computers connected wirelessly would have a max transfer rate of 54mb/s , wired would have max connection speed of 100mb/s. for a home network , it would be enough using a wireless connection
We setup a wireless network at home. It was a nightmare but we got there in the end. Used NTL cable to a router and connected 5 pc to it wirelessly. I have problems connecting sometimes as the walls are thick and im upstaires but i extended the dongle into another room.
Works fine now!.
I also have a Wireless Network over here.
If your Wireless Router has a speed of 54 Mb/s, than that will be more than enough! Realize: the point is your internet-speed! If you have a download speed of, let's say: 3 Mb/s, than you will never use the other 51 Mb's!
That's only used by filesharing and so on.
In my home I als print wirelessly since 2 days!
My dad bought a Laser Printer, and that one has a LAN-port. So I puttet a cable in it to the wireless router, and now I can print from my PC on the second floor. When I send a document to the printer, I can't walk to downstairs or myprint is ready!
yes, 54mbps is fast enough...unless you have a Gig-E connection in your home!
that's absolutly true, although you're always dependent to the upload of others. On an average most of the servers have an upload of 100 Mb/s I suppose, and you only notice that speed when you download big files.
Are you going to be using the connection mostly for internet, or for transferring files to another computer on your network? If the first, then a wireless connection will suffice. Considering that most broadband connections range from 1-10mbps, you should be able to download at your full capable speed (within range of course).
However if you are transferring large files, then I recommend you stay with wired. I use a wireless connection for my internet, but sending files between my laptop and desktop I do through wire. As the files I send are upwards of 500mb each, it takes a matter of seconds through a 1000mbps connection.
Although I haven't tested them, 108mbps wireless also exist. This might be a thing to look into if you need to share files, and if laying wire isn't practical/possible.
If you buy a 108Mbps router, in order to use the 108Mbps speeds, you'll need to buy wireless hardware from the same manufacturer. In other words, if it's a Netgear 108Mbps router, you'll need Netgear 108Mbps cards in all PCs - expensive, I'm sure you'll agree.
For file transfer speeds, the 108Mbps thing would probably be noticeable, but as far as your internet connection goes, an 802.11b router would still pump out your web connection at full speed.
I have Wireless setup at my house, and it is running at 54mbs. It is fairly a good speed for a wireless. But if you have a choice on wire or wireless. I would suggest wire network. It is a lot better connection plus you connection is less likely going to drop due to many wireless usage in and around your house. Especially when most poeple is use 2.4GHz cordless phone that can and will interfere with your network.
^^ That's why they allow you to change the channel to eliminate the interference. Unless you have 12 cordless phones all on different 2.4GHz channels, you should be fine. And as for the 108mbps thing all from the same manufacturer, well that is expected. Seeing as it's just an implementation of the same 'g'-type of wireless, anything that a manufacturer does to it makes it unique, and only their products will support it. Netgear products aren't on the pricey end of the spectrum either. If you are going to buy wireless network cards, Netgear, or DLink cards will cost you less than say Linksys ones.
If you do take the wired approach, be aware that with one wire you can only span a distance of 100'. After that length you need to add a hub, and then go another 100 feet. It seems long, but you'd be surprised how small it is.
With wireless networks, you can always extend the network using WDS. Only certain routers support it (my linksys WRT54GS with a 3rd-party firmware, and airport express do). They are an inexpensive way to boost your signal.