Upgrading old computers

[Gene E. Bloch]

I've answered that question multiple times and you keep asking it.

I even added a caveat to one of your answers

Starting now, I think I'll just lurk in this thread (instead of
posting), to see if it ever gets resolved.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

You normally don't get a chance to do that on the client side. When
you attempt to connect to a wireless network, the two sides negotiate
on their respective capabilities. Things like channel number and
encryption settings are only configured on the router, and the client
only has the option to match up if it can. If it can't, then no
connection is established.

This means that on the client PC, you don't get an opportunity to
specify the channel, nor anything to do with the encryption method.

Not quite as I've experienced it. It seems to me that I've set up
security on wifi devices a number of times.

 

[Antares 531]

On 25/06/2012 2:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:15:28 -0500, Antares 531

I have re-activated the old, damaged router and this computer will
connect with it okay. The old damaged router's Wi-Fi parts weren't
damaged by the lightning strike but the Ethernet parts were damaged
and no longer work with any computer.
Good, it looks like the wireless card is ok. That brings us back to a
configuration setting. Disabling the encryption on your new router
should have allowed the old computer to make a connection, but you
have to make it forget the old settings first.

Second, you have to determine the wireless encryption capabilities of
your old wireless card versus your new router, then settle on the
highest common denominator. That involves looking up the specs of your
old wireless card to see what it supports.

This old computer works well with its Wi-Fi connected to the old,
damaged router. But, when I power down that old router and power up
the new one, then try to get this old computer to connect it balks. It
shows the new router's network available, and lets me key in the
password but it won't go to completion. It times out about 5 minutes
later and quits trying to connect to the new router.
Sure looks like an encryption mismatch. See above.

[snip]

I suspect that the old wi-fi card can't handle the newer, longer
encryption keys.

Not sure what that means.

If I really wanted the old machine to be part of the
network, I'd spring for a USB wi-fi adapter:

http://www.netgear.com/wifitv

Agreed, but not THAT one! That connects to a TV, allowing it to
connect to a wireless network. He needs one that plugs into a
computer.

First two hits on Amazon (someone else's results order might vary, for
all I know):

http://www.amazon.com/Medialink-Wir...d=1340657744&sr=8-1&keywords=wifi+adapter+usb
http://www.amazon.com/SANOXY-USB2-0...d=1340657744&sr=8-2&keywords=wifi+adapter+usb

The same two in TinyURL form:

http://tinyurl.com/7xxd5mf
http://tinyurl.com/7ee8ggj

There are many more there; there's also eBay, and the usual regular
stores, like NewEgg, plus local stores.

Sounds like a good idea but....my old computer doesn't have a USB
port. I guess I could buy a USB add-on and try to work this out.

I'm beginning to think this old computer is ready for the land fill
and I should be looking for a new, fast, adaptable replacement for it.

Gordon

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Sounds like a good idea but....my old computer doesn't have a USB
port.

This might have the side effect of invalidating my suggestion

I guess I could buy a USB add-on and try to work this out.

Or just buy a WiFi add-in card (if they still exist). It might be
cheaper than buying a USB card and a USB dongle.

I'm assuming you don't want to put much money into the computer...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Starting now, I think I'll just lurk in this thread (instead of
posting), to see if it ever gets resolved.

This New Year's resolution lasted less than half an hour

 

[Paul]

If you have an opportunity to try that exact hardware with Win 7
instead of XP, you might be surprised. I was getting similar
performance with my cheap ($9) Trendnet Gb NICs until I installed
Windows 7. The performance nearly doubled, going to 990+ Mbps on a
regular basis.

I was doing an A/B comparison within the same computer. At the other
end, was the Windows 7 laptop running a Broadcom GbE. And my current
motherboard has a Marvell GbE (good) and the TG-3269 I was testing
(bad). The Marvell did around 117MB/sec goodput (user data bytes),
while the TG-3269 did around 70MB/sec. And by testing with various
computers, it was sensitive to CPU performance level. And
using the Performance plugin and monitoring interrupts, the TG-3269
had way too many interrupts. There were about five interrupts per
packet processed, which I would have guessed, is impossible. But
that's what my results showed. A shower of interrupts. That's where
the CPU cycles are going. And I don't think the TG-3269 has any
interrupt mitigation feature either. (None was shown in Properties
for the card - otherwise I'd have ticked it by now).

I agree with you, on the contribution the OS makes. My experiments
here, show Win2K has around a ~40MB/sec limit on performance. Even
the Marvell chip on my current motherboard didn't change that, the
last time I checked. But OSes later than Win2K, may be able to
get closer to full link rate. And I have managed to get close
enough to 117MB/sec enough times here, to be satisfied with
my other network components. It's just that card that let
me down.

I didn't start out wanting to benchmark it. I was doing a Gentoo
distcc build, and there was a performance graph, and I'd spent the
money to make the connections between the machines GbE. And
when the TG-3269 was put in the box that only had a 100BT NIC,
I didn't get much of a boost. And that's when I got curious.

That card sits in an antistatic bag now. It's function in
life, is to prevent the antistatic bag from blowing away.

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

I didn't start out wanting to benchmark it. I was doing a Gentoo
distcc build, and there was a performance graph, and I'd spent the
money to make the connections between the machines GbE. And
when the TG-3269 was put in the box that only had a 100BT NIC,
I didn't get much of a boost. And that's when I got curious.

That card sits in an antistatic bag now. It's function in
life, is to prevent the antistatic bag from blowing away.

Sometimes one's purpose in life is to serve as a bad example.

 

[Antares 531]

This might have the side effect of invalidating my suggestion


Or just buy a WiFi add-in card (if they still exist). It might be
cheaper than buying a USB card and a USB dongle.

I'm assuming you don't want to put much money into the computer...

This old computer is the one my wife uses for e-mail, Facebook, etc.
It works well and there really isn't any reason to want to replace it,
but I may have to. It isn't the cost but more a matter of hard headed
reluctance to admit defeat, on my part.

Also, this has been a very good learning experience for me. Now if I
could learn all the specifics about the password or WEP/WPA key maybe
I could get this thing going, after all. Gordon

 

[DJT]

I have the router set up with a Cat 5 connection to my new desktop
computer and all is well, here. The only two problems are that the two
old desktop computers won't connect to the router. One of the old
desktop computers has a Cat 5 connection and the other has a Wi-Fi
setup, but neither will work.

As mentioned previously check the address needed to connect to the
router ie 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1 I had problems when I changed
routers as the router address changed and I had to setup each computer
seperately even though hey were using DHCP

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Also, this has been a very good learning experience for me. Now if I
could learn all the specifics about the password or WEP/WPA key maybe
I could get this thing going, after all. Gordon

Good luck...I have a feeling you'll get there and feel good about
succeeding...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

That card sits in an antistatic bag now. Its function in
life is to prevent the antistatic bag from blowing away.

Sometimes that's what I feel about me

I like the concept you introduced there...

 

[Joe Morris]

Not quite as I've experienced it. It seems to me that I've set up
security on wifi devices a number of times.

Perhaps what Char meant to say was "on the client PC, you don't have the
ability to configure arbitrary channel numbers for the link, or arbitrary
encryption settings. You must choose settings (or take defaults) which are
compatible with the settings in the access point."

For encryption settings, you hopefully *do* have to configure your client.
Thankfully, the days when all the ISPs provided customers with access points
that defaulted to "unencrypted" are (mostly) in the past.

H'mmm...it's been a few years since I've dug out my KISMET-based WiFi
auditor and driven around the DC area. One of these days I'll have to see
what's changed in the meantime, which I hope includes a dramatic reduction
in the number of unencrypted or WEP configurations.

Joe

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Perhaps what Char meant to say was "on the client PC, you don't have the
ability to configure arbitrary channel numbers for the link, or arbitrary
encryption settings. You must choose settings (or take defaults) which are
compatible with the settings in the access point."

For encryption settings, you hopefully *do* have to configure your client.
Thankfully, the days when all the ISPs provided customers with access points
that defaulted to "unencrypted" are (mostly) in the past.

H'mmm...it's been a few years since I've dug out my KISMET-based WiFi
auditor and driven around the DC area. One of these days I'll have to see
what's changed in the meantime, which I hope includes a dramatic reduction
in the number of unencrypted or WEP configurations.

Joe

I sometimes turn on my laptop or phone here or at relatives' houses or
whatever. Using a search function to look for websites, these days I
only see secured sites. I've never managed to guess a password

I do see the expected open sites at coffee houses or similar places.

 

[Wolf K]

On 25/06/2012 3:32 PM, Antares 531 wrote:
[...]

Now, setting that old computer up with the password for the new router
is where things hang up. The password I've used for other computers on
this new router doesn't work. The WEP/WPA key doesn't work. What can I
try next? Gordon

Get a USB wi-fi adapter. I pointed you to one in another post.

 

[Wolf K]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:15:28 -0500, Antares 531

I have re-activated the old, damaged router and this computer will
connect with it okay. The old damaged router's Wi-Fi parts weren't
damaged by the lightning strike but the Ethernet parts were damaged
and no longer work with any computer.
Good, it looks like the wireless card is ok. That brings us back to a
configuration setting. Disabling the encryption on your new router
should have allowed the old computer to make a connection, but you
have to make it forget the old settings first.

Second, you have to determine the wireless encryption capabilities of
your old wireless card versus your new router, then settle on the
highest common denominator. That involves looking up the specs of your
old wireless card to see what it supports.

This old computer works well with its Wi-Fi connected to the old,
damaged router. But, when I power down that old router and power up
the new one, then try to get this old computer to connect it balks. It
shows the new router's network available, and lets me key in the
password but it won't go to completion. It times out about 5 minutes
later and quits trying to connect to the new router.
Sure looks like an encryption mismatch. See above.

[snip]

I suspect that the old wi-fi card can't handle the newer, longer
encryption keys.

Not sure what that means.

If I really wanted the old machine to be part of the
network, I'd spring for a USB wi-fi adapter:

http://www.netgear.com/wifitv

Agreed, but not THAT one! That connects to a TV, allowing it to
connect to a wireless network. He needs one that plugs into a
computer.

Correct, my bad.

D-Link USB wi-fi adapters work well, and are cheap. Best Buy, Staples,
etc, all carry them.

 

[Wolf K]

On 25/06/2012 8:42 PM, Joe Morris wrote:
[...]

H'mmm...it's been a few years since I've dug out my KISMET-based WiFi
auditor and driven around the DC area. One of these days I'll have to see
what's changed in the meantime, which I hope includes a dramatic reduction
in the number of unencrypted or WEP configurations.

Rest easy. The D-link router, plain vanilla, not-state-of-the-art wi-fi
router I bought a year ago came with a 64-character encryption key. I
actually had to type it in the first time.

Things do improve, eventually.

 

[Char Jackson]

As mentioned previously check the address needed to connect to the
router ie 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1 I had problems when I changed
routers as the router address changed and I had to setup each computer
seperately even though hey were using DHCP

If you were truly using DHCP, the easiest method of switching routers
is to reboot each PC. If rebooting is inconvenient, you could have
opened a Command Prompt and issued "ipconfig /release" followed by
"ipconfig /renew" to pick up the new network settings. There shouldn't
have been any other configuration required, and as I say above, even
the two ipconfig commands aren't required if you afford to reboot.

 

[Char Jackson]

Perhaps what Char meant to say was "on the client PC, you don't have the
ability to configure arbitrary channel numbers for the link, or arbitrary
encryption settings. You must choose settings (or take defaults) which are
compatible with the settings in the access point."

Thanks, Joe. I appreciate the rescue attempt and should probably
accept it graciously and move on, but I honestly don't remember the
last time I've seen a wireless client configuration manager that
allowed the user to select the channel or security settings. If you
guys say there is such a thing, I'll accept your word for it.

For encryption settings, you hopefully *do* have to configure your client.
Thankfully, the days when all the ISPs provided customers with access points
that defaulted to "unencrypted" are (mostly) in the past.

From what I've seen, at the client side you're limited to entering the
password. The other security settings are negotiated transparently,
and by negotiated I mean the router says 'this is what we're going to
use" and the client tries to comply, if it can.

H'mmm...it's been a few years since I've dug out my KISMET-based WiFi
auditor and driven around the DC area. One of these days I'll have to see
what's changed in the meantime, which I hope includes a dramatic reduction
in the number of unencrypted or WEP configurations.

I've been periodically checking my local neighborhood since early
2006. Back then things were mostly open with a few DSL customers
running 2Wire modem/routers using WEP. Since then it's been
interesting to see the slow but steady migration away from open
networks to WEP, then away from WEP to WPA, and finally to WPA2. There
are still two open networks here, about a half dozen WEP (still DSL
customers), and the rest (about 35-40) are mostly WPA2 now.

 

[Char Jackson]

Correct, my bad.

D-Link USB wi-fi adapters work well, and are cheap. Best Buy, Staples,
etc, all carry them.

Yup, there are many to choose from. I don't think there's anything
wrong with what he already has, though. He confirmed earlier this
evening that it still connects to the old router, so it works and just
needs to be configured properly.

 

[Char Jackson]

On 25/06/2012 8:42 PM, Joe Morris wrote:
[...]

H'mmm...it's been a few years since I've dug out my KISMET-based WiFi
auditor and driven around the DC area. One of these days I'll have to see
what's changed in the meantime, which I hope includes a dramatic reduction
in the number of unencrypted or WEP configurations.

Rest easy. The D-link router, plain vanilla, not-state-of-the-art wi-fi
router I bought a year ago came with a 64-character encryption key. I
actually had to type it in the first time.

Things do improve, eventually.

As you may know, if it has the WPS feature, (Wireless Protected Setup
or whatever D-Link calls it), then it's likely vulnerable to an easy
hack. In that case, the number of characters in the password makes no
difference and therefore doesn't contribute to security.