W-Fi Finders?

Discussion in 'Wireless Networking' started by MS, Oct 15, 2005.

  1. MS

    MS Guest

    Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    model?
     
    MS, Oct 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MS

    bearman Guest

    " MS" <> wrote in message
    news:eMe$...
    > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    > model?
    >
    >


    I use a Cirrus Logic finder that I got for free at the CES earlier this
    year. Works great.
    --
    Bearman
    If it's got tits, tires, tubes, or transistors, it's trouble.
     
    bearman, Oct 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MS

    DanR Guest

    MS wrote:
    > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    > model?


    The Hawking model will find Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless phones and microwave
    ovens. It can't distinguish between them.
     
    DanR, Oct 16, 2005
    #3
  4. MS

    Frankster Guest

    > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    > model?


    They work fine. I guess it depends on your need. You can identify wireless
    locations, but you still have to login to your computer to determine whether
    they are protected or open.

    -Frank
     
    Frankster, Oct 16, 2005
    #4
  5. MS

    MS Guest

    I tried one, and don't find it very useful. I'll be returning it to the
    store. I wondered if some are better.

    Actually a rather high-end one I got--the Kensington "Wi-Fi Finder Plus".
    (It was on sale, so price not bad.) The couple times I tried it, I haven't
    found it very useful. I think it only registers a signal if it is pretty
    high, not registering at all lower signals that might still be usable.

    It has IMO a very questionable feature--it shows Bluetooth signals (separate
    indicator-a blue light) as well as wi-fi signals. I use Bluetooth a lot,
    actually, have a BT phone and headset, etc. But no one searches for
    "Bluetooth hot spots", etc., no such thing exists. People who use BT have
    their own BT devices that connect to one another, they do not search for a
    BT signal, no need for a "BT Finder".

    The thing is--the device cannot show both a Wi-fi and a Bluetooth signal at
    the same time. If both are present, it can only show one or the other. It is
    supposed to give preference to wi-fi in such a situation, but I don't always
    find that to be the case. I have seen the BT light go on (and no wi-fi
    indicator) when I know a wi-fi signal is present and usable. As I always
    have BT with me (carrying the BT phone and headset), that bluetooth
    indicator can get in the way of the wi-fi indication. (Besides being a waste
    of power, for that blue light to go on often.) (No way to turn off the BT
    indicator, from what I can see.)

    Anyhow, I'm planning to return this one, and wonder whether some really work
    well.

    From responses so far, I see the following--

    Bearman writes that the Cirrus Logic one that he got for free works well. (I
    don't recall seeing that one for sale anywhere though.)

    Dan R writes that the Hawking model picks up wi-fi signals, but also
    wireless phones and microwave ovens, and cannot distinguish between them.
    That doesn't sound like a good model.

    Frankster writes: "They work fine". Could you please be more specific,
    regarding the word "they" here? Which ones have you used, that work fine? I
    have not got good results with the Kensington model I tried, and Dan did not
    get good results with the Hawking model he tried. Those two models
    obviously did not "work fine" for us. I doubt you (Frankster) could have
    tried every model available, so could you please elaborate on which models
    you have tried, and how they worked. (Of course, as you write, the "finder"
    cannot tell for you if the wi-fi connection is open or protected. But please
    tell us how well the one or ones you have used pick up and indicate wi-fi
    signals of different strengths, and whether they also, as Don's Hawking
    model did, pick up unwanted signals such as microwave ovens and telephones.

    Thanks to all for your responses.




    "Frankster" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    > > model?

    >
    > They work fine. I guess it depends on your need. You can identify wireless
    > locations, but you still have to login to your computer to determine

    whether
    > they are protected or open.
    >
    > -Frank
    >
    >
     
    MS, Oct 16, 2005
    #5
  6. " MS" <> wrote in message
    news:eMe$...
    > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    > model?
    >
    >


    Cant say as I know why people would want them outside of a technical need
    for their job. I just downloaded and installed Netstumbler and when I turn
    my laptop on, it and my NIC's associated prog find any nearby wi-fi hotspots
    if they are open to be found by anyone. The difference with netstumbler is
    that it can record the presence and other things of found networks. I use
    Netstumbler if with someone with wi-fi and trying to impress on them that
    being open with no encryption is not a good idea. You wouldn't believe how
    many people still think that no harm will come of it. I point out that
    anyone doing anything illegal with wi-fi on their connection may never be
    seen by them but the feds will have the details of their logon and point the
    finger at them. That seems to change their minds. Think of the most
    disgusting name for what people get arrested for, when using Internet and
    point out how easy it would be for someone to use their network and ask them
    who the feds will think was using it. One person I convinced was actually an
    officer in child protective services. Absolutely no clue about how dangerous
    wi-fi can be.
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Oct 17, 2005
    #6
  7. MS

    DanR Guest

    DanR, Oct 17, 2005
    #7
  8. MS

    MS Guest

    "DanR" <> wrote in message
    news:BgD4f.2259$...

    > This might be a good one.
    > http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/1647


    That product is really a whole different ball game than ordinary wi-fi
    finders. It is supposed to detect security, which protocols, etc., and is
    also a USB wi-fi adapter. Nice idea, if it really works as advertised, and
    is accurate in its readings. It looks like its price is around 3-5 times as
    much as normal wi-fi finders, so it really is a whole different class of
    product.
     
    MS, Oct 17, 2005
    #8
  9. MS

    Ted Guest

    " MS" <> wrote in message
    news:eMe$...
    > Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    > model?
    >
    >

    Haven't bought one yet but if I did it would be the Canary HS-10 currently
    $59.99.
    Shows SSID, signal strength, encryption status, and channel. For the price
    I find it simpler to just carry around my laptop.

    http://www.canarywireless.com/

    Ted
     
    Ted, Oct 17, 2005
    #9
  10. MS

    MS Guest

    "Ted" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Haven't bought one yet but if I did it would be the Canary HS-10 currently
    > $59.99.
    > Shows SSID, signal strength, encryption status, and channel. For the

    price
    > I find it simpler to just carry around my laptop.
    >
    > http://www.canarywireless.com/
    >
    > Ted


    That is similar to the one DanR referred to (Zyxel) in the Realtech article.
    That one actually has a couple advantages over the Canary one, in that it is
    1)smaller, more pocketable, 2)doubles as a USB wi-fi adapter, and 3) detects
    A as well as B and G. It is a little more expensive though, the lowest price
    I saw was at $69.99 (* URL below, re-branded as "Allspot") , and up from
    there.

    (http://www.allnet-usa.com/html/shop.php?kat=WiFi 54Mbit

    (Scroll down that page to find it.)

    Certainly those two models (I wouldn't be surprised if more are coming)
    offer much more functionality than a normal "wi-fi finder", but at a much
    higher price. I would certainly want to read reviews of them before shelling
    out that kind of money, to see how well they actually work.
     
    MS, Oct 17, 2005
    #10
  11. MS

    Frankster Guest

    > Frankster writes: "They work fine". Could you please be more specific,
    > regarding the word "they" here? Which ones have you used, that work fine?
    > I
    > have not got good results with the Kensington model I tried, and Dan did
    > not
    > get good results with the Hawking model he tried. Those two models
    > obviously did not "work fine" for us. I doubt you (Frankster) could have
    > tried every model available, so could you please elaborate on which models
    > you have tried, and how they worked. (Of course, as you write, the
    > "finder"
    > cannot tell for you if the wi-fi connection is open or protected. But
    > please
    > tell us how well the one or ones you have used pick up and indicate wi-fi
    > signals of different strengths, and whether they also, as Don's Hawking
    > model did, pick up unwanted signals such as microwave ovens and
    > telephones.


    Coupla things... your original post did not state *ANY* requirements! My
    response was as generic as your original posting. Next, considering the
    above quote, you have numerous requirements. I haven't tested for any of
    your requirements because I don't care about them. So... gook luck.

    As for discriminating between wi-fi, wireless phones, cell phones and
    such... I wouldn't expect any of them to do that, because all those devices
    use the same 2.4Ghz frequency.

    -Frank
     
    Frankster, Oct 17, 2005
    #11
  12. MS

    MS Guest

    "Frankster" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Coupla things... your original post did not state *ANY* requirements! My
    > response was as generic as your original posting. Next, considering the
    > above quote, you have numerous requirements. I haven't tested for any of
    > your requirements because I don't care about them. So... gook luck.


    Hmm--What "numerous requirements" did I state, that you don't care about? I
    don't see any requirements that I stated. Perhaps you see a lot of words,
    and without bothering to read them, assume I am stating "requirements".

    There is no need for "requirements" in order to specify which of these
    devices you have tried that work well, rather than just writing "they work
    well". I guess you don't want to tell us which of these devices you have
    tried, or perhaps have not tried any.

    > As for discriminating between wi-fi, wireless phones, cell phones and
    > such... I wouldn't expect any of them to do that, because all those

    devices
    > use the same 2.4Ghz frequency.


    Well, that's a funny statement, coming from someone who wrote of these
    devices "they work well". Perhaps distinguishing what is really a wi-fi
    signal is one of those "requirements" that you "don't care about". (I don't
    see how anyone could use one of these devices and not care if that
    (registering any kind of 2.4gHz signal) happened, which would make the
    device completely useless.) How could a device that indicated any type of
    2.4 ghz signal be described as "works well"? Have you found that useful to
    you, having a wi-fi finder (brand still not specified) that shows you there
    is a wi-fi signal, when actually it is picking up signals from phones and
    ovens, with no wi-fi signal?

    From your first post to this thread I thought you had a good experience with
    a wi-fi finder, so of course I asked you which brand and model it was. After
    reading this defensive second post, I suspect you have actually never used a
    wi-fi finder, and were just BSing with your other reply. That's OK, there is
    tons of BS on the Internet, good to know that's what it was.
     
    MS, Oct 17, 2005
    #12
  13. MS

    Frankster Guest

    > Hmm--What "numerous requirements" did I state, that you don't care about?

    This statement from you...
    "I think it only registers a signal if it is pretty high, not registering at
    all lower signals that might still be usable."
    ....I interpret to mean that you would require a unit with as much
    sensitivity as possible.

    This statement from you...
    "It has IMO a very questionable feature...[cut]...no need for a "BT Finder"
    ....I interpret to mean that you have no requirement for a BT Finder and, in
    fact, would prefer one without BT Finder.

    This statement from you is your original post in its entirety...
    "Has anyone found one of these little things to be useful? If so, which
    model?"
    ....I don't know how to interpret your version of "useful"? So I responded
    in kind.

    As far as what don't I care about... I don't care about anything besides
    being able to identify the existence of a wi-fi network. I have tried a few
    brands and they all do that. I imagine virtually all brands do that, at
    least. So... they work well for that basic task in my opinion. If you want
    to qualify what "well" or "useful" is in your book, maybe you would get some
    more detailed responses.

    -Frank






    I
    > don't see any requirements that I stated. Perhaps you see a lot of words,
    > and without bothering to read them, assume I am stating "requirements".
    >
    > There is no need for "requirements" in order to specify which of these
    > devices you have tried that work well, rather than just writing "they work
    > well". I guess you don't want to tell us which of these devices you have
    > tried, or perhaps have not tried any.
    >
    >> As for discriminating between wi-fi, wireless phones, cell phones and
    >> such... I wouldn't expect any of them to do that, because all those

    > devices
    >> use the same 2.4Ghz frequency.

    >
    > Well, that's a funny statement, coming from someone who wrote of these
    > devices "they work well". Perhaps distinguishing what is really a wi-fi
    > signal is one of those "requirements" that you "don't care about". (I
    > don't
    > see how anyone could use one of these devices and not care if that
    > (registering any kind of 2.4gHz signal) happened, which would make the
    > device completely useless.) How could a device that indicated any type of
    > 2.4 ghz signal be described as "works well"? Have you found that useful to
    > you, having a wi-fi finder (brand still not specified) that shows you
    > there
    > is a wi-fi signal, when actually it is picking up signals from phones and
    > ovens, with no wi-fi signal?
    >
    > From your first post to this thread I thought you had a good experience
    > with
    > a wi-fi finder, so of course I asked you which brand and model it was.
    > After
    > reading this defensive second post, I suspect you have actually never used
    > a
    > wi-fi finder, and were just BSing with your other reply. That's OK, there
    > is
    > tons of BS on the Internet, good to know that's what it was.
    >
    >
     
    Frankster, Oct 18, 2005
    #13
  14. MS

    bearman Guest


    > From responses so far, I see the following--
    >
    > Bearman writes that the Cirrus Logic one that he got for free works well.
    > (I
    > don't recall seeing that one for sale anywhere though.)
    >


    It was a giveaway at the CES. I don't even remember which booth I got it
    from. It does work, though.
    --
    Bearman
    America: Land of the free because of the brave.
     
    bearman, Oct 19, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. n

    range finders :

    n, Jan 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    888
    Banjopikr1
    Jan 29, 2004
  2. Michael A. Covington

    Digital SLRs need bigger finders

    Michael A. Covington, Dec 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    448
    Ken Tough
    Dec 21, 2004
  3. Bob B.

    Electronic View Finders

    Bob B., Jun 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    320
    Ken Weitzel
    Jun 12, 2005
  4. Alan Smithee

    Digital Finders, Why So Small?

    Alan Smithee, Aug 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    681
    John A. Stovall
    Sep 2, 2006
  5. Au79

    Flaw finders lay siege to Microsoft Office

    Au79, Jul 25, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    406
Loading...

Share This Page