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 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

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" <yhbt@mail15.com> wrote in message
news:cjuWlqvsjrXQ61DA9643QXQh67FLVdsa@moon.cantab. nu...

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

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:48:16 GMT, "WCH"
<whexeterDELETEthisPART@yahoo.com> wrote:


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

"WCH" <whexeterDELETEthisPART@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QQpYb.343018$na.503479@attbi_s04...
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.

"Meat-->Plow" <Meat@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:c0vhb4$edl$0@pita.alt.net...
Considering that there are already 5 responses, I'd have to say , late,
ineffective and crass.