Computing desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 13

Wired connection straight into ADSL modem or router?

If using a separate ADSL modem and router, and you have 1 wired Ethernet connection, is it better to connect this directly to the modem or to the router? Or does it not really make a difference? 90.192.101.102 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say skip any intermediate devices that you can, as they can't possibly speed things up, but could slow them down or drop the signal. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity do you mean you also have no need for wifi? Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The router can perform functions that the modem can not: filtering the traffic, for example. In addition, if suddenly you need to connect a second device the router will be helpful. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ruslik0. Do you need any features of the router? These could be as simple as wanting to connect two networked devices through the modem. If it's only a modem (which is getting rare these days), then it might only support a single client device. It's more usual that even a simple wired ADSL connection is through a router+modem, not just a simple modem.

You may also want a WiFi connection, which might need another device. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm using an ADSL modem + router but the router doesn't do dual band or ac so I added a better router for good wifi and turned off the wifi on the original modem+ router. I want to plug in a cable box using a wired connection. So trying to figure out whether to put this into the modem+ router or the second router? 90.192.101.102 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also DHCP is enabled on the first modem+ router and disabled on the wifi router. 90.192.101.102 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better to put DCHP on the second router? 90.198.210.44 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm connected here through two routers. One's a £200 small-office router (£25 on eBay these days), rather than a £50 freebie ADSL router. But when our village finally got fibre at the start of the year, I could no longer use it as the ADSL modem (I need VDSL). So I'm now connected through both. WiFi and DHCP are provided by the much better grade router, the simple router does nothing more than act as a modem. Throughput is indistinguishable. Reliability and manageability are far better, because £200 routers are so much nicer than £50 routers to work with. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have DCHP on both and it seems to work fine. I disabled DCHP on the better router and it just caused problems. 94.10.240.251 (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With that better explanation it's possible to provide an answer now. Since you have two routers, it's possible to connect a wired device to either. (If the first device was simply an ADSL modem as you suggested, you couldn't connect both a router to it and a cable box to it. Or anything else. Hence my question about wifi. So the question was moot if the first device was only a modem, you could only connect one device to it. To be clear, ports are not the issue, if you plugged an ethernet switch into something which is only a modem, you're still not going to be able to have multiple devices connect through it simultaneously.)

I agree with Andy generally more expensive newer devices are far better routers than older cheap ones, especially the cheap crap ISPs tend to provide. Given that, you don't really want to connect anything to it other than the 2nd router i.e. it should function as a modem only as far as possible. So the cable box should be connected to the 2nd router. It would probably be even better if you're able to use the router to make the connection. This may be possible depending on the first ADSL router modem and the second router. It's far more likely if you're using PPPoE than if you're using PPPoA. Or if you're not using authentication system it might also be possible.

If you can't, it's probably worth at a minimum assigning a static IP to the second router on the WAN side and using DMZ or something similar on the ADSL router modem to forward as much as possible to the 2nd router. Also disable any firewall and other unneeded features on the ADSL router modem that could interfere. It may be worth disabling DHCP on the ADSL router modem although this is probably less important provided you don't connect anything to it and have set up your network such that the DHCP doesn't leak through to the LAN side.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pppoa. The modem router has a setting to assign a dmz server. And the firewall on the modem router currently allows all outbound traffic and blocks all incoming traffic. So I'm assuming it's off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.240.251 (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A router is also a minimal firewall. Establishing the PPPoE connection by the computer, makes the computer directly connected to the internet, which makes it directly accessible from all the internet. A router also can serve 30 to 250 computers in your local LAN. A router is required for creating the own WLAN. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Utilities and Viruses

I purchased Norton Utilities Security Deluxe, which says on the box "100% Guaranteed - Viruses removed or your money back". ("Just what it says on the tin".) I've installed it on a new computer. However, when I launch it, the options don't seem to include the Anti-Virus options. On further looking it over, it may be that Norton Utilities is an extra feature in addition to Norton Anti-Virus. But, if so, how do I invoke Anti-Virus? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name you used above exactly what is printed on the box? Norton Utilities and Norton Security are two different things (at least, so far as I can tell - their product line history is ridiculous). Our articles are little more than press releases about what each update included, but they confirm that the Utils program is/was simply a cash grab, doing little more than what Windows could do natively. Matt Deres (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and far am I from supporting Microsoft, but with recent versions of Microsoft Security Essentials it's quite doubtful if separate commercial anti-virus programs offer any added protection, or are just expensive snake oil. Indeed, many have been known to introduce new weaknesses via an increased attack surface. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Norton Security Deluxe" on the package. It then says, in smaller type, "Bonus! Norton Utilities". So it is saying that the two different things are packaged in one. However, it has only installed Norton Utilities, which now primarily finds and fixes registry errors and cleans up cruft. It seems to have only installed the Utilities. I may wind up taking it back to Staples. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be possible (many stores do not allow the return of opened software and I don't see it here), but it's what I would recommend to anyone. If you do decide to keep it, I would attempt to reinsert the disc; my guess is that there's some kind of autorun splash screen with options regarding what to install; the Security package is probably on there somewhere. As the bonus piece, Utilities might have been more brightly marked. Matt Deres (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have solved the problem satisfactorily. There was a card inside the package for Norton Security with a long product code and instructions to download from the web site. That seems to have worked. I am now running a virus scan and will know better when that is finished. So the Utilities were on the DVD and the product code permits the download of the Security portion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having two unrelated virus scanners, one being entirely non-resident, that is, just available to scan, still has its advantages. In the early days of anti-virus software, it wasn't possible to have two anti-virus detection programs, because each program detected the other one's set of virus signatures as being the viruses. That was itself taken care of in the early (but less early) days of anti-virus software, because now an anti-virus program encrypts its virus signatures. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]