stan, On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:02:41 -0400 (EDT), Stanley Sidlov wrote: >... > Also, at $50/unit, it may be cheaper than buying several wireless >cards/nics and supports 4 computers with wires. > >Also, since it's G wireless, you can use better encryption, and the clients can be hard >wired to the router box rather than using the weaker WEP encryptions. Ah, until you said that I hadn't realised that you can use it to relay a WiFi signal to *cabled* PCs - I thought you meant it was just for repeating the radio signal to other WiFi-equipped PCs! Now that would be a very handy thing to do... >But, I have found with 6 computers, that having a Gigabyte SWITCH attached to the WRT for >the wired computers, makes the WRT much more stable since the intranet load is reduced. That's interesting - I imagine the switching behaviour takes processor cycles that otherwise can be used for WiFi activity. Not something I would ever considered. Cheers, Howard Winter The H2Org http://www.ecomstation.co.uk