router vs. switch

[Richard]

Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
answer here and fast!

I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same apt.
I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
because I don't really know the main difference. Does
anyone have any personal preferences or recommendations?
I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Richard

[Chris Jackson]

A router will allow you to share the same IP address between your computers
at home. If you just buy a switch and connect your cable modem to it, then
you will have to buy an additional IP address for every computer that you
want to use in your house, which will be a monthly charge. The router also
provides you some additional protection, acting as a hardware firewall.

--
Chris Jackson
Software Engineer
Microsoft MVP - Windows XP
Windows XP Associate Expert
--
"Richard" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
> answer here and fast!
>
> I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
> ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same apt.
> I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
> because I don't really know the main difference. Does
> anyone have any personal preferences or recommendations?
> I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
> rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
> router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Richard

[erpara]

It will only act as a firewall if it specifically says it
will, however, so don't assume it has one built in.
>-----Original Message-----
>A router will allow you to share the same IP address
between your computers
>at home. If you just buy a switch and connect your cable
modem to it, then
>you will have to buy an additional IP address for every
computer that you
>want to use in your house, which will be a monthly
charge. The router also
>provides you some additional protection, acting as a
hardware firewall.
>
>--
>Chris Jackson
>Software Engineer
>Microsoft MVP - Windows XP
>Windows XP Associate Expert
>--
>"Richard" > wrote in message
...
>> Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
>> answer here and fast!
>>
>> I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
>> ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same
apt.
>> I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
>> because I don't really know the main difference. Does
>> anyone have any personal preferences or
recommendations?
>> I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
>> rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
>> router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Richard
>
>
>.
>

[hawk]

I agree with Chris. A router ia a much better solution and lower cost in
the long run. (You only pay for one connection.) If it has a hardware
firewall, as most do, computers on your network are invisible to hackers
on the internet. In addition, some routers have print servers built in
so that any computer on the network can use the printer without any
other computer required to be running. And, my router has both wired and
wireless capability which is very handy if one computer is a laptop or
is located more than a few feet from the other.

Richard wrote:

> Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
> answer here and fast!
>
> I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
> ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same apt.
> I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
> because I don't really know the main difference. Does
> anyone have any personal preferences or recommendations?
> I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
> rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
> router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Richard

[Papa]

Hello Hawk:

Yes, I agree with Chris too. Routers are definitely the way to go.

I happen to be using a 4-port wired router from SMC which includes a printer
server. It was simple to install and works great. However your comment about
the router you use intrigues me in that it can handle wireless as well as
wired connections. That is something I wouldn't mind having for the laptop
my wife doesn't know (yet) that I plan to buy. Which router is it? Thanks.

"hawk" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with Chris. A router ia a much better solution and lower cost in
> the long run. (You only pay for one connection.) If it has a hardware
> firewall, as most do, computers on your network are invisible to hackers
> on the internet. In addition, some routers have print servers built in
> so that any computer on the network can use the printer without any
> other computer required to be running. And, my router has both wired and
> wireless capability which is very handy if one computer is a laptop or
> is located more than a few feet from the other.
>
> Richard wrote:
>
> > Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
> > answer here and fast!
> >
> > I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
> > ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same apt.
> > I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
> > because I don't really know the main difference. Does
> > anyone have any personal preferences or recommendations?
> > I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
> > rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
> > router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Richard
>

[hawk]

Well, SMC has one, I don't remember the model number. Most of the major
players have wireless models. The one I use is a Zoom Telephonics 4165
"Internet Gateway". It has two standard wired ports and wireless. I
think it has address space for 32 wireless computers, but it would
probably bog down the network with more than three or four active at one
time.

regards, hawk

Papa wrote:
> Hello Hawk:
>
> Yes, I agree with Chris too. Routers are definitely the way to go.
>
> I happen to be using a 4-port wired router from SMC which includes a printer
> server. It was simple to install and works great. However your comment about
> the router you use intrigues me in that it can handle wireless as well as
> wired connections. That is something I wouldn't mind having for the laptop
> my wife doesn't know (yet) that I plan to buy. Which router is it? Thanks.
>
> "hawk" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I agree with Chris. A router ia a much better solution and lower cost in
>>the long run. (You only pay for one connection.) If it has a hardware
>>firewall, as most do, computers on your network are invisible to hackers
>>on the internet. In addition, some routers have print servers built in
>>so that any computer on the network can use the printer without any
>>other computer required to be running. And, my router has both wired and
>>wireless capability which is very handy if one computer is a laptop or
>>is located more than a few feet from the other.
>>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
>>>answer here and fast!
>>>
>>>I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
>>>ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same apt.
>>>I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
>>>because I don't really know the main difference. Does
>>>anyone have any personal preferences or recommendations?
>>>I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
>>>rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
>>>router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>
>

[Papa]

Thanks Hawk. I'll look up yours and the one you mentioned from SMC.

"hawk" > wrote in message
...
> Well, SMC has one, I don't remember the model number. Most of the major
> players have wireless models. The one I use is a Zoom Telephonics 4165
> "Internet Gateway". It has two standard wired ports and wireless. I
> think it has address space for 32 wireless computers, but it would
> probably bog down the network with more than three or four active at one
> time.
>
> regards, hawk
>
> Papa wrote:
> > Hello Hawk:
> >
> > Yes, I agree with Chris too. Routers are definitely the way to go.
> >
> > I happen to be using a 4-port wired router from SMC which includes a
printer
> > server. It was simple to install and works great. However your comment
about
> > the router you use intrigues me in that it can handle wireless as well
as
> > wired connections. That is something I wouldn't mind having for the
laptop
> > my wife doesn't know (yet) that I plan to buy. Which router is it?
Thanks.
> >
> > "hawk" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I agree with Chris. A router ia a much better solution and lower cost in
> >>the long run. (You only pay for one connection.) If it has a hardware
> >>firewall, as most do, computers on your network are invisible to hackers
> >>on the internet. In addition, some routers have print servers built in
> >>so that any computer on the network can use the printer without any
> >>other computer required to be running. And, my router has both wired and
> >>wireless capability which is very handy if one computer is a laptop or
> >>is located more than a few feet from the other.
> >>
> >>Richard wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sorry for posting this in XP, I just know I'll get an
> >>>answer here and fast!
> >>>
> >>>I'm looking for the most efficient way to share a
> >>>ethernet connection between 2 computers in the same apt.
> >>>I am torn between a switch and a router, primarily
> >>>because I don't really know the main difference. Does
> >>>anyone have any personal preferences or recommendations?
> >>>I see a couple 5 port switches online for < $10 after
> >>>rebates. I'd rather pay that than $50 for a "decent"
> >>>router, but am not sure if it's the best bet.
> >>>
> >>>Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>Richard
> >>
> >
> >
>