Talk:Wireless network interface controller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force.

Speed and range[edit]

If one wanted a fast wireless card that can transmit over a far distance, would there any other specs to look for other than Wireless Data Transfer Rates (measured in Mbps) and Wireless Transmit Power (measured in dBm)? 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of Wi-Fi...or does "Wireless network interface card" include cards for networks that use say, bluetooth or some other standard? Jason McHuff (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


if one wanted a fast wireless card I would recomend reading about PCI cards instead of USB. USB transfers data in a serial fashion and has no dedicated bus but PCI Express can transfer at 16x and has its own bus... Jmchuff Wireless internet uses radio waves they travle further than blue tooth witch uses infrared and relies on line off sight look at IEEE 802.15 personal area networkurName (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Bullshit! Bluetooth is wireless. andy (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Wifi[edit]

This article is wrong under this title: It deals only with Wifi and does not mention other technologies. It is misleading, since it the reader is lead to believe, that all Wireless NICs are Wifi. It should be merged into Wifi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schioebe (talkcontribs) 06:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Yes andy bluetooth is wireless but WiFi has nothing to do with this article WiFi is one of several organization that set standard for electronics without a set of standards nothing would be compatible like if I bought a netgear router and a linksys wireless card they would not work together because they are made by two different manufacture that probably use different standards WiFi is a logo that means the product is cirtified by WiFi IEEE is also a standard making organization Hence the 802.15 standard for Bluetooth IEEE 802.11 is IEEE's standard for wireless if you buy a product cirtified by one such organization you can rest knowing that for the most part it is compatible with other compatible equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats inside the light bulb? (talkcontribs) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem has been better identified than the solution. No, the Wi-Fi article is plenty big enough and doesn't need this article added as a section. Rather this one should be renamed, for example to Wi-Fi card, or else material added for other wireless NIC cards. Or, if no material is to be had about other kinds, then there's no confusion, hence no need for either change. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Do not merge. Wi-Fi is most certainly connected with this article. Mr light bulb really needs to read the first paragraph of the Wi-Fi article, if he is not sufficiently acquainted with the subject matter. Wi-Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance of hardware manufacturers. The term is popularly used as a synonym for IEEE 802.11 technology - that is, used to indicate certified WLAN products based on the IEEE 802.11 standards.
However: Wi-Fi being a standard that wireless network interface cards use, is not enough reason that wireless NICs should be merged into the Wi-Fi article. The Wi-Fi article is about the Alliance, and the standard; wireless NICs, routers etc are also mentioned in the article. This article is only about wireless NICs, one type of equipment that conforms to the Wi-Fi standard, and about which there is a lot to say. There is also the advent of new wireless NIC technology to consider - Wi-Max etc. Renaming this article so that it is clearly only concerned with Wi-Fi compliant hardware, as suggested just above by Jim.henderson, is a good suggestion.
Centrepull (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you Mr. Centrepull you summed it up "is not enough reason that wireless NICs should be merged"urName (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


this article is short and could use more content I suggest adding how WNICs operate using the OSI model as a reference including the added overhead but more important at witch level of the OSI model NICs operate and the relationship to the other levelsurName (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) also CSMA/CA there is no mention of iturName (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FullMAC and SoftMAC[edit]

Should both be merged here for obvious reasons: stubs describing two design paradigms for WNICs [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as the two design paradigms are not described in a Linux-specific fashion; not all wireless NICs are on Linux boxes. Guy Harris (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, they were "merged" by changing FullMAC and SoftMAC to redirects here, without making this page actually talk about either concept. I added a new "FullMAC and SoftMAC" section that incorporates material from the old FullMAC and SoftMAC pages, and changed the redirects to go that section. (If somebody doesn't believe those concepts aren't worthy of discussion on Wikipedia at all, they should delete the redirects, not just delete that section and have the redirects go to the page.) Guy Harris (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)