<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Sep 12, 2006, at 14.00, Richard Krehbiel wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On 9/12/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">Michael T. Dean</B> <<A href="mailto:mtdean@thirdcontact.com">mtdean@thirdcontact.com</A>> wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>[snip]</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote"></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hope this won't be necessary for pushing out video to remote clients<BR>( i.e. hope you only have a single combined frontend/backend). You might<BR>be able to make it work, otherwise, but are likely to have "issues"<BR>(i.e. prebuffering pauses, no ability to do HDTV remotely, etc.). <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> Yes, it's a single box. I figure it just needs Internet access, and access to some photos archived on another computer. (When the day comes, I'll either cough up for 802.11n, or - urgh - pull the wires.)</BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>You'll probably be best off running Ethernet, to be honest. Theoretically, 802.11b should have though bandwidth to do SD, right? Wrong. Wireless only gets around 30-50% of claimed throughput. Going full ethernet will just be easier. You'll only have to run the cables once (twice if you remove them), you won't have to deal with interference from things like phones and microwaves. Encryption won't be an issue. And there's far less overhead on wired ethernet than WLAN.</DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>