| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 110729 | 2010-06-29 22:24:00 | Wireless LAN Adapter. Best brand | paulw (1826) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1114608 | 2010-06-29 22:24:00 | Hi all. I have a need to buy one of theses. I see at PB tech some low priced ones starting at about $36 www.pbtech.co.nz Anyone gotten any comments on these low priced ones or other recommendations?? TIA. |
paulw (1826) | ||
| 1114609 | 2010-06-29 22:35:00 | Doesn't matter what you get. They do the same thing. Just make sure. If you're using a wireless router, that the adapter supports the same thing (ie: WEP/WPA/WPA2/wireless N, if the router is wireless N). And if you're using 64 bit, there's 64 bit drivers for it | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 1114610 | 2010-06-30 01:32:00 | Thanx for the info.. | paulw (1826) | ||
| 1114611 | 2010-06-30 01:36:00 | Much of a muchness. If you can find one with a Realtek chipset in it that's always a bonus, but it doesn't really matter. | wratterus (105) | ||
| 1114612 | 2010-06-30 02:03:00 | Doesn't matter what you get. They do the same thing. Yes, but some do it better than others. In the same way that not all CPUs are binned at the same speed, not all WiFi chips are binned with the same quality. Cheap WiFi adaptors usually use the not-so-good chips which are at the lower end of the range and have worse sensitivity etc than those which would be in higher quality brands such as Asus. Although this should only matter if you are trying to reach maximum distance etc for nefarious purposes. For home use there should be not noticeable difference... |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1114613 | 2010-06-30 02:20:00 | Well if you're fussy or paranoid, on whats better, get the best and the dearest | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 1114614 | 2010-06-30 09:40:00 | But best and dearest isn't always better either, by any stretch of the imagination ... Get one of these, as those Asus are outta stock: www.pbtech.co.nz |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1114615 | 2010-06-30 09:44:00 | But best and dearest isn't always better either, by any stretch of the imagination ... Exactly. Thats what I meant |
Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 1114616 | 2010-06-30 10:07:00 | That makes no sense? | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1114617 | 2010-06-30 10:26:00 | But best and dearest isn't always better either, by any stretch of the imagination Best though, would be, by definition better, surely?:D |
KarameaDave (15222) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||