D-LINK 15x and 108Mbps is bull!

Gear used:
D-Link DI-624 rev C
D-Link DWL-G650
D-Link DWL-G520
all with latest firmware and drivers as of Dec 28, 2003.
Windows XP and Windows 2000.

SuperG does work. I get about twice the speed of regular G. But
108Mbps is nothing but a marketting lie. The most I have been able to
achieve was around 30MBps. For experimenting, I have tried placing
router and clients within various distances of each other. 108Mbps is
either in their dreams, or just is some theory paper. This is
consistent with findings on tomshardware as well.

Still a very fast setup though!

Mark.

On 30/12/03 5:19 pm, in article
(E-Mail Removed), "Mike Harris"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Gear used:
> D-Link DI-624 rev C
> D-Link DWL-G650
> D-Link DWL-G520
> all with latest firmware and drivers as of Dec 28, 2003.
> Windows XP and Windows 2000.
>
> SuperG does work. I get about twice the speed of regular G. But
> 108Mbps is nothing but a marketting lie. The most I have been able to
> achieve was around 30MBps. For experimenting, I have tried placing
> router and clients within various distances of each other. 108Mbps is
> either in their dreams, or just is some theory paper. This is
> consistent with findings on tomshardware as well.
>
Even your post mixes measures !

Megabits or Mega bytes ?

Sure you're using the same measurement ?

11Mbit is 10 Mbit traffic plus 1Mbit overhead, so I guess 108Mbits is about
100Mbit traffic plus 8Mbit overhead.

Traffic capacity falls off very heavily with errors so is your link error
free ? Even if you operate at say 75% link performance, the data drop is
more then 75% AFAI can recall ..

(E-Mail Removed) (Mike Harris) writes:

> Gear used:
> D-Link DI-624 rev C
> D-Link DWL-G650
> D-Link DWL-G520
> all with latest firmware and drivers as of Dec 28, 2003.
> Windows XP and Windows 2000.
>
> SuperG does work. I get about twice the speed of regular G. But
> 108Mbps is nothing but a marketting lie. The most I have been able to
> achieve was around 30MBps.

Don't be too upset--you'll find similar "truth" in 100BaseT fast
ethernet as well.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) (Mike Harris) writes:
>
>> Gear used:
>> D-Link DI-624 rev C
>> D-Link DWL-G650
>> D-Link DWL-G520
>> all with latest firmware and drivers as of Dec 28, 2003.
>> Windows XP and Windows 2000.
>>
>> SuperG does work. I get about twice the speed of regular G. But
>> 108Mbps is nothing but a marketting lie. The most I have been able to
>> achieve was around 30MBps.
>
> Don't be too upset--you'll find similar "truth" in 100BaseT fast
> ethernet as well.

Err, no.
I regularly get transfer speeds over 10 megabytes per second over
100baseT.

Ian Stirling <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Todd H. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > (E-Mail Removed) (Mike Harris) writes:
> >
> >> Gear used:
> >> D-Link DI-624 rev C
> >> D-Link DWL-G650
> >> D-Link DWL-G520
> >> all with latest firmware and drivers as of Dec 28, 2003.
> >> Windows XP and Windows 2000.
> >>
> >> SuperG does work. I get about twice the speed of regular G. But
> >> 108Mbps is nothing but a marketting lie. The most I have been able to
> >> achieve was around 30MBps.
> >
> > Don't be too upset--you'll find similar "truth" in 100BaseT fast
> > ethernet as well.
>
> Err, no.
> I regularly get transfer speeds over 10 megabytes per second over
> 100baseT.

Err, well, depending on whether one believes the capitalization,
that's 3x slower than the SuperG number Mike posted.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ian Stirling <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Todd H. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > (E-Mail Removed) (Mike Harris) writes:
>> >
>> >> Gear used:
>> >> D-Link DI-624 rev C
>> >> D-Link DWL-G650
>> >> D-Link DWL-G520
>> >> all with latest firmware and drivers as of Dec 28, 2003.
>> >> Windows XP and Windows 2000.
>> >>
>> >> SuperG does work. I get about twice the speed of regular G. But
>> >> 108Mbps is nothing but a marketting lie. The most I have been able to
>> >> achieve was around 30MBps.
>> >
>> > Don't be too upset--you'll find similar "truth" in 100BaseT fast
>> > ethernet as well.
>>
>> Err, no.
>> I regularly get transfer speeds over 10 megabytes per second over
>> 100baseT.
>
> Err, well, depending on whether one believes the capitalization,
> that's 3x slower than the SuperG number Mike posted.

Looking at the original comments, it's clear that the implication was
that 30% of "sticker" throughput is the most you can expect from
a network.
I was just posting that I get well over 90% on both 10baset and 100baset.

No, you was not. You was just wrong.
>

>
> Looking at the original comments, it's clear that the implication was
> that 30% of "sticker" throughput is the most you can expect from
> a network.
> I was just posting that I get well over 90% on both 10baset and 100baset.
>

No, he wasn't. The original poster used M, instead of m, and he properly
interpreted what the poster meant.


"Nas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3ff423ea$0$13349$(E-Mail Removed)...
> No, you was not. You was just wrong.
> >
>
> >
> > Looking at the original comments, it's clear that the implication was
> > that 30% of "sticker" throughput is the most you can expect from
> > a network.
> > I was just posting that I get well over 90% on both 10baset and
100baset.
> >
>
>

Nas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> No, you was not. You was just wrong.

I'm unsure how to properly respond to this, should I imply that
your mother slept with football teams, or that you have the
mental capacity of something found in the ceramic garden ornaments
section in my local garden center.

Could you get back to me.

Nas wrote:

> No, you was not. You was just wrong.

You may have misspelled "wuz."

--
John Miller

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once.
-Lazarus Long