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

[Eric "Shubes"]

Jim wrote:
> 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?
> 

Yeah, it just screws on. If it didn't, it'd be kinda hard to get the card 
installed. ;) I haven't looked at antenna alternatives, but I know there are 
some.

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'