USB Wireless Adapters (Dongles)

Owing to internet problems I've had to radically alter my broadband set
up on my desktops running Win7. Due to problems which I won't go into my
previous wired set up with my two desktop computers have now become
wireless.
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I have
installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the best
adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in speed if I
buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?
Many thanks
aw56001

Andrew Wilson wrote:
Owing to internet problems I've had to radically alter my broadband set
up on my desktops running Win7. Due to problems which I won't go into my
previous wired set up with my two desktop computers have now become
wireless.
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I have
installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the best
adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in speed if I
buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?
Many thanks
aw56001

Your internet speed is usually constrained by the internet service
provider since the isp speed is almost always less than 'g and n' wifi
adapter capability. Gains from moving from a g to an n adapter are more
applicable to networking across devices on the same home network but not
internet performance.


--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Andrew Wilson wrote:
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I have
installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the best
adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in speed if I
buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?

What is the condition/nature of the radio to which they will be
connecting in terms of g/n?

eg, none of my connecting wifi/s are n, not my router's nor an AP I
connected off a switch by ethernet. I believe there needs to be n on
both ends, and once upon a time (early n) there used to be
'special'/proprietary n which was incompatible with other n. I believe
that problem has been resolved so that now current n=n.

--
Mike Easter

Andrew Wilson wrote:
Owing to internet problems I've had to radically alter my broadband set
up on my desktops running Win7. Due to problems which I won't go into my
previous wired set up with my two desktop computers have now become
wireless.
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I have
installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the best
adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in speed if I
buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?
Many thanks
aw56001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n

"Assuming equal operating parameters to an 802.11g network achieving
54 megabits per second (on a single 20 MHz channel with one antenna),
an 802.11n network can achieve 72 megabits per second (on a single 20 MHz
channel with one antenna and 400 ns guard interval); 802.11n's speed may
go up to 150 megabits per second if there aren't other Bluetooth, microwave
or WiFi emissions in the neighborhood by using two 20 MHz channels in
40 MHz mode.

If more antennas are used... blah blah blah"

So yes, you see some improvement. When it comes to the whizzy stuff,
your average 802.11n dongle (like the Edimax intended for Raspberry PI),
is unlikely to support anything more than what is in the first paragraph.

If you're on a farm, and sending a signal from the farm house to
the barn, then all that whizzy stuff about multiple antennas might
actually do something for you. Many other environments have crowded
channels, multipath, reflections, a whole lot of things that conspire
to reduce your performance to the minimum.

Note that, even a USB3 cable running from a computer to a
USB3 hard drive, can emit in the 2.4GHz band. Which is something
that USB2 ports don't do. Sometimes, a USB3 cable running in
USB3 mode, causes the wireless keyboard and mouse to fail to
send signal to the computer unifying receiver. The airwaves
are very crowded, and with the most unlikely things.

And while the Internet is enamored with the concept of "Wifi weak signal",
that's a bit too simplified a model of how Wifi works. There are some
situations where your attempts to boost signal, boosts both
signal and noise, such that the signal to noise ratio does not
change, and the resulting data rate doesn't change either. So if
some guy tries to sell you a 20dBi antenna that "fell off the
back of a truck", just say No :-)

One of my favorite articles on Wifi signals. Notice how
the propagation isn't what you thought at all. Constructive
and destructive interference galore.

"Physicist shows why your WiFi sucks in that one room"

http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/01/w...nal-reception/

Paul

Andrew Wilson wrote:

Owing to internet problems I've had to radically alter my broadband set
up on my desktops running Win7. Due to problems which I won't go into my
previous wired set up with my two desktop computers have now become
wireless.
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I have
installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the best
adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in speed if I
buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?
Many thanks
aw56001

802.11g
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11g-2003
Throughput up to 54 Mbps.

802.11n
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009
Multiple antennae. Throughput up to 600 Mbps.

So what is your ISP's throughput? If they only give you 50 Mbps, or
less, having a bigger pipe on your end will not increase the size of
your ISP's pipe. Does your ISP give you more than 50 Mbps? Are you
paying them for more than 50 Mbps?

Also, what is normally rated for your ISP bandwidth is for downstream
traffic (from the Internet to you). Most broadband customers have
asymmetric service: downstream bandwidth is much larger than upstream
bandwidth. So even if you have more than 50 Mbps with your ISP for
downstream speed, you have much less from your ISP for upstream speed.
If you do online gaming or run a server on your end then upstream
bandwidth is important. If all you do is retrieve content from the
Internet (web surfing, e-mail) then upstream bandwidth is much less
important.

Your ISP may provide their own bandwidth test page. There are 3rd party
speed test sites (e.g., speedtest.net requires Flash, bandwidthplace.com
and http://testinternetspeed.org/ use HTML5+Javascript); however, your
ISP only provides the service tier you pay them for and only to their
network, not to outside of their network. If it measures less than 50
Mbps for downstream then going to 802.11n won't give you any more speed.
For me at the non-Flash speed test sites, my downstream bandwidth
measures at 51-55 Mbps. Don't know what my ISP's speed test page would
report because they require Flash that is not installed on my end. I'm
wired but if I used wireless than n would be better than g, especially
since you never do get their claimed maximum bandwidth rating.

So first determine what bandwidth (downstream and upstream) you get from
your ISP. Exceeding your service tier with your ISP will *not* give you
more Internet speed (but will give you give more intranet speed *if*
your other hosts are similarly capable).

In message , Andrew Wilson
writes:
Owing to internet problems I've had to radically alter my broadband set
up on my desktops running Win7. Due to problems which I won't go into
my previous wired set up with my two desktop computers have now become
wireless.
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I have
installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the best
adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in speed if I
buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?
Many thanks
aw56001

In theory, n can go faster than g. But g is capable of more than your
internet connection can supply anyway, so the difference will only be
seen on transfers between computers in your house.

And that only if the channel(s) are clear - which unless you're on an
isolated farm they won't be. There's a nice (and free) graphical - and
_fast_ responding - app. for (wifi-equipped) Android 'phones/tablets
that will show who's using what channels (if your adapters are USB, this
can help you find a better place to put them, if you use a USB extension
lead); there are such app.s for Windows, but I haven't found any that
are fast or graphical. (The [lack of] speed is probably a by-product of
Windows rather than any fault of the app.s.)

[Such app.s will show what's using 802.11 in your vicinity; I don't
think they'll show security cameras and other things that put "noise" on
the band, though those will still degrade your wifi performance.]

Assuming you _do_ find that the 2.4 GHz band is pretty busy in your
area, a dual-band dongle (they're cheap enough) is probably a better
thing to think about - though ideally only if your router also has 5 GHz
capability. (I _think_ any dual-band dongle will be n on the 2.4 band
anyway.)

Of course, that band'll fill up soon enough too, but at least it's
clearer at the moment.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

While no one was paying attention, weather reports became accurate and the
news became fiction. Did not see that coming. - Scott Adams, 2015

On 28/09/2015 22:24, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andrew Wilson
writes:
Owing to internet problems I've had to radically alter my broadband
set up on my desktops running Win7. Due to problems which I won't go
into my previous wired set up with my two desktop computers have now
become wireless.
I had two 802.11g wireless adapters in a box in the garage which I
have installed successfully on my desktops. I have just read that the
best adapter is 802.11n however. Will I see a massive increase in
speed if I buy an 802.11n adapter or is it negligible?
Many thanks
aw56001

In theory, n can go faster than g. But g is capable of more than your
internet connection can supply anyway, so the difference will only be
seen on transfers between computers in your house.

And that only if the channel(s) are clear - which unless you're on an
isolated farm they won't be. There's a nice (and free) graphical - and
_fast_ responding - app. for (wifi-equipped) Android 'phones/tablets
that will show who's using what channels (if your adapters are USB, this
can help you find a better place to put them, if you use a USB extension
lead); there are such app.s for Windows, but I haven't found any that
are fast or graphical. (The [lack of] speed is probably a by-product of
Windows rather than any fault of the app.s.)

[Such app.s will show what's using 802.11 in your vicinity; I don't
think they'll show security cameras and other things that put "noise" on
the band, though those will still degrade your wifi performance.]

Assuming you _do_ find that the 2.4 GHz band is pretty busy in your
area, a dual-band dongle (they're cheap enough) is probably a better
thing to think about - though ideally only if your router also has 5 GHz
capability. (I _think_ any dual-band dongle will be n on the 2.4 band
anyway.)

Of course, that band'll fill up soon enough too, but at least it's
clearer at the moment.

Many thanks for your replies.
I've done a speed test. I use Sky but don't need the mega speed so don't
pay for it.

Broadband speed results to your Sky Hub

Download Speed: 7 Mbps
Upload Speed: 0.8 Mbps

I take it this means that an upgrade to 802.11n is pointless and a waste
of money and I can stick with 802.11g?
Many thanks
aw56001

Andrew Wilson wrote:

I've done a speed test. I use Sky but don't need the mega speed so don't
pay for it.

Broadband speed results to your Sky Hub
Download Speed: 7 Mbps
Upload Speed: 0.8 Mbps

I take it this means that an upgrade to 802.11n is pointless and a waste
of money and I can stick with 802.11g?

Correct. Even 802.11g @ 54 Mbps exceeds the bandwidth that your ISP
affords to you.

In message , Andrew Wilson
writes:
[]
Many thanks for your replies.
You're welcome (-:
I've done a speed test. I use Sky but don't need the mega speed so
don't pay for it.

Broadband speed results to your Sky Hub

Download Speed: 7 Mbps
Upload Speed: 0.8 Mbps

I take it this means that an upgrade to 802.11n is pointless and a
waste of money and I can stick with 802.11g?
Many thanks
aw56001

It _might_ help when moving files (etc.) between computers _within your
own network_, though the difference would only be noticeable for quite
large files. Or, conceivably, if the band is so congested (by neighbours
etc.) where you are that you aren't reaching the 7 MBps (though I very
much doubt that is the case).

On the whole, I suspect that it would indeed be a waste of money.

Repeat the speed test while wired to your router/MoDem, if you can; if
little or no faster, then there's no point upgrading as far as your
internet connection is concerned.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep. That's deep
enough. What do you want, an adorable pancreas?" - Jean Kerr