wireless router or access point?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by WCH, Feb 17, 2004.

  1. WCH

    WCH Guest

    Got a wired home network connected via a Netgear switch with a cable modem
    coming in through a Linksys router. About to add wireless capability for
    two laptops and wireless-enabled PDA. Right now the prices of 802.11g
    wireless routers and access points are about the same. Netgear is my brand
    of preference among "consumer" brands (my price range). I've read a bunch
    of posts and can't find a reason to buy a simple access point instead of a
    router, even though I don't think I need the extra features of a router for
    this configuration.

    Am I missing something? If the price and relevant specs of an access point
    and a router were the same, why would someone buy the access point rather
    than the router? Does the router have disadvantages if used only as an
    access point? I'm going to get SOMETHING today, so could use a quick
    response.
    Thanks -- WC
     
    WCH, Feb 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. WCH wrote:
    | Got a wired home network connected via a Netgear switch with a cable
    | modem coming in through a Linksys router. About to add wireless
    | capability for two laptops and wireless-enabled PDA. Right now the
    | prices of 802.11g wireless routers and access points are about the
    | same. Netgear is my brand of preference among "consumer" brands (my
    | price range). I've read a bunch of posts and can't find a reason to
    | buy a simple access point instead of a router, even though I don't
    | think I need the extra features of a router for this configuration.
    |
    | Am I missing something? If the price and relevant specs of an access
    | point and a router were the same, why would someone buy the access
    | point rather than the router? Does the router have disadvantages if
    | used only as an access point? I'm going to get SOMETHING today, so
    | could use a quick response.
    | Thanks -- WC

    The routers with built in everything else including wireless capabilities
    are generally for people who do not already have a router. The similarity in
    cost is due to the fact that more people are buying the combined unit than
    just an access point. If you're happy with your current router then why
    bother replacing it when a separate access point is going to be much more
    flexible in terms of location.

    For example if you have ADSL and have an ADSL modem/router this should be
    located close to a telephone point, I have mine plugged in where the phone
    line enters my house. To place an access point in that position may not give
    you favourable coverage. I have a couple of switches dotted around and would
    locate an access point in the best position to give me the widest coverage.

    However if you simply want to replace a wired connection with a wireless one
    then it's down to your personal preference.
    You might consider a fully integrated unit to replace your router and try to
    sell that on, if that then leaves you with dead spots then you may have to
    buy a separate access point after all.

    --
    Gazwad

    Freelance scientist and people tester.
    Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
    Moderator: alt.warez.uk
     
    Lord Gazwad of Grantham, Feb 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. WCH

    WCH Guest

    Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the information. It is NOT my intention
    to replace my existing router with the wireless router. I agree with the
    point you made, in essence -- if the system is working why mess with it.
    Regardless of whether I get a wireless access point or a router, the unit
    will be plugged into a network jack located in a central location in my home
    in hopes of getting the best coverage (happens to be nowhere near the cable
    modem/router/switch, but no matter).

    So, if the wireless router will do everything the wireless access point will
    do (and more things that I don't need) I should get the ROUTER, right?
    WC

    "Lord Gazwad of Grantham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > WCH wrote:
    > | Got a wired home network connected via a Netgear switch with a cable
    > | modem coming in through a Linksys router. About to add wireless
    > | capability for two laptops and wireless-enabled PDA. Right now the
    > | prices of 802.11g wireless routers and access points are about the
    > | same. Netgear is my brand of preference among "consumer" brands (my
    > | price range). I've read a bunch of posts and can't find a reason to
    > | buy a simple access point instead of a router, even though I don't
    > | think I need the extra features of a router for this configuration.
    > |
    > | Am I missing something? If the price and relevant specs of an access
    > | point and a router were the same, why would someone buy the access
    > | point rather than the router? Does the router have disadvantages if
    > | used only as an access point? I'm going to get SOMETHING today, so
    > | could use a quick response.
    > | Thanks -- WC
    >
    > The routers with built in everything else including wireless capabilities
    > are generally for people who do not already have a router. The similarity

    in
    > cost is due to the fact that more people are buying the combined unit than
    > just an access point. If you're happy with your current router then why
    > bother replacing it when a separate access point is going to be much more
    > flexible in terms of location.
    >
    > For example if you have ADSL and have an ADSL modem/router this should be
    > located close to a telephone point, I have mine plugged in where the phone
    > line enters my house. To place an access point in that position may not

    give
    > you favourable coverage. I have a couple of switches dotted around and

    would
    > locate an access point in the best position to give me the widest

    coverage.
    >
    > However if you simply want to replace a wired connection with a wireless

    one
    > then it's down to your personal preference.
    > You might consider a fully integrated unit to replace your router and try

    to
    > sell that on, if that then leaves you with dead spots then you may have to
    > buy a separate access point after all.
    >
    > --
    > Gazwad
    >
    > Freelance scientist and people tester.
    > Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
    > Moderator: alt.warez.uk
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    WCH, Feb 17, 2004
    #3
  4. WCH

    al dente Guest

    WCH wrote:
    | Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the information. It is NOT my
    | intention to replace my existing router with the wireless router. I
    | agree with the point you made, in essence -- if the system is working
    | why mess with it. Regardless of whether I get a wireless access point
    | or a router, the unit will be plugged into a network jack located in
    | a central location in my home in hopes of getting the best coverage
    | (happens to be nowhere near the cable modem/router/switch, but no
    | matter).
    |
    | So, if the wireless router will do everything the wireless access
    | point will do (and more things that I don't need) I should get the
    | ROUTER, right?
    | WC

    No, a router has a certain function, a switch or hub has a certain function
    and of course the access point has a certain function.

    I don't know of any router/switch/access point units which allow you to
    disable the router and use it as a switch/access point only.

    You seem to need just the access point on it's own.


    --
    Gazwad

    Freelance scientist and people tester.
    Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
    Moderator: alt.warez.uk
     
    al dente, Feb 17, 2004
    #4
  5. WCH

    Dan Shea Guest

    On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:48:16 GMT, "WCH"
    <> wrote:

    >Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the information. It is NOT my intention
    >to replace my existing router with the wireless router. I agree with the
    >point you made, in essence -- if the system is working why mess with it.
    >Regardless of whether I get a wireless access point or a router, the unit
    >will be plugged into a network jack located in a central location in my home
    >in hopes of getting the best coverage (happens to be nowhere near the cable
    >modem/router/switch, but no matter).
    >
    >So, if the wireless router will do everything the wireless access point will
    >do (and more things that I don't need) I should get the ROUTER, right?
    >WC

    <snip>

    Either one will work They will likely be rather different devices,
    though. If you get the access point, bob's your uncle. The access
    point should have an uplink port that you connect to your existing
    network using regular ol' cable. The access point may not have any
    other cable ports, so it's strictly for connecting wireless devices.

    If you get the router, you just don't use the router functionality of
    it, and you hook it in to your existing LAN through the switch
    component. You may have to use a crossover cable if the router
    doesn't have an uplink port.

    Other than that, it's your choice. All other things being equal. go
    with the access point. The cabling is slightly simpler.

    Cheers,
    dan
     
    Dan Shea, Feb 17, 2004
    #5
  6. WCH

    Billy Guest

    "WCH" <> wrote in message
    news:QQpYb.343018$na.503479@attbi_s04...
    > Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the information. It is NOT my

    intention
    > to replace my existing router with the wireless router. I agree with

    the
    > point you made, in essence -- if the system is working why mess with

    it.
    > Regardless of whether I get a wireless access point or a router, the

    unit
    > will be plugged into a network jack located in a central location in

    my home
    > in hopes of getting the best coverage (happens to be nowhere near the

    cable
    > modem/router/switch, but no matter).
    >
    > So, if the wireless router will do everything the wireless access

    point will
    > do (and more things that I don't need) I should get the ROUTER, right?
    > WC
    >
    > "Lord Gazwad of Grantham" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > WCH wrote:
    > > | Got a wired home network connected via a Netgear switch with a

    cable
    > > | modem coming in through a Linksys router. About to add wireless
    > > | capability for two laptops and wireless-enabled PDA. Right now

    the
    > > | prices of 802.11g wireless routers and access points are about the
    > > | same. Netgear is my brand of preference among "consumer" brands

    (my
    > > | price range). I've read a bunch of posts and can't find a reason

    to
    > > | buy a simple access point instead of a router, even though I don't
    > > | think I need the extra features of a router for this

    configuration.
    > > |
    > > | Am I missing something? If the price and relevant specs of an

    access
    > > | point and a router were the same, why would someone buy the access
    > > | point rather than the router? Does the router have disadvantages

    if
    > > | used only as an access point? I'm going to get SOMETHING today,

    so
    > > | could use a quick response.
    > > | Thanks -- WC
    > >
    > > The routers with built in everything else including wireless

    capabilities
    > > are generally for people who do not already have a router. The

    similarity
    > in
    > > cost is due to the fact that more people are buying the combined

    unit than
    > > just an access point. If you're happy with your current router then

    why
    > > bother replacing it when a separate access point is going to be much

    more
    > > flexible in terms of location.
    > >
    > > For example if you have ADSL and have an ADSL modem/router this

    should be
    > > located close to a telephone point, I have mine plugged in where the

    phone
    > > line enters my house. To place an access point in that position may

    not
    > give
    > > you favourable coverage. I have a couple of switches dotted around

    and
    > would
    > > locate an access point in the best position to give me the widest

    > coverage.
    > >
    > > However if you simply want to replace a wired connection with a

    wireless
    > one
    > > then it's down to your personal preference.
    > > You might consider a fully integrated unit to replace your router

    and try
    > to
    > > sell that on, if that then leaves you with dead spots then you may

    have to
    > > buy a separate access point after all.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Gazwad
    > >
    > > Freelance scientist and people tester.
    > > Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
    > > Moderator: alt.warez.uk
    > >


    All advice has been good so far. Additional point, if you get the router
    do not use the WAN connection or DHCP and you can join it to the
    existing network. Some folks prefer to operate the wireless on a
    separate network sharing the broadband. In that case use the WAN port.
     
    Billy, Feb 17, 2004
    #6
  7. WCH

    Meat-->Plow Guest

    On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:55:36 GMT, "WCH"
    <>,wrote:

    >Got a wired home network connected via a Netgear switch with a cable modem
    >coming in through a Linksys router. About to add wireless capability for
    >two laptops and wireless-enabled PDA. Right now the prices of 802.11g
    >wireless routers and access points are about the same. Netgear is my brand
    >of preference among "consumer" brands (my price range). I've read a bunch
    >of posts and can't find a reason to buy a simple access point instead of a
    >router, even though I don't think I need the extra features of a router for
    >this configuration.
    >
    >Am I missing something? If the price and relevant specs of an access point
    >and a router were the same, why would someone buy the access point rather
    >than the router? Does the router have disadvantages if used only as an
    >access point? I'm going to get SOMETHING today, so could use a quick
    >response.
    >Thanks -- WC
    >


    You could use a quick response? How's this, **** YOU ?
     
    Meat-->Plow, Feb 18, 2004
    #7
  8. WCH

    Billy Guest

    "Meat-->Plow" <> wrote in message
    news:c0vhb4$edl$...
    > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:55:36 GMT, "WCH"
    > <>,wrote:
    >
    > >Got a wired home network connected via a Netgear switch with a cable

    modem
    > >coming in through a Linksys router. About to add wireless capability

    for
    > >two laptops and wireless-enabled PDA. Right now the prices of

    802.11g
    > >wireless routers and access points are about the same. Netgear is my

    brand
    > >of preference among "consumer" brands (my price range). I've read a

    bunch
    > >of posts and can't find a reason to buy a simple access point instead

    of a
    > >router, even though I don't think I need the extra features of a

    router for
    > >this configuration.
    > >
    > >Am I missing something? If the price and relevant specs of an access

    point
    > >and a router were the same, why would someone buy the access point

    rather
    > >than the router? Does the router have disadvantages if used only as

    an
    > >access point? I'm going to get SOMETHING today, so could use a quick
    > >response.
    > >Thanks -- WC
    > >

    >
    > You could use a quick response? How's this, **** YOU ?


    Considering that there are already 5 responses, I'd have to say , late,
    ineffective and crass.
     
    Billy, Feb 18, 2004
    #8
    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. Mark
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,130
  2. MadEric
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    711
    Toolman Tim
    Apr 17, 2004
  3. David Sudjiman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,101
    David Sudjiman
    Jun 8, 2006
  4. Pegleg
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    25,480
  5. Nate Goulet
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,242
    Nate Goulet
    Dec 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page