Slashdot Mirror
The Wireless Networking Question Roundup...
Which 802.11b-enabled PDA?
Kent Brewster asks: "I've retired my Palm 7 due to sudden lack of all-you-can-eat service and lots of free WiFi in the area. Right now, I'm looking at HP's iPAQ h5455, Toshiba's e750, Palm's Tungsten C, and Sharp's as-yet-to-ship Zaurus 5600. What I'm after is the best possible mobile Web experience first and PDA functions second. Opinions, please?"
802.11b Issues for Apartment Complexes? (Revisited)
johaninroseville asks: "I am in the planning stages to build a wireless network to provide an apartment complex with last mile Internet access. There are about six hundred units, but only one to two hundred interested people. For those curious as to the general layout of the apartments, here is an overhead picture.
My experience with radio frequencies, antennas, and especially how well radio waves can penetrate walls etc is rather limited. My game plan is to get a feed into the POP / MDF, and have a rather strong omni antenna mounted on the roof of that building. The coverage of that omni antenna will provide the links to the seven APs that will probably be needed, mounted on the rooftops around the complex. The seven IDFs, (or APs or what ever you want to call them) will each have a Point-to Point connection to the big omni antenna. Hardware used for the seven IDFs is planned to be: directional antenna (for link to omni in POP) connected to bridge, bridge connected to AP, AP connected to a sectored panel antenna that will provide end-user access (to their PCMCIA/PCI/CF/USB Cards, or to their access point).
My biggest questions are what antennas to use? What strength? How well can the radio waves from an omni antenna and/or a sector antenna penetrate multiple walls, if at all? How far can one of these antennas cover, and then penetrate walls?
I would appreciate any help at all in this matter. Maybe somebody has done something similar, or have some useful links."
Ask Slashdot last covered wireless apartment complexes about a year ago, and it would be interesting to note if any of the new technologies, introduced in the interim, will make this job any easier.
Outdoor Enclosures for 802.11b Equipment?
And finally, this question from ETEQ: "I need to operate a small amount of networking and wireless equipment (Router, Cable Modem, and 802.11 access point) in an outdoor setting, but the problem is that I live in Minnesota, where temperatures can drop far below freezing and stay that way for weeks (not to mention frequent heavy snow)... Are there any outdoor enclosures that can be purchased on a Home or SOHO budget?"
Am I the only one picturing a lawn gnome with a wire coming out of his butt?
couple things to consider:
the main problem in my experience is wall penetration. Don't count on more than 3 walls (and this is stretching it if they are concrete). Consider mounting the antenna outside a bit away from the building, essentially hitting the outside wall. This will give you only one wall for all apartments.
Don't forget about accountability and security. Even if billing is not an issue, you don't want someone in your building to go wild and start a hacking crew. Static IPs are a bit accountability help, NAT is though
---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
A couple of weeks ago, I got a chance to dink around with the Tungsten C at CompUSA and browsed around to a couple of sites, including Slashdot, and the web browser seems to render pages a lot better than Pocket IE included with the Pocket PC OS. Pocket IE is closer to IE3/IE4 than current versions of IE (though IE in CE.NET, which isn't available for Pocket PC hardware, is closer).
Either browsers do not support pop-up windows, which is both good (for pop-up and pop-under ads) and bad (if you are using a webmail system that depends on pop-up windows). Also, trying to read something on a 320x240 screen is a wee bit difficult. The Tungsten C's display (320x320) gives a little more real estate for rendering web pages, though the fonts used my take a little getting used to if you are used to Verdana, Times or Bitstream's Vera.
Speed-wise, the Tungsten C seems a bit faster and more responsive when browsing the web than an iPaq with the same processor, memory and built-in WiFi. For me, the location of the navigation disc is a bit too low for me, but after using it for a couple of minutes, I got used to it.
As far as a previous poster's question on why 802.11b instead of 802.11g? I think there are a couple of reasons right now: 802.11g eats up more power (thus run a bit warmer) and the chips used for it aren't as compact as 802.11b chips... that and I'm not sure how much I/O is provided between the processor and the bus that the WiFi controller would connect to (which could end up being a bottleneck). That and I think almost all of the 802.11g PC Cards available right now are CardBus only, which I don't think any PDA (clamshell or not) supports.
You'd better let the residents know that they shouldn't be using 2.4 GHz cordless phones on the premises, or they'll be knocking out the wireless connections for computers in the area.
Most of these features--crappy low-res cameras, SMS, e-mail, and simple PDA features--are not technological advances. What they represent is a sort of experimentation; phones are unlikely to get any smaller and still be usable, instead, designers are trying to determine what features are most wanted next to being able to make phone calls.
That said, the processor power in cellphones has remained fairly limited, while that in PDAs like the iPaq or the Zaurus is now greater than many of my still-useful desktops. PDAs are now running nearly-full-fledged operating systems like Windows Pocket PC or Linux. PDAs, just as phones, have to find their niche; designers must figure out what features make a PDA more desirable than just keeping notes and appointments, something which addmittedly has been somewhat supplanted by the phone.
The future is of course the merger of the two, not one beating the other in functionality, as you describe. Many PDAs can be used as phones, and many phones can be used as PDAs. To even make a distinction, or to claim that one category is advancing faster than another, is just silly. You consider a Treo a phone; many consider it a PDA. There will probably come a point, fairly quickly, where the only distinction is not whether it can make a call or not, but how big the screen is and how many added features it has.
You are to 2003 as Richard Nixon was to 1972.