Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
wireless networking and wifi printer help
40hz:
If I can create an adhoc wired 'network' so easily, then why is a wireless solution so much different. The comm's should be the same, so we're only talking about the means of transmission (is landline v mobile telephony is an appropriate analogy?)
-Target (January 21, 2015, 09:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
Ad hoc was originally intended to be a means of doing rudimentary file sharing between PCs. A way to avoid sneaker-netting. Sort of like the basic capabilities in the far more sophisticted AppleTalk sharing services running on Macs. It wasn't intended to replace a traditional LAN. And it especially was never intended to be used as a router. That was supposed to be handled by internet connection sharing where one PC in your home network shared its internet connection with all the other PCs. So once again, one PC becomes the gateway of last resort as SJ put it.
Also ad hoc networking is a topology. Ad hoc networking can be done in a number of ways. It's not dependent on specific hardware per se. And it doesn't need a wireless capability to make it work. You could do an ad hoc network with a crossover cable and two NICs. Or with multiple PCs, cables, and a dumb network hub or switch - no router required. That's how it used to be done before wifi came out. Using a wifi connection just makes it much more convenient.
Target:
Also ad hoc networking is a topology. Ad hoc networking can be done in a number of ways. It's not dependent on specific hardware per se. And it doesn't need a wireless capability to make it work. You could do an ad hoc network with a crossover cable and two NICs. Or with multiple PCs, cables, and a dumb network hub or switch - no router required. That's how it used to be done before wifi came out.
-40hz (January 21, 2015, 09:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
which was the point I was trying to make :Thmbsup:
Using a wifi connection just makes it much more convenient.
--- End quote ---
except it apparently doesn't :huh:
Stoic Joker:
Also ad hoc networking is a topology. Ad hoc networking can be done in a number of ways. It's not dependent on specific hardware per se. And it doesn't need a wireless capability to make it work. You could do an ad hoc network with a crossover cable and two NICs. Or with multiple PCs, cables, and a dumb network hub or switch - no router required. That's how it used to be done before wifi came out.
-40hz (January 21, 2015, 09:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
which was the point I was trying to make :Thmbsup:-Target (January 21, 2015, 10:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
The catch is that with wireless Ad-Hoc networks you're stuck with a crossover cable style point to point connection, because there is no way to effect the switch/hub part of the equation. So three devices become the equivalent of trying to splice a third connector into the crossover cable, because nothing is available to handle the task of handling which packet goes where when.
Granted they are trying to create a working 3-way with the new Wireless Direct technology, but that's one of those things that's cool as hell when it works...but frequently doesn't - Because your particular stuff isn't compatible for reasons nobody can quite clearly define ... Because they're not quite done making up the %&^^$ spec just yet.
Using a wifi connection just makes it much more convenient.
--- End quote ---
except it apparently doesn't :huh:-Target (January 21, 2015, 10:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
See, now you're starting to catch on.. ;) :D :Thmbsup:
40hz:
[Using a wifi connection just makes it much more convenient.
--- End quote ---
except it apparently doesn't :huh:
-Target (January 21, 2015, 10:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well...it's certainly more convenient than finding a crossover cable. ;D Or cables and a network hub (or switch) to plug things into.
Of course if you went through the trouble of getting a switch you could have just gotten yourself a router (which is actually a router with a built-in 4-port switch in most consumer-level units)...and since you've put that much money in, why not just get a wifi router (which is actually a wireless access point + a router + a network switch all in one convenient appliance) for not many dollars more and...be done with it?
;) 8)
That way, all you need to do is set your NIC to use DHCP and know the passkey for your wireless router. Bingo! You're in. And not just when you're at home. It works virtually everywhere else too. Because that's the way it's done. And it "just works." Most times at least. (The huge number of totally clueless people who routinely access networks and the Internet without firing up a single brain synapse are proof enough.)
Contrast that with setting static IP addresses...making sure there's no duplicate addresses in use...hoping Windows sorts out which member PC is going to be elected as the master browser for the P2P...and on and on. Then, you get to undo all of that and reconfigure your NIC back to DHCP when you want to use just about any other network out there.
So no...I really do think it's both easier and more convenient to use a router than an ad hoc network. Once a router is properly configured (not a difficult task even for a techno-weenie) you need to know nada to use it going forward. With an ad hoc, you actually do need to know something - and redo it any time you want to "net in" to something else.
The lowly 'router' is a lovely thing indeed.
:)
techidave:
My printer is the same model as Targets. ML-2835. As I remember (been a few months) during the setup, I couldn't get the wifi part to work like I think it should have.
Does it confuse the printer if it has both a wired and wifi connection? I have seen older HP lasers that could only have one connection.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version