The Software Router As MiFi Killer 192
An anonymous reader writes "The MiFi Mobile Router has been getting a lot of positive reviews these days, for combining a cellular modem, WiFi radio and battery pack in a portable device. But playing with a beta release of a software based wireless router for Windows 7 has me wondering if there's any future to these dedicated, multi-radio routers. Is the future that every PC should be a router? Or is that a job best left to a cell phone?" I just drove across the country and back with a MiFi (using Verizon's service, which was not zippy but very reliable); it strikes me that being nicely cross-platform and not requiring a laptop with its own cell-network connection is a serious advantage for the MiFi or any similar device.
NAT is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the future that every PC should be a router?
No. Just no.
The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function. It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked. It's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time. And *nix computers, while better, can still be vulnerable. And both platforms can become vulnerable when the wrong software is running (anything that listens on a port can be vulnerable).
Basically, NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size. We don't want to give people who don't know better the idea that they don't need them.
Re:NAT is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Also electricity. I don't need a full blown computer running 24/7 just to provide wifi for my laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
'Specially with an open WiFi, pulling pr0n torrents for the spoodge blasters, down the hall.
Re:NAT is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Noise too. While modern PCs can be quiet, it's still something that hums away with its fans and hard drives spinning. Some people are disturbed greatly by the hum, others need it. But a router makes very little noise (usually a high-pitched squeal from the DC-DC converters).
Also, if your PC breaks/gets infected/whatever, it'll take down your whole network. Now you gotta go and rig up your other computer so you can get on the 'net and download the necessary tools to fix it. A router? No changes, just go over and get the files while you fix.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Also electricity. I don't need a full blown computer running 24/7 just to provide wifi for my laptop.
> Noise too.
And heat. Not cool (no pun intended) if you pay to cool your house.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, NAT is not a good thing, it breaks end-to-end connectivity. Many protocols do not work with NAT. And the superficial security NAT might appear to have is easily defeated through various techniques.
Security is a good thing, this is provided by true stateful firewalls, which is orthogonal to NAT.
In any case, these aren't the reasons people utilize routers.
Windows has had Internet Connection sharing for a long time, but we don't see broadband users utilizing ICS.
The more obvious reason is: c
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is not 1994, 99.9999% of home users with multiple computers have a single IP and use NAT so obviously it DOES work and works well. Saying that NAT is not as secure as a stateful firewall is not a apples to apples comparison, NAT alone is not a "firewall" and never was advertised or claimed to act as one. How can you compare the two? A firewall is can be used in conjuction with NAT and again, almost EVERY home router that has NAT also has a firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't everyone leave all their computers on at home all the time anyway? Off the top of my head, I count 6 at home that I know are on...
(I've still got to get the Sunfire and big Compaq Proliant server up and running again.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Also, a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC, generally won't blue screen or get viruses. "
Nope but given the current shit state of electronics now days I'd not expect that piece of hardware to be worth the PCB it's built upon.
To date, since 2002, I've had:
5 Linksys routers
1 Buffalo Router
4 Netgear Routers
2 D-Link Routers
And a whole slew of other no-name generic routers, FAIL.
Most of the Linksys ones just can't handle more than 2-3 wireless clients with a full ethernet switch load. Netgears
Re: (Score:2)
But it can break P2P file sharing, you insensitive clod!
Re:NAT is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
There are also lots of other reasons beyond security (as dedicated routers can be hacked too, of course):
*) Stability: I don't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software, poorly cooled hardware, etc.
*) Power consumption: I don't want a 100+W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network.
*) Hardware suitability: I don't want to need to have all my network stuff (wires, modem, etc) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet. Also, I don't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer, using up slots and causing potential power problems.
Those are just what I can think of, but that's more than enough for me. It's not as if this situation is anything new anyway... I used Internet Connection Sharing about a decade ago so I could have more than one computer using the dial up. Once I got high speed I was glad to get a dedicated router box so that my computer was free from being the gateway. I cannot foresee this changing; while merging devices is good, modularity is often better.
Re: (Score:2)
"Stability: I don't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software, poorly cooled hardware, etc."
Remember Cisco running scared because an IOS exploit was made public? Yea, so much for stability or security argument.
"Power consumption: I don't want a 100+W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network."
As opposed to the multi kilowatt internet backbone that's already on 24/7 to provide you with connectivity? Sure, you've got a lower power device, but lower power devices a
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, typo. I meant stability problems.
Re: (Score:2)
this is correct.
meanwhile, there is *tons* of software to allow PC's to be routers, and such has existed for a long time. I remember even windows offering this with some kind of connection manager for 98SE, and that ubuntu lets you create ad-hoc networks. Why is this being touted as new?
Re: (Score:2)
This provides both router and a Wifi infrastructure mode, not ad-hoc mode. And the router is the real thing, much better than MS's crufty ICS. For one, ad-hoc connections are usually limited to 802.11b speeds, up to 11Mb/s... infrastructure can go full speed (g/n). Probably no big deal for connection sharing, but for streaming media, big deal. You also can't disable SSID broadcast in ad-hoc mode (haven't figured out how to in Connectify yet, either, but it's at least technically possible).
Apparently, this w
Re: (Score:2)
disabling SSID is a bad thing, it causes interference between WIFI channels. You'll actually get better reception between interference and less drops with SSID's being broadcast, as basically the other routers will recognize your SSID when it is broadcast.
I agree with the rest, but hiding SSID's both a: doesn't do anything good and b: does things bad.
Re: (Score:2)
iptables?
Re: (Score:2)
Several Dial-up ISPs back in the 90s offered software to let one computer dial-in and act as the server for the rest of the computers in the house.
What, you never heard of AOL?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not build the NAT router into the PC? I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires. Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We *DO* have onboard NICs that are pretty responsive even if an OS crashes, as they're meant to be usable for wake on lan requests/power on lan requests. So, just build a router into a computer in the same fashion. Let the PC be off, but stil serve some power to the internal onboard router.
I've had this idea in my head for at least four years, I'm surprised nobody has made a product, yet. I certainly can't have been the first to think of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You also eliminate the wires strung everywhere, only having one cable go into your computer and then serving up wifi to the rest of the systems in the house, or car, or whatever. Upgrades can be handled most likely by a firmware update, no need to open the computer. Also, being in a computer, you can grant it access to a hard disk partition for keeping logs, whitelists/blacklists, banlists, etc. Most regular consumer boxes are absolutely crap for log keeping without customized firmware, and even then the la
Re: (Score:2)
A hardware firewall is just a software firewall running on some else's CPU.
Though there are a few PCs coming out with an auxilary ARM CPU... you boot up on the ARM quick, run Linux or Android or something, to do simple things, but boot the full x86 for "real work". You could put a firewall and router on the ARM, give it something to do when the "full PC" mode is activate. Hmmm.....
Re: (Score:2)
I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires.
I am really curious how many things and wires you have there!
Just think, it could be worse! [futureofre...nology.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I had a machine with an nVidia chipset with this semi hardware firewall functionality. At first, it worked quite well, and it supposed some pretty detailed access lists (no outgoing port 25), but after a couple patches, it didn't seem to work right, so after a reinstall due to unrelated issues, I didn't bother installing the nForce drivers.
Overall, I like the idea of having the onboard NIC have router functionality in hardware so packets can be denied and/or filtered before they ever touch the OS. However
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anybody trust a GPU maker to make a router product?
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size. We don't want to give people who don't know better the idea that they don't need them.
Mmmm.... No.
A properly configured firewall is the real solution.
Preferably on the switch/hub/router, but if you have to put it on the OS by all means.
Actually the real solution is to make the OS non-susceptible to running remote commands or code on its default configuration, but often that is too much to ask of some pe
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the real solution is to make the OS non-susceptible to running remote commands or code on its default configuration, but often that is too much to ask of some people.
No, the real solution is what we already have - a separate box that mitigates most of the problems with billware. Much cheaper than getting MS to build secure software (along with every other software builder).
Re: (Score:2)
...and the horse you rode in on, sir. [slashdot.org] And the horse you rode in on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it was to connect computers together...
Re:NAT is a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
I think he had you in mind when he made the deaf-mute comment. You completely missed the point he was making. Isolating functionality doesn't mean blocking yourself off from the net - he was talking about using dedicated devices to provide routing services in order to minimize the chance of being compromised. You don't put locks on your house to keep yourself from going out - you use them to keep others from coming in.
Re:NAT is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:NAT is a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't that a little like saying you've removed the transmission and only drive the car on weekends? Ooooooo, a car analogy!
Re: (Score:2)
blah blah ad hominim .. blah blah no anti-virus .. blah blah networking services are disabled
1. You shouldn't use phrases you don't understand and can't spell, ie. "ad hominim attack".
2. Expecting grandma and grandpa to fuck around with system services is ridiculous.
3. Your "solution" would completely destroy my home network. It would also make my workplace even less productive than usual.
To sum up: while I'm fully capable of locking down my computer to the extent you describe, such an approach would not serve my needs, and is not feasible for most people/situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Darn.
/me starts putting cans back on the shelf.
Re: (Score:2)
"Many great applications have died or never taken off because of it."
They've also never taken off because requiring an open port to the internet meant sure destruction at the hands of some unhappy hacker.
NAT didn't break a damned thing - companies are just to fucking lazy to act as an intermediary so the connections actually WORK.
Re: (Score:2)
"I 100% agree with you. Routers are Routers and PC's are PC's don't mix the two!"
I can't stop laughing at this insanely stupid comment. Seriously?
ROUTERS ARE SPECIALIZED PCs. NOT MIXING IS IMPOSSIBLE PURELY BY THEIR VERY NATURE OF OPERATION.
I've never really understood this device (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean if you're travelling, you either have something built in, a plug-in card, bluetooth tethering (I find this very convenient), and usb tethering. I've never been in a situation where I need to share internet access while travelling to multiple devices, and while I can see it being a possible need, it doesn't seem to be much more than a niche thing? Also, it's not TOO difficult to share a mobile internet connection provided you know the ins and outs of such things (though yes, this device would make it dead simple).
Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure there are other examples, but that's the first that popped into my head.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been to numerous client sites where our consulting team either:
a) Could not get internet access onsite. Period.
b) Had to wait literally weeks before the internet access we requested finally appeared.
It's amazing the rube-goldberg-esque tethering solutions we've been forced to implement.
Re:I've never really understood this device (Score:5, Insightful)
though yes, this device would make it dead simple
I think that's the point. It is dead simple. It's virtually no configuration and it "just works." No fiddling about with drivers. It works with anything that has a usable 802.11 b/g/n wireless card in it.
So, you can use an iPod Touch/iPhone, Nintendo DS, Sony PSP, or any other hand held device that supports Wifi and doesn't have the ability to do bluetooth or usb tethering.
I think they need to start bundling these mini hotspots into cars for long trips. Then I can check my e-mail from my laptop (not while driving, mind you -- the wife can check it while I drive, or vice versa) the kids in the back can play on the net via ipod touch, or play their video games online with their DS/PSP, etc. etc.
Lots of applications for portable wifi hotspots via the cell towers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Note: We only need one device for this - and not an telco account for every user.
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it, it "just works" for any cracker too. How nice...
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with this argument is that WiFi very rarely "just works" without "fiddling about with drivers" while bluetooth always "just works" and bluetooth tethering has been around for years.
3/10.
The concept is good but you gotta keep it a bit more subtle, otherwise people are gonna stop reading around 'bluetooth always "just works"'.
Re: (Score:2)
"The trouble with this argument is that WiFi very rarely "just works" without "fiddling about with drivers" while bluetooth always "just works""
LMFAO.
Bluetooth "JUST WORKS" in XP, maybe. Tried it with Vista lately? I can't get fuck al to work with my Targus adapter in Vista and they have drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in a group, it'd be handy if you didn't all have connections already. Also, I could see it be handy if you had a camera with one of those SD cards that uses wifi to transmit photos saved to network storage.
Are there any standalone(not cellular) battery-powered routers? I haven't gone on a family car trip in ages, but if I did, I'd want some networking:)
Plus, one of the holy grails of mesh networking is a cheap battery powered wifi router.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see exactly one use for the device.
Assume for a moment that we have a family - a mother, a father, two and a half kids, and the dog. We're on a vacation (as opposed to staycation), and we're driving to [popular tourist destination] because it's cheaper than flying, even if it takes 19 hours of non-stop driving to get there.
This family has a netbook for the children in the backseat to play their little saved games (perhaps you stuck an emulator on there and are letting them get acquainted with the golden a
Re: (Score:2)
You missed one:
"Configure dad's laptop as a wireless router."
Re: (Score:2)
Mmh, I did miss that. I usually don't think of it, so yeah.
But I rather do like the idea of a dedicated device handling that.
yea, its pretty easy to miss that one, i never think of it. someone should write an article about that type of setup, especially since i hear windows 7 has that functionality built right in. then someone could post that article on slashdot and we could all discuss it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmh, I did miss that. I usually don't think of it, so yeah. But I rather do like the idea of a dedicated device handling that.
yea, its pretty easy to miss that one, i never think of it. someone should write an article about that type of setup, especially since i hear windows 7 has that functionality built right in. then someone could post that article on slashdot and we could all discuss it.
That functionality has been built right in and accessible in basically the same place since Win9x. Just go to Add/Remove Programs, windows components, select Networking(or maybe it's labelled TCP/IP... I'm not sure. haven't used Windows in awhile) and click Details. Then check the box for Internet Connection Sharing and hit ok. You can configure the settings through a control panel applet, and there's also wizard. (if that's your thing)
Re:I've never really understood this device (Score:5, Insightful)
Tom...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This got modded funny? Really?
I'm 24. The typical age for someone to seriously be saying "In my day" is probably twice that at least. And yet, "In my day", kids weren't supposed to be brought up by electronic babysitters. I'm still not sure they're supposed to be. Kids grow up to be whatever they're taught to be, and if you teach them to spend their whole lives wrapped up in the digital world, hey presto, it's probably gonna happen.
Is the GP really saying "The only way for a group of people to share th
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to try playing I-spy on I80, anywhere between Reno and Chicago.. a Day of desert scrub, day of rolling plains, day of corn. You want to punch someone when they want to play that game again....
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I see, can you tell me more?
Even ignoring the internal contradiction in your post. There are many more uses for this device than simply getting your kids online during a family vacation when the only alternatives are slapping them and giving them your laptop. That would actually be towards the end of the list for me if I were to start naming uses for a computer that can share a wifi connection. Of cou
Re: (Score:2)
They were much more durable. They also conducted the energy of a collision into the passengers a lot more efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
"They also conducted the energy of a collision into the passengers a lot more efficiently."
Not if you were in a mid-70s LTD. You were pretty much guaranteed to survive a collision with anything short of a tank if you were driving in an LTD and had your seatbelt on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming you mean a Ford LTD, would an LTD have done so much better than the Belair? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I [youtube.com]
I don't think it's so simple to judge a car's safety just by the way it looks. That's why they do crash tests.
There have been substantial advances made in car safety over the years. Even the steels used might be different.
Carpool (Score:2)
What about in a car pool where a single device can give all the car pool occupants WiFi to work with? They could split the cost just like they do gas.
Or just sharing a connection with any small group, that is the strength - yes the laptop can do this, but this device could share even when no-one had laptops but smaller mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They simplify the whole thing greatly and that is one of the big appeals that drive this
Re: (Score:2)
sadly, way more devices have wifi then have bluetooth. And in some nations the carriers loves disabling bluetooth profiles they do not like, and get payed extra to turn them back on...
the pan never really materialized, instead the devices converged.
Cellular Access (Score:2)
Fast Cellular access is the key, cell phone based routers are the obvious solution since most computers lack any sort of cellular modem, and at best can use a dongle to do so. The dongle is a pain in the ass. Using one is often more expensive than sneaking wifi routing software onto a pda phone. Not to mention the question of which cellular carrier do you use so your computer can be locked into it.
Basically, yes, as soon as PCs are able to access cellular networks easily, the cell-phone-turned-router wil
Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. And (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.
Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router, even previous versions of Windows, without additional software. We don't use PCs as routers because it's wasteful and inconvenient. Think about it for 5 seconds: Why do people use dedicated router rather than using this feature that's been in the OS forever? It's because using a PC as a router is annoying and wasteful, even at home. One machine always needs to be on for the others to get a connection. If that one machine breaks, the whole network goes down. Apply this to the road where power and space are more scarce. Even less convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been software written for Windows Mobile phones that provides this functionality in one package too. I haven't tested it yet, but it is supposedly supported by the HTC Touch Pro 2 that I got last week. It is known to occasionally cause overheating issues for the device though...
The only special thing about the MiFi is that the terminal device, battery, and WiFi router/AP are all in one package.
The W7 functionality is, as you point out, nothing new, it just may be easier to set up.
Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently thinking about putting together an Atom 330 based PC for this purpose. It'll use about as much power as a CFL, so no problem leaving it on 24/7. Plus it's plenty powerful enough to do some web browsing and play some music at the same time. Yeah, it'll cost a little more than a router, but it can do a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Your elecricity cost estimate is high, that $60 router is also going to draw power. You calculated electricity including taxes, but the router without so it's even more expensive. I'd call it 3+ years before you make-up the purchase price... hope it works that long.
2) There's nothing stopping you from underclocking and undervolting that
Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A (Score:4, Informative)
There are actually changes in Windows 7 that help with this. WiFi virtualization [istartedsomething.com] was added to the Windows 7 kernel allowing you to run two WiFi connections from the same hardware adapter. So you could put a PC in range of a normal access point and then share the connection by creating an access point on the second virtual adapater. With previous versions of Windows, you would need two hardware adapters, or you would be limited to sharing a LAN connection.
Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A (Score:4, Insightful)
madwifi had that same capability 3-4 years ago. I think that capability has been migrated to most Linux wireless drivers with the new mac80211-based wireless stack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
One use I can think of is when you have limited access to a network. My old school would authenticate one laptop per student (by MAC address) on its wifi network. Rather than trying to spoof a MAC address in your iPod Touch or whatever, you could use the PC to serve as an access point for your other wireless devices.
Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A (Score:2)
I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.
Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router, even previous versions of Windows, without additional software.
On the Mac, it is called Internet Sharing. I've shared my Bluetooth Internet connection over WiFi with a friend at work. I've shared my wired Ethernet at home over WiFi on a G4 Cube with a Wii, a laptop, and a tablet. Only powered on when I needed it though. You can bridge any two interfaces you want, but only two AFAIKT; you can't share Ethernet over WiFi and Bluetooth over Firewire all at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually much more than just routing. It's an intelligent firewall, name server, intrusion-detection-system, honeypot, a printing and file server, a p2p client (and perhaps server), a very advanced answering machine that can route your calls trough VoIP and back if needed (very convenient if you want to call someone at home for cheap over the internet, while traveling), a development box (if you're developer), a multimedia device (with remote control, it plays internet radio streams for example), etc, e
Re: (Score:2)
no one in their right mind would plug a windows box directly into an open Internet connection.
There are a lot of people that don't act as though they are in their right minds even without getting technology involved.
Vishing, MiFi (Score:2)
Ack, with headlines shouting about Vishing and MiFi, two words I've never heard of, for possibly the first time in my life I feel out of the loop and too old for all these newfangled words, at 22. :-(
My first thought was that MiFi was a form of WiFi for Nintendo Miis, but that can't possibly be right...
Re: (Score:2)
MiFi is a product name, not a buzzword/etc.
If I Recall Correctly... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Intel laptop wireless chipsets have implemented this router "feature" for some time now, haven't they? And wasn't there a brouhaha because the router functionality was enabled by default at first?
I find it funny that I'm starting to read and hear about all these Windows 7 innovations - well, they're apparently new to the Windows community anyway. The latest Network World Twisted Pair podcast discussed a great new feature of Windows 7... it's Leopard's "web clip"! Start your copiers, indeed...
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure, but XP could do this natively. You could usually just bridge the two connections and setup a peer-to-peer wifi connection. It was WEP only, I believe Win7 can do WPA2.
It's a dead parrrot. This device is obsolete (Score:3, Insightful)
Joiku Hotspot.
Every wifi capable (S60 3rd Ed phone models) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.
Re: (Score:2)
Every wifi capable (S60 3rd Ed phone models) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.
Yeah, except many of them need to be rooted because the providers don't like it when you use your line for anything besides what they want you to use it for.
I don't want to have to lug around a win 7 laptop (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to have internet access for my DSi or PSP. Mi-Fi gives me world internet access for anything that speaks Wi-Fi and fits very comfortably indeed in any pocket. Battery lasts longer than most laptops, too.
if only (Score:2)
If only you could. Many cellular modem's have drivers that prevent this basically blocking any network access other than the cellular card.
That aside sharing a connection with overages costing between $100 and $250 per gig and roaming ranging from $1000 to $20,000 per gig seems dangerous at best.
MiFi sucks; Cellular+Wifi for the win. (Score:4, Interesting)
I tether my laptop to my Android phone via wifi. The advantage is that I don't need to carry a cellular modem for my laptop, have a separate data plan, or swap sim cards (on GSM networks). The fact that someone else can use the connection is an additional bonus. I used to have a separate data plan and 3G modem, and I'd even share this connection via iptables/NAT from my Linux laptop. It worked, yes, but it is much better to just let my phone handle this now.
As for a MiFi, this is different in that you're using a special device, losing the advantage of leveraging your phone hardware, and ultimately pay more. The advantage being that you're not breaking your service agreement, have a carrier-supported solution, and you don't need to root your phone. With all of the limitations of the MiFi, it is not significantly better than using a cellular modem.
Personally, I hope that carriers start to loosen up and allow (wifi) tethering, because this really provides the best of all worlds.
not even much of a present (Score:2)
Symbian and WinMo phones already work as WiFi access points. The only reason iPhones, Android, and Blackberry don't is because their corporate masters don't let them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't get it in the store or built-in, it might as well not exist for most users. Fiddling with root access on the phone, or worse, is simply too much trouble.
WiFi and Bluetooth are also a PITA: it's one more point of failure and a big drain on battery life. USB tethering (hence the name) is really the best way to go.
You're right: Symbian and WinMo are dead, but decent support for tethering is still missing from Android. Let's hope that gets fixed soon. I currently still carry an extra Symbian ha
Re: (Score:2)
"USB tethering (hence the name) is really the best way to go."
Nope, Tethering VIA USB has actually killed laptop and phone both faster than just using WiFi/Bluetooth tethering.
See, USB likes to not only transmit data but CHARGE THE DEVICE CONNECTED TO IT, resulting in a larger power drain.
Work or solve puzzles (Score:3, Insightful)
Why use a simple device that works with an existing configuration when you can spend your time performing complex hacks on all your computers to find a way to patch them together into a vague approximation of the simple device? Because you want internet access to get work done, not a puzzle to solve to inflate your self-regard.
A stupid question (Score:5, Informative)
So basically it's asking this: "Does being able to create a WiFi hot spot FROM your laptop replace a method of getting a WiFi hot spot FOR your laptop?"
Seriously? The MiFi (for those that don't know) is a little credit-card sized WiFi router, offered by Verizon and Sprint, that gets its internet connection from the cellular network. So if you want internet and you're not near a network or hot spot, two options are:
Yes, if your primary concern is "how do I share my mobile internet connection with others," there is overlap between "computer as router" and the MiFi. But if you don't have an internet connection yet, the software router doesn't help much, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, if your primary concern is 'how do I share my mobile internet connection with others,'"
Well, if that's not your primary concern, why bother with a Wifi router? It's just something else to go wrong (e.g. local interference in the Wifi channels). If I have no desire to share my cellular internet connection, wouldn't it be a lot simpler to use an ExpressCard or USB dongle to connect to the cellular network?
Now, if you want to share the connection, I actually do like the idea of something like the MiFi. W
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. However, looking at it another way, it's one LESS thing to go wrong on your computer. Your computer is using the same WiFi connection it always uses to get on the web. You
Re:A stupid answer (Score:2)
Because the ExpressCard or USB dongle is Windows only, and you use a Mac or Linux machine.
Or there are x86 Linux drivers, and your Linux laptop is ARM based.
Or your laptop is Windows 64-bit, and the only drivers available are 32-bit.
Or your company's laptop is configured to not le
Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
"The water jug as faucet killer."
This should not make it to the /. page seriously (Score:2)
Next on /. it'll be "Unicorns from Intel magically displace all PC's" or perhaps another annoying post
or perhaps one of a million intentionally badly spelled bot generated emails that ends up in my gmail's spam filter selling "chaep druzz 4 yoou"
Seriously why us this /. material?!
Re: (Score:2)
In other news Nerd Rage is a good bypass for the preview button.
(*why us this = why is this, )
Trying to sell a product (Score:2)
This is probably a plant from someone connected with Connectify.
Just about every machine has some way to do NAT. The first time I ever did NAT was via an Amiga under AmigaDOS 3.1.
Why is this discussion worthy?
Too many acronyms.. (Score:2)
I read that title as
Re: (Score:2)
Not the most
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone that's never run aircrack.