Send wireless signal from laptop?

[gallivanorama@googlemail.com]

Bit of a weird one this I'm afraid so I hope someone has a
suggestion?!
I have laptop, which picks up broadband via an Ethernet wire attached
to a router - it seems the wireless broadband signal is too weak to
connect wirelessly.
I have just purchased an internet radio but it does not have an
Ethernet port so its al but useless as again the broadband wi-fi is
too weak.
is there any way my laptop could send the signal out to the radio?
Many thanks for your time.

[Harry]

<gallivanorama@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:03924e5b-a7ba-4e2e-bcbd-b013b7892b5c@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Bit of a weird one this I'm afraid so I hope someone has a
> suggestion?!
> I have laptop, which picks up broadband via an Ethernet wire attached
> to a router - it seems the wireless broadband signal is too weak to
> connect wirelessly.
> I have just purchased an internet radio but it does not have an
> Ethernet port so its al but useless as again the broadband wi-fi is
> too weak.
> is there any way my laptop could send the signal out to the radio?
> Many thanks for your time.
>
Fit a wireless access point to the ethernet connection your laptop is
connected to and have both laptop and internet radio working from
the access point.

[Bill Kearney]

> I have laptop, which picks up broadband via an Ethernet wire attached
> to a router

Either change that router out for one that has WiFi features or hang a WiFi
access point (essentially a dumbed-down router) off one of the exsting
router's ethernet ports. That way you'll have you own local wifi network.
Usable for the internet radio (pretty useless gadgets if you ask me) as well
as your laptop (assuming it has a wifi card in it).

-Bill Kearney

[gallivanorama@googlemail.com]

Hi,
the current set up i have is a wireless Ethernet bridge which is
then connectted to my laptop via an ethernet cable. This is a bit
confusing as this bridge must be picking up a strong signal?!
thanks again.

[Joker7]

To restore balance to the world Bill Kearney wrote in
gK-dnTaq3McoTKTVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@speakeasy.net
<snip>
>(pretty useless gadgets if you ask me)

Why is your thinking a internet radio is a pretty useless gadget?

>> -Bill Kearney






--
Superb hosting & domain name deals http://dn-22.co.uk

[seaweedsl]

On May 25, 3:09 pm, "gallivanor...@googlemail.com"
<gallivanor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> the current set up i have is a wireless Ethernet bridge which is
> then connectted to my laptop via an ethernet cable. This is a bit
> confusing as this bridge must be picking up a strong signal?!
> thanks again.

What's the wireless ethernet bridge talking to? Your Internet
service provider or.....?

As others are suggesting, hang an AP off of the ethernet bridge.
Then your laptop and radio will have a wireless connection that works
locally.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:30:18 +0100, "Joker7" <sat_ring@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>To restore balance to the world Bill Kearney wrote in
>gK-dnTaq3McoTKTVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@speakeasy.net
><snip>
>>(pretty useless gadgets if you ask me)
>
>Why is your thinking a internet radio is a pretty useless gadget?

I'm wondering the same thing also. I have a Dell SX260 computah
configured mostly for streaming audio and video from the internet. I
like it because the build in fans are VERY quiet. I'm almost
constantly playing one of an assortment of internet radio stations
depending on my mood and interest. Favorite player is Winamp,
although I have a mixed mess of others depending on what I want to
play. It also has a DRM (Digital Radio Monodial) decoder and may soon
have an HD Radio (IBOQ) receiver attached. I recently gave up on the
SCPC (Single Channel Per Carrier) receiver, when spring arrived and
the trees decide to grow in front of my satellite dish.

While this may sound like a geeks idea of a hi-fi, it has become
almost indespensible. I've also duplicated the setup for a few
non-technical friends and customers, with variable results. Watching
YouTube on a large screen HDTV is somewhat tacky, but functional. When
not watching TV, it's tuned to the local internet radio (no
commericals) station.

We're currently experiencing a large brush fire in the mountains. The
various CDF fire channels are being streamed over the internet. That
seems to be a popular use for internet radio. Since I have multiple
sound "cards" (i.e. USB dongles) on the SX260, I can listen to music
and the scanner at the same time.

However, one owners wife put everything in a cardboard box and ordered
me to drag it away. Can't win them all. Anyway, my crystal ball says
that the entertainment console of the future is going to look
something like that, with streaming internet audio being very high on
the list of features.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Bill Kearney]

>>>(pretty useless gadgets if you ask me)
>>
>>Why is your thinking a internet radio is a pretty useless gadget?
>
> I'm wondering the same thing also. I have a Dell SX260 computah
> configured mostly for streaming audio and video from the internet.

I'm not saying streamed audio is the problem, just that most of the
single-purpose "internet radio" gadgets end up having so many limitations as
to make them useless compared to using an actual PC. Sure, it's a bit of a
hassle having a PC setup for the purpose and a "box" might seem easier. But
by the time you torment yourself tring to "type" long URLs into the radio's
crippled user interface you then find the stream can't be decoded due to an
ever-upgrading series of new codecs. PC players can download new codecs but
those "radios" end up needing all new firmware. And since they didn't sell
well the companies stop updating the old versions, leaving you with an
orphaned pile of junk. The "idea" of an internet radio seems pretty cool,
but most implementations stink.

-Bill

[msg]

Bill Kearney wrote:
<snip>
> most of the
> single-purpose "internet radio" gadgets end up having so many
> limitations as to make them useless compared to using an actual PC.
> Sure, it's a bit of a hassle having a PC setup for the purpose and a
> "box" might seem easier. But by the time you torment yourself tring to
> "type" long URLs into the radio's crippled user interface you then find
> the stream can't be decoded due to an ever-upgrading series of new
> codecs. PC players can download new codecs but those "radios" end up
> needing all new firmware. And since they didn't sell well the companies
> stop updating the old versions, leaving you with an orphaned pile of
> junk. The "idea" of an internet radio seems pretty cool, but most
> implementations stink.

Indeed, that is why I like using ultraportables (high-end PDA, tiny
notebooks like the Zipit V1) for this; these have the size and weight
commensurate with a portable radio and with a well-designed user
interface, are as easy to use.

Michael

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:06:04 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>(pretty useless gadgets if you ask me)
>>>
>>>Why is your thinking a internet radio is a pretty useless gadget?
>>
>> I'm wondering the same thing also. I have a Dell SX260 computah
>> configured mostly for streaming audio and video from the internet.

>I'm not saying streamed audio is the problem, just that most of the
>single-purpose "internet radio" gadgets end up having so many limitations as
>to make them useless compared to using an actual PC.

Yeah, that is a problem. That's why I went with an overkill PC
instead of an "appliance". I had some experience with streaming A/V
in a friends car using both some appliance (I forgot the name) and a
PC. There wasn't that much "typing" of URL's on the remote control.
It came with a pre-loaded set of internet radio stations sorted by
genre that could be edited or updated. It could also scrape
Shoutcast. Not too horrible but also rather limited. There was a
rather long list of things it would NOT do, such as handle more than
one external input.

The PC was much better, especially with a touch screen. My friends
car setup was much the same as what I previously described except that
we added Wi-Fi for downloading and synchronizing media with my home or
office PC and a GPS mapping program. Also Bluetooth. Interestingly,
my friend found himself using it to display PDF files (he's a general
contractor) and is now wanting to add a printer.
<http://www.mp3car.com/wiki/>

>Sure, it's a bit of a
>hassle having a PC setup for the purpose and a "box" might seem easier.

There's also the issue of power consumption. The Dell SX260 (which
incidentally runs off 12 VDC) sucks about 35 watts in standby and 65
watts when playing a DVD. A laptop would be about the same. I wanted
something that could be left on continuously. The few "appliances" I
looked at drew about 30% the power of a PC.

>But
>by the time you torment yourself tring to "type" long URLs into the radio's
>crippled user interface you then find the stream can't be decoded due to an
>ever-upgrading series of new codecs.

Most appliances have external keyboard inputs or you can use an HTML
or telnet interface for programming. Not ideal, but good enough to
avoid typing on the screen. There are also VST plugins for Winamp
that make touchscreen operation easier. I use the ancient Windoze 3.1
"recorder.exe" to automatic and script macros. Plenty of options, but
also plenty of room for improvement.

Incidentally, try:
start -> run -> osk
OSK is "on screen keyboard".

>PC players can download new codecs but
>those "radios" end up needing all new firmware. And since they didn't sell
>well the companies stop updating the old versions, leaving you with an
>orphaned pile of junk. The "idea" of an internet radio seems pretty cool,
>but most implementations stink.

True. Human factors and user interfaces are still being worked out.
I've been watching what little progress there is and am generally
encouraged. I have some ancient experience in IVR (interactive voice
response) and suspect the next bit lurch forward will be in that area.
You can have an animated conversation with your appliance. This is
actually happening with some higher end TV remote controls. Meanwhile,
it's touch screen, keyboard and mouse. Yawn.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:48:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>There are also VST plugins for Winamp
>that make touchscreen operation easier.

Sorry. I forgot the URL:
<http://www.mp3touchscreens.com>
There are others, but this one integrates nicely with Winamp.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Joker7]

To restore balance to the world Bill Kearney wrote in
xcGdnfjXgoGnmqHVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@speakeasy.net
>>>>> (pretty useless gadgets if you ask me)
>>>>
>>>> Why is your thinking a internet radio is a pretty useless gadget?
>>>
>>> I'm wondering the same thing also. I have a Dell SX260 computah
>>> configured mostly for streaming audio and video from the internet.
>>
>> I'm not saying streamed audio is the problem, just that most of the
>> single-purpose "internet radio" gadgets end up having so many
>> limitations as to make them useless compared to using an actual PC.
>> Sure, it's a bit of a hassle having a PC setup for the purpose and a
>> "box" might seem easier. But by the time you torment yourself tring
>> to "type" long URLs into the radio's crippled user interface you
>> then find the stream can't be decoded due to an ever-upgrading
>> series of new codecs. PC players can download new codecs but those
>> "radios" end up needing all new firmware. And since they didn't
>> sell well the companies stop updating the old versions, leaving you
>> with an orphaned pile of junk. The "idea" of an internet radio
>> seems pretty cool, but most implementations stink.
>>
>> -Bill

I personally use a https://www.reciva.com/ and my cheap and cheerful
single-purpose box that also wakes me for work ..
I also feel you are a little dated in your concept of the internet as a
media carrier,but then we are all allowed our own thoughts.

Chris

--
Superb hosting & domain name deals http://dn-22.co.uk

[Hangman]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xcGdnfjXgoGnmqHVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>(pretty useless gadgets if you ask me)
>>>
>>>Why is your thinking a internet radio is a pretty useless gadget?
>>
>> I'm wondering the same thing also. I have a Dell SX260 computah
>> configured mostly for streaming audio and video from the internet.
>
> I'm not saying streamed audio is the problem, just that most of the
> single-purpose "internet radio" gadgets end up having so many limitations
> as to make them useless compared to using an actual PC. Sure, it's a bit
> of a hassle having a PC setup for the purpose and a "box" might seem
> easier. But by the time you torment yourself tring to "type" long URLs
> into the radio's crippled user interface you then find the stream can't be
> decoded due to an ever-upgrading series of new codecs. PC players can
> download new codecs but those "radios" end up needing all new firmware.
> And since they didn't sell well the companies stop updating the old
> versions, leaving you with an orphaned pile of junk. The "idea" of an
> internet radio seems pretty cool, but most implementations stink.
>
> -Bill

Your nuts Bill! Check out Sangean wfr-20. I've got 2 of 'em. Super
radio. Reciva web site. Got a 5mg broadband connection wireless. Have
no drops. The times are chging. The radios already have.