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

[Jim]

Eric "Shubes" wrote:
> 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.

Aren't most PCI wireless adapters designed so you can attach another 
antenna instead of the one that comes with it?