PCI or USB device to add wireless to a desktop machine?

[Eric "Shubes"]

Dazed_75 wrote:
> It seems the PCI devices all have the antenna attached to the rear plate 
> of the PCI card which seems a terrible place for an antenna 
> interference, blockage and breakage wise.  The USB adapter type which 
> generally looks like a jump drive usually includes a cable so you can 
> place the unit to improve reception/transmission probably have a less 
> effective antenna.
> 
> Does anyone have experience using both that could provide insight which 
> is better and why?
> 
> -- 
> "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when 
> the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
> 
> Patrick Henry quote
> 

I think that 'better' would be subjective. I've used PCI, but not USB. 
Whatever works is typically better. ;)

That being said, early versions of USB wireless adapters didn't work as well 
with linux (from what I've read), depending in part on which kernel was 
being used, and in part because USB was still in a bit of a state of flux 
(hadn't solidified). I think that the likelyhood of getting a PCI model to 
work with Linux is better than with a USB model, although I expect that USB 
device compatibility has improved as the 2.6 kernel matures and USB support 
has stabilized.

The only advantages I see of USB models is:
.) notebook compatability
.) antenna placement flexibility
.) simpler installation

If any of these are a big plus for you, then go that route. On the other 
hand, if they're not (you're using a desktop, signal is reasonably strong, 
and you can handle installing a PCI card and a slot's available), I'd go the 
PCI route. Plus no additional cable and clutter.

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'