No announcement yet.

About that 802.11G blurb on the front page..

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • About that 802.11G blurb on the front page..

    **Note: Sorry if this is the wrong area for this..**

    I saw the article on the front about Wi-Fi G, and at first it looked good, but then i noticed some major flaws.

    For one, G is not unoffical. It was ratified earlier this year, and is now and offical standard. Most companies have new firmware to update the draft equipment to offical standards.

    However, the big problem comes from... everything else. The article rules that G is not a very good standard. The issue is though, is that not nearly enough was actually tested.

    The review only touches Belkin hardware. It would be fine to rule that belkin hardware is not up to snuff, but saying that ALL g performs below standard is asisnine. Also, if you take a look at the raw data, you will see that somewhere, there must have been a problem. No equipment should only achieve half speed when less than a foot. The thing is, there may have been lots of other noise present (but unknown with no SNR readings), or it could have just been set up wrong.

    As for the reivew mentioning speaking to other retailers.... why even include that? It is nothing more than useless hear-say.

    Regardless, even if the belkin was indicitave of the current state of hardware (which it isnt), no mention was made about the other improvements over the other standards. When compaired to A, it does have a far greater range. When compaired the B, it has much better security.

    Finally, i gotta talk about the comments on useful speed. Evactly what movie did you try streaming that wouldnt work with 1MB/s? As a 1.5Mb user, i can say that i have never had a problem surfing and streaming anything, and i only have 210KB/s.

    Anyway, take it as you will.. thanks. : peace2:

  • #2
    Originally posted by Divine_Madcat
    **Note: Sorry if this is the wrong area for this..**
    Publication Discussion seems like a better spot ;)

    I havn't read the article yet, but it all sounds like valid points to me...


    • #3
      Yeah.. i kinda figured it wasnt right in BG.

      But, now that nobody will read it.... :(


      • #4
        But ppl will still see the redirect in the BG and access the thread thru it so don't worry about. ;)


        • #5
          Yeah, I just scan for new posts and found it...

          I don't know much about the G standard but your points seem valid.

          I'm running on a wireless network but the B standard at 11 mb/s. It does most things I want on the network, although large file transfers do take a while. So I'm interested in the the faster speed network.


          • #6
            i thought cable was like 1.5 meg...........wireless b @ 11 meg slow?..............g is supposed to be about twice as fast, and in my neck of the woods, about as cheap.........120 no rebates router and card..............but, i like my netgear just fine, uses a usb receiver and is designed to be hacker proof


            • #7
              Good initiative, Mr. Wilmot.

              But first of all, believing what the manufacturers alledge on the outside of the box - isn't that a bit naive? We all know the outside info on IT consumer-product boxes are just flashy numbers to convince the uninformed random_person_03 to buy the device.

              Second, you claim being able to achieve a bandwidth of 21Mbps over an unobstructed wireless link at about 1ft distance between AP and Wireless adapter - and based upon this single test you deem the 802.11g standard being only able to deliver up to 2x the bandwidth of 802.11b.

              But did you test the 802.11b and see what this standard is actually able to deliver before making judgments on how much faster the .11g standard is?

              802.11b is 11Mbps - but that's a theoretical bandwidth. In real world scenarios it's no more than 6Mbps, on an uncongested wireless link, 1ft from AP to Client adapter.

              2x6Mbps = 12Mbps, which is far from the 21Mbps .11g can perform. With these figures .11g is closer to 4x the bandwidth of .11b.

              In fact - how much bandwidth can you drag over a wired 100Mbps TCP/IP link after CSMA/CD and general overhead has been deducted? I would guess (as in, I have tested it) you would get close to 80Mbps, which again is far from the claimed 100Mbps. And 100Mbps on a wired link isn't new technology.

              And last - what would you recommend if people were to get faster wireless bandwidth? Today's "on-the-paper" best technology is 802.11a, which is a true 54Mbps wireless standard - but even the most high-tech products can't push more than 21Mbps through their wireless links, either.

              The best bet would be to find a small office/home office product, that offered some kind of proprietary standard of boosting it's bandwidth. Different brands of cheaper product-series advertise being able to reach 108Mbps using full-duplex on .11g gear. I haven't been testing on those - but even if that works or not; I have to disagree with your conclusion.

              In my opinion, 802.11g is the best standard we have today - it's almost just as good as 802.11a (several reasons, a lot not mentioned here), and it's one helluva lot cheaper.

              If you want a wireless network at home, I can't recommend anything but 802.11g.

              ~ Zancir ~

              P.S. This isn't to disrespect you, the writer, in anyway - just a bit of criticism (deem it constructive or not), and letting the uninformed part of the readers know, that this standard isn't as bad as was first stated. ;)

              [edit by minibubba: threads merged, don't need more than one on this topic :) ]