Hi guys,

It looks like the years are starting to kick in,
as I've lost track of technology...

My current ADSL modem (Netcomm NB3) is dying and while looking for a replacement,
I came across loads of technical blabla that's going over my head...

My current setup is two Macs, a PC and a 2 printers connected in a local ethernet network. (on a Netgear ethernet hub)

I can obviously buy a simple new $80 ADSL modem that will do the same as my dying one,
BUT what specifications do I need to look for and what are the added benefits of a "router", "port switch", etc... ?

Also, if I buy a wireless router, can I use the ethernet connection and simply activate / de-activate the wireless bit whenever needed ? (for the occasional use of the iPhone at home)

Thanks!
Cien

Edit: forgot: my Linksys CIT400 (cordless Skype-phone) is also attached to my ethernet hub...

Thumbs up for a Dynalink 1025W as found here.

And an extra pair of thumbs for either a Netcomm NB6Plus4W - or a Netcomm NB9W - Wireless Modem Routers.

I love the Netgear 802.11g wireless routers. They small and pretty. They look like they'd be useless, but are quite powerful.


However, I'm not having any luck with the 802.11n versions, so I'll be steering clear of those.

Thanks for the quick suggestions !

However, do these "routers" have benefits for me,
since I already have an ethernet hub that connects all computers to the internet ?

eg: does a router more than distributing the internet to multiple computers ?

Another thumbs up for the Dynalink RTA1025W.

The NB6Plus4W uses the same chipset/board as the Dynalink above and also works well.

When you say you have 'an ethernet hub' I have to ask... is it really a hub? Hubs haven't been used for years now. Perhaps it is an ethernet switch? Or maybe it's years old and it is a hub

You can replace your existing modem and hub (or switch) with a single piece of hardware like an RTA1025W.

A 4 port wireless modem/router will act as a modem, a router, a switch (hub) and a wireless access point all in one.

Oh... and these days it's almost impossible to buy 'just a modem' (before you ask). It is possible to buy modem/routers without wireless and some of them only have a single ethernet port so you need to use a switch (hub) for multiple computers but they are still modem/routers not just modems.

Yeah - as Geoff's put it, one's hard pressed to find a non-wireless modem router, so it's simplest to buy any of the models mentioned here, use the Ethernet Router ports just as you've always done, and activate the Wireless function of the chosen modem router for use with your iPhone.

They'll operate both with Ethernet and Wireless, simultaneously.

Re: Geoff: yes... it is a hub... what can I say... showing my age...

Looks like I still have to keep it though, as the suggested modem-routers all seem to have only 4 ethernet ports and I need 6...

So would the best setup be to put the 3 computers straight in to the router -
and connect the printers and the CIT400 in my old hub (that I plug into the 4th port in the router?

Or would I simply plug my hub in the router
and hook everything else up in the hub ? (as it is now)

---
and... just to expand my knowledge...
(I feel like an 80 year old now -- I'm typing this with crayons... ;-)

If a modem/router only has 1 ethernet port, why is it still a router ?

Thanks again !

I'll be 39 this year - I know exactly how you feel.

They call it a Router because they're confusing SOBs.

But with most of them - like where a modem has the term: PLUS4 in it,
they look like this round the back:



Sorry bout the size of that pic, guys.

Just plug your hub / switch into Ethernet Port 1, which is now no different from an Uplink Port.

And the latest Dynalink RTA1025W looks basically identical (even to the same yellow network ports... the earlier ones were black)

OK... it's a hub. But unless you are running ADSL2+ or 8Mbit ADSL1 and the hub is 10Mbit only (not 10/100Mbit) it's still not going to be the limiting factor on a small home LAN. If both of those apply you'd be best doing what you suggest and the printers into the hub then run a cable from the uplink port on the hub to one of the ports on the new router and the rest of the pc's direct into the router as well.

If those criterea don't apply then you can still do that but you don't have to (I probably still would but it's an optimization that isn't needed and you likely wouldn't detect any difference).

If a router only has one port then it can still route information to different IP addresses (which is a good definition of what routers actually do). It might do that via wireless or simply by plugging that single port into a switch or a hub.

A switch OTOH doesn't have the circuitry to do that it can only read the information to determine where to send packets not create the information and a hub can't even do that as it sends duplicates of all packets to all ports (and does some simple re-sending if packet collisions occur).

So... it's not the number of ports that determine if something is a 'router', it's what it does with information packets and how it does it (simplifying here)

1. You NEED a router in the equation somewhere.

2. You'll be better off buying an all-in-one unit (like the one CW posted) but if you have the extra money then..

3. I'd recommend buying a MODEM/ROUTER unit (even one with a single ethernet port), and an airport express.

Plug MODEM/ROUTER into HUB. Plug MACS into HUB. Plug AIRPORT EXPRESS into HUB. Voila!
A proper network with wireless, airtunes and printer sharing via the airport express.

You can also just share your printers with your macs like you're doing now.

All the macs' networks settings should be set to 'automatic' - the router takes care of it all. No need to use internet sharing etc on all the macs.

Re : Wireless - If you buy an all-in-one unit (Like CW's) you CAN turn off the wireless (usually) - but its slightly tedious to do so.

If you buy an airport express then you can just unplug it.

Jeremy

I have to disagree with jeremy... Apple do most things really well but there is a significant problem with *all* of the Apple range of wireless routers.

None of the apple wireless/routers have actually had an inbuilt modem since the early UFO versions (and that was dial up not ADSL).

It's a design flaw which requires purchasing a separate modem (and these days that means a modem/router) and then disabling most of it's functions to use duplicate functions in the Apple wireless/router.

Er Geoff - Did you notice I'm talking about an airport express and not extreme?

They're designed to be used in exactly this scenario. I run two of them here and have set up heaps for other people - they all work exactly as designed, and like an 'access point' rather than a wireless router themselves.

The fact that they don't have an inbuilt modem makes them more valuable, in my opinion. In the case of the Express it means they're a lot more versatile and the consumer can make the decision about what modem and router hardware (slash linux gateway etc) they're going to use.

I have never used an Airport Extreme - Can't see the need, when airport express does the same thing.

Edit :
|
|
| (phone line)
|
|
(Modem-Router) ---- (Hub)----(Computer One)------(Printer One)
-------------------|------(Computer Two)
-------------------|------(Airport Express)------(Speakers)
--------------------------------|------------(Printer Two)


iPod Touch is connected wirelessly via Airport Express.

Another vote for the Dynalink RTA 1025W

Yes I did. And they have a place as a wireless extender for an existing network.

But the OP said " My current ADSL modem (Netcomm NB3) is dying" so they'd still have to buy not only the Airport Express but also a modem (which these days would be a modem router).

Airport Express $129 + Basic 1 port modem router (say a Dynalink RTA1320) $52 = $181

Dynalink RTA1025W = $109

So it's going to cost substantially more than an all in one modem/router which will do the same job just as reliably (if not more so) than to use the Airport Express as you suggested.

That's basically the problem with all of the Apple routers, they don't do anything any other router doesn't do just as well but they lack the internal built in modem so they force people to use 2 boxes instead of 1.

The sort of design suits cable modem users (which is a large portion of Apples design market) but it really doesn't suit most Australian ADSL users.

Someones got cable? Go for it