RE: A quick Ethernet/Wireless straw poll please

["Paul Gale" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I certainly wouldn't want wireless as I've already routed Cat5 to light
swi=
tches where these type of units would go. =A380 is a considerable amount
to=
add the cost of the unit (didn't you mention between =A3100-200 once?). A =
hard wired option would certainly be best for me, especially if you could
b=
uild in Power over Ethernet? Otherwise I guess that running power to the
un=
its would be a problem as well?

Personally, I think =A340 would be a reasonable price for the wireless but
=
I guess this isn't a reality?

Is there not a 3rd party 'black box' that could simply fit to the Ethernet
=
port and convert to wireless? (a mini AP?). This would be a better
solution=
I think as it makes the display more modular and configurable (especially =
if you want to put several displays in around the house as I would want
to)=
.

Just my thoughts based on what infrastructure I personally already have :)

Cheers,

Paul.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ian.bird@xxxxxxx
> [mailto:ian.bird@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 November 2004 10:23
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [ukha_d] A quick Ethernet/Wireless straw poll please
>=20
>=20
> Hi everyone
>=20
> I am building an HA touch screen controller for wall mounting which
will
> have an Ethernet interface for communication to the rest of the world.
> This will run a menu system which will send text based messages over
> Ethernet e.g. xAP, xPL, home-brew etc. + a lot more functionality.
> Currently this has a simple 10Mbit CAT5 interface.
>=20
> Now, my questions are........
> 1) If you were going to use one of these systems how highly would you
rat=
e
> a wireless 802.11b interface?
> 2) Since the hardware to make this a reality costs money what would
you
> think is a reasonable extra amount to pay for wireless? A finger in
the
> wind guess would be about 80 pounds extra (on top of the original
units
> estimated price) for the wireless versions. If I do fit wireless I
would
> not produce a non wireless version as supporting two interfaces would
be
> too expensive and complicated.
>=20
> If I did go wireless my units would have a 10/100 wired CAT5 interface
OR
> wireless 802.11b (but not both at the same time). This would be
software
> configurable somehow.
>=20
> Opinions or thoughts folks?
>=20
> Ian
>=20
>=20
>=20
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20