Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Observations/questions regarding upgrade to 802.11g router

Posted on 09/09/2006 9:30:27 PM PDT by rudy45

Tonight I upgraded my wireless router to be 802.11g compliant. At the same time, I switched wireless PCMIA cards on my laptop, from a Microsoft MN520 card (802.11b only) to a Belkin card (802.11g). The router (also from Belkin) gave me an option of WEP or WPA, so of course I chose the latter. Therefore, I believe anyone else who wants to connect via wireless must have WPA capability. If all they have is WEP, they will be unsuccessful. In fact, I tried it myself, but deliberately trying to connect with the old Microsoft MN520 card, and having nothing happen.

When I put in the new wireless PCMIA card, it found the SSID of the router. I put in my key/password, and it connected. I was pleasantly surprised that I wasn't asked to specify WEP or WPA. I guess it "knew" to use the latter.

Suppose, though, that I had kept my old 802.11b router, and changed only my PCMIA card. Would the newer card recognize that the only encryption available was WEP, and spare me from having to specify it?

Also, why is it that Windows XP prompts the wireless user to enter a password twice before allowing connection? Why isn't one entry of the password sufficient? We're not SETTING UP the password, merely supplying one to connect to the network. One doesn't enter a password twice to log onto a computer system, so why should have to do so in this case?

Thanks.


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: computer; internet; wireless; wpa

1 posted on 09/09/2006 9:30:28 PM PDT by rudy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rudy45
Also, why is it that Windows XP prompts the wireless user to enter a password twice before allowing connection? Why isn't one entry of the password sufficient? We're not SETTING UP the password, merely supplying one to connect to the network. One doesn't enter a password twice to log onto a computer system, so why should have to do so in this case?

Is this a rhetorical question or do you expect someone from Microsoft to reply? :)

2 posted on 09/09/2006 9:43:04 PM PDT by Dan Nunn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Nunn

haha, really funny lol. Do you share my irritation? I can understand the requirement to enter the password/key twice if we're e.g. the administrator who's establishing it. In that case, we want to be sure we've entered what we think we've entered.

In this case, though, we're NOT establishing the key. We're merely supplying it, in order to access the system. Shouldn't one entry be enough? I get into this discussion with my brother in law every time I see him, and now he just tells me to "let it go."


3 posted on 09/09/2006 9:52:06 PM PDT by rudy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rudy45

No idea, I always found it easier to whitelist allowable MAC addresses. :)


4 posted on 09/09/2006 9:52:26 PM PDT by Crazieman (The Democratic Party: Culture of Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman
No idea, I always found it easier to whitelist allowable MAC addresses.

That's exactly what I use, to save myself the effort of trying to mess with passwords. Your MAC address isn't on my list, your computer isn't logging onto my router...simple as that.

5 posted on 09/09/2006 10:00:08 PM PDT by JRios1968 (Tagline for rent...inquire within)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson