If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
I am seeing wireless routers that boast 450Mbps, (ie, Cisco Linksys AE3000
450Mbps Wireless-N Dual-Band USB Adapter 3 x 3 Antenna). Is this possible and how? I have gone from 54, 150 and now 300Mbps Comcast wireless routers and according to windows wireless network status they all seem be running at just 54Mbps. I'm guessing I would need both a wireless transmitter and USB receiver that run at 450MBps. Can anyone suggest setup? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
Artreid wrote:
I am seeing wireless routers that boast 450Mbps, (ie, Cisco Linksys AE3000 450Mbps Wireless-N Dual-Band USB Adapter 3 x 3 Antenna). Is this possible and how? I have gone from 54, 150 and now 300Mbps Comcast wireless routers and according to windows wireless network status they all seem be running at just 54Mbps. I'm guessing I would need both a wireless transmitter and USB receiver that run at 450MBps. Can anyone suggest setup? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n "IEEE 802.11n-2009 is a... wireless... standard... with a significant increase in the maximum net data rate from 54 Mbit/s to 600 Mbit/s (slightly higher gross bit rate including for example error-correction codes, and slightly lower maximum throughput) with the use of four spatial streams at a channel width of 40 MHz." Regular Wifi is 20MHz channels. Wireless N has a double width channel option. You can have more antennas than spatial streams, so the best antenna can be selected. "Number of antennas The a x b : c notation helps identify what a given radio is capable of. (a) is TX antenna, (b) is RX antenna, (c) is the number of data spatial streams In addition, a fourth configuration, 3 x 3 : 3 is becoming common, which has a higher throughput, due to the additional data stream." 802.11n works best, if no legacy Wifi devices are detected in the area. Which for most people, is a pretty hard requirement to meet. The 40MHz channel spacing may fall back to 20MHz spacing (less thruput), in order to be backward compatible (not crush) the legacy devices. ******* You can check actual reviews, to see how well they really work. This one is a dual band device, with five antennas (three internal patch antennas, two external antennas - the three internal antennas might be for 5GHz). http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wirel...outer-reviewed There is also a router chart page. From the menu, select the appropriate individual test, to get some idea how well these things work. ~100Mbit/sec appears to be doing well, for clients. http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwa...er-charts/view Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
In message , Artreid
writes: I am seeing wireless routers that boast 450Mbps, (ie, Cisco Linksys AE3000 450Mbps Wireless-N Dual-Band USB Adapter 3 x 3 Antenna). Is this possible and how? I have gone from 54, 150 and now 300Mbps Comcast wireless routers and according to windows wireless network status they all seem be running at just 54Mbps. I'm guessing I would need both a wireless transmitter and USB receiver that run at 450MBps. The network status does indeed show the capability of the equipment at the computer. (Both ends are both transmitter _and_ receiver, by the way.) Can anyone suggest setup? Are you using it to talk to other computers in your house, or to a router connected to the outside world? If the latter, the local speed won't make much difference, as I'd be surprised if (even though I don't know where in the world you are) you're getting even 54 M from that. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Old professors don't fade away - they just lose their faculties. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
On 15/10/2012 7:10 PM, Artreid wrote:
I am seeing wireless routers that boast 450Mbps, (ie, Cisco Linksys AE3000 450Mbps Wireless-N Dual-Band USB Adapter 3 x 3 Antenna). Is this possible and how? I have gone from 54, 150 and now 300Mbps Comcast wireless routers and according to windows wireless network status they all seem be running at just 54Mbps. 54Mbps is also known as IEEE 802.11g or WiFi-G. Everything above that speed is 802.11n or WiFi-N. In order to experience those faster speeds, you not only need a WiFi-N router, but also your laptop must be WiFi-N as well. If you're laptop is more than 3 years old, then chances are that it's probably only WiFi-G compatible (the slower speed). Beyond that, laptops are limited to WiFi-N 150Mbps, so you'd probably need a special plugin card that'll take you upto 300 or 450Mbps. Actually if you don't want to replace your laptop, then you can get that same plugin card for your older WiFi-G laptop and have it working at 150/300/450 Mbps speeds. I'm guessing I would need both a wireless transmitter and USB receiver that run at 450MBps. Yup, exactly. Can anyone suggest setup? Just go to your local computer store and buy a WiFi-N PC-Card and plug it into your laptop. Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
In message , Yousuf Khan
writes: On 15/10/2012 7:10 PM, Artreid wrote: I am seeing wireless routers that boast 450Mbps, (ie, Cisco Linksys AE3000 450Mbps Wireless-N Dual-Band USB Adapter 3 x 3 Antenna). Is this possible and how? I have gone from 54, 150 and now 300Mbps Comcast wireless routers and according to windows wireless network status they all seem be running at just 54Mbps. 54Mbps is also known as IEEE 802.11g or WiFi-G. Everything above that speed is 802.11n or WiFi-N. In order to experience those faster speeds, you not only need a WiFi-N router, but also your laptop must be WiFi-N as well. If you're laptop is more than 3 years old, then chances are that it's probably only WiFi-G compatible (the slower speed). [] Can anyone suggest setup? Just go to your local computer store and buy a WiFi-N PC-Card and plug it into your laptop. Yousuf Khan But, don't bother if you're wanting to up your internet connection speed: it'll only boost speed to other computers on your internal network. Your connection speed to the outside world - at least here in the UK, I don't know for the US - is highly unlikely to even be anywhere near 54M, let alone faster. In Windows XP, the network tab in Task Manager will show the nominal speed capability (such as 54M) of your hardware, and also give you a graph of what percentage of that capability you're actually using; in my case it shows a LAN capability of 100 Mbps Non Operational (as I have no cable plugged in), and a Wireless one of 54 Mbps, which shows a graph which goes up to a heady 12.5% when I connect to http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/ and click BEGIN (that site told me I'm getting 6134 kbps, which is about what I usually get; there are lots of other such sites). I'm sure Windows 7 will have something similar, that shows both your hardware's potential speed and how much of it you are actually using; use it to check, when connecting to a speed test site, and don't waste money buying more hardware unless it'll make a difference, or unless you move a lot of data between computers within your network. (If the latter, cables are probably cheaper, unless the routing would be impractical/inconvenient.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Dailysex, or is it spelled dyslexia, rules KO! (Dr[.] J.[ ]B.[ ]Davis) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
On 27/10/2012 6:21 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Yousuf Khan writes: Just go to your local computer store and buy a WiFi-N PC-Card and plug it into your laptop. Yousuf Khan But, don't bother if you're wanting to up your internet connection speed: it'll only boost speed to other computers on your internal network. Your connection speed to the outside world - at least here in the UK, I don't know for the US - is highly unlikely to even be anywhere near 54M, let alone faster. Yes, if all you use your computer for is Internet networking, then a faster WIFI card won't help you one bit. However, if you're like me, and you use your various computers for internal LAN streaming and sharing, then it'll definitely help you here. In Windows XP, the network tab in Task Manager will show the nominal speed capability (such as 54M) of your hardware, and also give you a graph of what percentage of that capability you're actually using; in my case it shows a LAN capability of 100 Mbps Non Operational (as I have no cable plugged in), and a Wireless one of 54 Mbps, which shows a graph which goes up to a heady 12.5% when I connect to http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/ and click BEGIN (that site told me I'm getting 6134 kbps, which is about what I usually get; there are lots of other such sites). You should see how low the numbers are when using a Gigabit Ethernet connection to the Internet. You'll see speeds being reported of 4-5% only. However, even when connecting to machines inside your LAN, and having equivalently matched network connections on both computers, you will usually never see 100% or even close to 100% speeds. I've only ever seen upto 60% efficiency between a couple of computers on the LAN. I'm sure Windows 7 will have something similar, that shows both your hardware's potential speed and how much of it you are actually using; use it to check, when connecting to a speed test site, and don't waste money buying more hardware unless it'll make a difference, or unless you move a lot of data between computers within your network. (If the latter, cables are probably cheaper, unless the routing would be impractical/inconvenient.) Actually when transferring *large* amounts of data between computers, it's often faster to use old-fashioned Sneakernet, i.e. burning a CD or DVD on one computer and copying it to a second computer. CD/DVD burning is also still faster than using a USB thumb drive, BTW. Burning an 4GB DVD will only take 2-3 minutes, while copying to an 4GB USB flash drive will usually take 20+ minutes. For comparison a 4GB transfer over a 100Mbps Ethernet network will take about 10+ minutes. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless?
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:18:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote: On 27/10/2012 6:21 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In Windows XP, the network tab in Task Manager will show the nominal speed capability (such as 54M) of your hardware, and also give you a graph of what percentage of that capability you're actually using; in my case it shows a LAN capability of 100 Mbps Non Operational (as I have no cable plugged in), and a Wireless one of 54 Mbps, which shows a graph which goes up to a heady 12.5% when I connect to http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/ and click BEGIN (that site told me I'm getting 6134 kbps, which is about what I usually get; there are lots of other such sites). You should see how low the numbers are when using a Gigabit Ethernet connection to the Internet. You'll see speeds being reported of 4-5% only. However, even when connecting to machines inside your LAN, and having equivalently matched network connections on both computers, you will usually never see 100% or even close to 100% speeds. I've only ever seen upto 60% efficiency between a couple of computers on the LAN. That was also the case for me when I had a mixed (XP and 7) network. Once everything was Win 7, my typical transfer speeds jumped from 200-400 Mbps (XP and 7) to 700-990 Mbps (7 only). If the network is otherwise quiet, I can expect to get well over 900 Mbps and only see the lower speeds (700 Mbps and sometimes even less) when other network or disk activities are running in parallel. Actually when transferring *large* amounts of data between computers, it's often faster to use old-fashioned Sneakernet, i.e. burning a CD or DVD on one computer and copying it to a second computer. CD/DVD burning is also still faster than using a USB thumb drive, BTW. Burning an 4GB DVD will only take 2-3 minutes, while copying to an 4GB USB flash drive will usually take 20+ minutes. For comparison a 4GB transfer over a 100Mbps Ethernet network will take about 10+ minutes. I typically transfer 4GB across the LAN in about 36 seconds. That puts sneakernet into the dustbin where it belongs. -- Char Jackson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|