dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1744
share rss forum feed


Anonnn

@teksavvy.com

[Cable] Thomson Thomson dcm425

How can I connect directly from modem to my air(macbook)? Do I need some kind of special privilege to do it so I get internet?

Connecting straight from modem to air (even desktop) via USB line is not working for me. The CD that came with it is out of date and cannot install (or unable to install) due to outdated software.

PS: Pls stick to the topic, and thanks but no thanks to the Ethernet connecting, air doesn't have that feature.


tmpchaos
Requiescat in pace
Co-Lead Mod
join:2000-04-28
Hoboken, NJ
Actually, you can easily get a usb or thunderbolt to ethernet adapter.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to Anonnn
If you're looking for something that may be a little easier, I would suggest a wireless router. As for wireless routers, my personal preference based on performance and ease of configuration (not to mention reliability and durability) by far is either Linksys or in the absence of that, TP-Link. This would enable you to plug an ethernet cable with one end in the WAN port of the router and the other plugged into the modem. From there, you could either plug another ethernet cable into your desktop with the other end plugged into a LAN port on your router, or connect both computers over wireless. This will also allow you to be able to use the MacBook anywhere in your home.

My personal recommendation from my experience would be either one of these two:

1) If you're looking for something for just a basic internet connection at a more affordable price, I would recommend going with the Linksys WRT54G or WRT54GL

2) If you're looking for something a little more "cutting edge" that you will be able to keep with you for a long time to come that can handle much more advanced networking and much faster speeds, I would recommend the Linksys E2000

Scycotic

join:2012-12-10
reply to Anonnn
If we're talking routers I'd say go Linksys refurb E1000/WRT160N/WRT310N/E1200 for low end. Will outperform the WRT54G anyday now, is compatible with third-party firmware and is usually cheaper...

Higher end I say refurb Linksys E4200 or Asus RT-N66

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
said by Scycotic:

If we're talking routers I'd say go Linksys refurb E1000/WRT160N/WRT310N/E1200 for low end. Will outperform the WRT54G anyday now, is compatible with third-party firmware and is usually cheaper...

Higher end I say refurb Linksys E4200 or Asus RT-N66

Good to know. The question is are those 10/100 LAN & WAN ports or 1G ports? As well, are they G or N? If they're N, are they 150 or 300? Curious geeky minds wonder...


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to Anonnn
What version of the USB driver is on your install CD? I might be able to find a newer version..

Some people have tried experimenting with other common USB to Ethernet drivers, with mixed success:
»discussions.apple.com/thread/153···tstart=0

In the end, getting a router or an official Apple adapter is probably the way to go. I have wireless routers from $15

Apple needs to fix this design defect. It is a travesty that they sell computers without Ethernet connections.
--
electronicsguru.ca

Scycotic

join:2012-12-10
reply to MrMazda86
The WRT160N, E1000 and E1200 are 300Gbps 2.4GHz N w/ Fast Ethernet
The WRT310N is 300Gbps 2.4GHz N w/ Gigabit
The WRT320N(essentially the E2000) is 300Gbps selective dual-band N w/ Gigabit
The E4200 and RT-N66 are simultaneous dual-band N w/ Gigabit


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
said by Scycotic:

The WRT160N, E1000 and E1200 are 300Gbps 2.4GHz N w/ Fast Ethernet
The WRT310N is 300Gbps 2.4GHz N w/ Gigabit
The WRT320N(essentially the E2000) is 300Gbps selective dual-band N w/ Gigabit
The E4200 and RT-N66 are simultaneous dual-band N w/ Gigabit

In most cases, it is a good idea to limit your wireless choice to 20MHz bandwidth. This is because wireless spectrum in the 2.4GHz band is already way over used, and choosing to widen your footprint opens you up to twice as much potential interference. It also adds interference for your neighbours. So, 300Mbps (not Gbps) choices are generally a bad idea, even if they are available.

Now if you live in a very isolated area, where you can only see one or two weak wireless networks, or none at all, of course go nuts and do whatever you can for better speeds. In cities, you aren't going to see that.
--
electronicsguru.ca


tmpchaos
Requiescat in pace
Co-Lead Mod
join:2000-04-28
Hoboken, NJ
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to Teddy Boom
said by Teddy Boom:

It is a travesty that they sell computers without Ethernet connections.

Well, it does have wireless N, and the thunderbolt adapter gives gig-e. Since it's designed as an on-the-go model, an actual enet port was somewhat superfluous.
--
***ATMFAQ***DIFAQ***Kitchen Sink***


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
filed for future reference: tmpchaos = mac zealot

Good to know
--
electronicsguru.ca

Scycotic

join:2012-12-10
reply to Teddy Boom
Fully Agreed. Of course the 5GHz band is another matter. And yeah, the amount of times I've had to deal with students moving into university residence with laptops that don't have Ethernet ports...both the local Apple store and Campus Computer store ran out of adapters at least a dozen times in the first few weeks of September...


Anonnn

@teksavvy.com
reply to tmpchaos
I see, ok!

My apology, I didn't want to make the post long so I didn't include that I do currently have a router (wireless ofc).

But through modem directly to air/etc there is a benefit of full internet speed which is what I'm looking for. I could use ethernet connecting for my other device but we are talking about air, apple, limited "stuff".

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
said by Anonnn :

But through modem directly to air/etc there is a benefit of full internet speed which is what I'm looking for. I could use ethernet connecting for my other device but we are talking about air, apple, limited "stuff".

That all depends on the line speed that you're running, and how much networking between the two computers you want to do. If you are only looking for general internet usage, but not necessarily transferring massive amounts of data across between your computers, a 54Mbit Wireless G connection even is more than sufficient for a lower package like an 8Mbit internet connection.

If you're running anything higher than that, in reality a "Fast Ethernet" (10/100) connection at the very least combined with at least a 150Mbit Wireless N may be a bit of a better way to go... Ultimately, the choice is best defined by what your needs for the internal networking functions will be, and the kind of potential for "power" that you want to be able to push through it.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to Anonnn
said by Anonnn :

But through modem directly to air/etc there is a benefit of full internet speed which is what I'm looking for.

The USB port on the DCM425 is spec'd at USB1.1, so the speed will not be very good at all. A USB 3 to Ethernet, or Thunderbolt to Ethernet adapter will be much better.
--
electronicsguru.ca


neuromancer1

join:2007-01-22
York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to Scycotic
said by Scycotic:

If we're talking routers I'd say go Linksys refurb E1000/WRT160N/WRT310N/E1200 for low end. Will outperform the WRT54G anyday now, is compatible with third-party firmware and is usually cheaper...

Higher end I say refurb Linksys E4200 or Asus RT-N66

Why buy any the above when the Asus RT-N12 B1 is always onsale for $34.00.

»www.ncix.com/products/?sku=69660···oid=1312

Scycotic

join:2012-12-10
The N12 is a single band N with Fast Ethernet similar to the cheaper ones I posted above, which go for $20 and under quite often.

The other ones (E4200 and RT-N66U) are for a different market, being much more powerful (feature-wise) than the N12.

Not to say the N12 is a bad router, I've used it and it's fine, it's just not the best value.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to Anonnn
Also, there's one thing I forgot to mention when it comes to the speeds. You always want to keep in mind what kind of data transfer usage that you will have a need for. For example, if you've got multiple computers and transfer large files (like a movie collection, or DVD images), then it may be more advisable to work with a faster connection method. Also, if you're looking for the ability to do online gaming, particularly a higher graphics intensive gaming, then you may want something a little faster also. That aside, I thought it may be helpful to break down the different speed categories and the maximum actual speed that they can handle. They are as follows:

54Mbit Wireless G ~ 6.43MB/s (in reality, you may only get up to ~4MB/s)
150Mbit Wireless N ~ 17.88MB/s (assuming you reach the full speed)
300Mbit Wireless N ~ 35.76MB/s (assuming you reach the full speed)
10Mbit Ethernet ~ 1.19MB/s (which is why I don't use 10Mbit)
100Mbit "Fast Ethernet" ~ 11.92MB/s (in reality, you may only get up to ~10.5MB/s)
1000Mbig "Gigabit Ethernet" ~ 119.20MB/s (in reality, you may only get up to ~115MB/s)

Now with all that being said, the biggest "slow down" is going to be how fast your provider will allow you to upload or download information. The more critical thing to take into account is the type of networking you want to do or be able to do within your home. For myself personally, I have two separate networks. One network has the 100Mbit "Fast Ethernet" and 300Mbit Wireless N for internet purposes, while the other is completely segregated for the internet and uses 1000Mbit "Gigabit Ethernet" to tie all of *my* computers together for internal networking, so that I can reach optimum speeds, without it affecting the stability, speed, or reliability of the internet connection. This kind of setup though is generally recommended for more "advanced" power users though.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
said by MrMazda86:

54Mbit Wireless G ~ 6.43MB/s (in reality, you may only get up to ~4MB/s)

The real world limit of Wireless G is about 16mbit/s (or 2MB/s). Of course experience varies a lot, and it gets worse with longer range, etc. etc. I'm sure it is possible to get 20mbit/s in really nice installs, but the 54mbit/s of the spec is pure fiction.

said by MrMazda86:

150Mbit Wireless N ~ 17.88MB/s (assuming you reach the full speed)
300Mbit Wireless N ~ 35.76MB/s (assuming you reach the full speed)

I don't have any numbers for these--I really should. I expect N-150 is good for double the wireless G speeds, but not much more.

Here's a discussion:
»forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1012574

said by MrMazda86:

10Mbit Ethernet ~ 1.19MB/s (which is why I don't use 10Mbit)
100Mbit "Fast Ethernet" ~ 11.92MB/s (in reality, you may only get up to ~10.5MB/s)
1000Mbig "Gigabit Ethernet" ~ 119.20MB/s (in reality, you may only get up to ~115MB/s)

You get very close to 100megabit over 100megabit ethernet, but I think getting gigabit throughput on consumer gigabit gear is pretty difficult in the real world. It has been a long time since I've looked though.
--
electronicsguru.ca


anonymouz

@teksavvy.com
reply to Anonnn
Why unable to get internet connecting to air or desktop with USB line?


tmpchaos
Requiescat in pace
Co-Lead Mod
join:2000-04-28
Hoboken, NJ
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
You could try one of the appropriate drivers from here: »sustworks.com/site/news_usb_ethernet.html , as referenced in this thread above. If you're running 10.6.8 or above, I'd try the USBAx8817x 1.0.3b14 driver.
--
***ATMFAQ***DIFAQ***Kitchen Sink***

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to Teddy Boom
@Teddy Boom: I do have to agree that you are technically correct to a certain degree from my experience. If you're connecting two Windows computers together, or if you're using a D-Link router product. Depending on your configuration and whether you're using a Linux based (such as Linksys or TP-Link) home router, or connect a Linux "server" directly to another computer, you can yield a much different result.

For example, when Bell started getting really bad for trying to throttle certain traffic, I got a little creative to get around this problem. I took my Simmens SpeedStream 5200 and put it into bridge mode, then connected it directly to /dev/eth0 on the Linux server. I assigned that network card a 10.0.0.x IP for the dummy purposes of binding an address to it for DSL. For cable, I configured it to run the internet connection to the cable modem, since I had to test it with a Rogers connection when I saw the results of Bell. I then connected /dev/eth1 directly to a Windows machine (ran the tests with Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7), assigning it a 192.168.1.x IP. From there, I set the Linux box to use /dev/eth0 to create my ppp0 link and set the standard firewall to deny all connections either incoming or outgoing, except for what I manually specified was allowed. This ensured that I would have no interference with the Windows packet scheduler trying to cram its proprietary Micro$oft crap down my throat, and without Bell's little "tracer" packets being received successfully. More or less, the Linux system was in "stealth" mode, which served as quite the effective firewall.

What was more interesting when I did this was that I noticed my internet speeds seemed to suddenly increase, and I got a much more consistent reliability out of it. Even stranger than that was that once I started using this with a backbone network, I noticed that my connection speeds between the Linux system and any other system were actually faster as well. I played around with a few other configurations (as to be able to better understand what configuration is best for customers) and noted that there were some interesting differences when D-Link products were avoided, and when a Linux system was introduced. Strangely enough, even a Linksys WRT54-G will actually perform faster when a static IP is assigned to its WAN port and no cable is connected. When not using the WAN port to tunnel internet traffic through and all routes to WAN were disabled to be able to again bridge the router through a Linux box, the difference in speeds both for internal networking and for internet connection (by tunnelling through the Linux box instead of the router's WAN) seemed to be faster and more consistent.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Interesting.. I know windows does a lot of stuff that it really shouldn't be doing...
For example, when I go from one device to another to another, say to check MAC address in cable modem firmware on 10 boxes in a row, Windows web browsers will lock right up for 2-3 minutes. Makes no sense.

Anyway, the thing is, there don't seem to be a lot of recommended speed tweaks for windows networking. Or, there weren't a few years ago when I would have been all over that stuff if it was around. So, your experience is somewhat surprising.
--
electronicsguru.ca
Expand your moderator at work