Data on chipsets

Where can I find detailed information by chipset.

I need to know if they are compatible with wireshark; possibly
netstumbler and how difficult it will be to find management software
for connection using alternately windows 98SE, linux and FreeBSD.

I also need to know their general reputation for reliability,
transmit power and receive sensitivity.

I wrote the suppliers and here are the chipsets these radios have:

usb radio 1:atheros
usb radio 2:RealTek 8187 chipset
usb radio 3: custom RealTek chipset

This is all the info I have so far on them. They are all in the
neighborhood of 300-400mw transmit power and the printed specs on
them show good receive sensitivity.

I will be able to use external antenna if necessary on all three.

Can anyone advise?

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:25:30 +0000 (UTC), Steve88J
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Where can I find detailed information by chipset.
>>
>>I need to know if they are compatible with wireshark; possibly
>>netstumbler and how difficult it will be to find management software
>>for connection using alternately windows 98SE, linux and FreeBSD.
>
> Is this one question or four questions? If one, you have all the
> right buzzwords, but they're all mixed together into an unintelligible
> mess. Are you a student or beginning engineer who has just been
> assigned a research subject where you haven't even begun to read about
> the basics? If so, it would helpful to know what you're trying to
> accomplish.


Are you related to that character from the old Sat. Night Live show, the
"computer guy"? :-) Same thing 99.5% of the other posters here are here to
accomplish-to connect to an AP with max. signal strength. Seems clear to me
or do I have to follow some kind of writer's format, i.e. Question I.) a.)
i.)


>
> Hmmm... Looks like you're in Guangzhou China.
> <http://english.gzhu.edu.cn>
> You really should do your own homework.

I got tired of Guangzhou so I just flew over to Romania.
Maybe you'll like that location better?


>
> Wireshark and Ethereal are packet sniffers. They will sniff anything
> that resembles ethernet down to the MAC layer. It will also sniff
> other protocols (Novell). There are no requirements for a specific
> chipset other than it supports ethernet.

Ok so chipset is irrelevant as far as using WS or Etheral is what you're
saying.

>
> Netstumbler is a wireless packet sniffer that talks to the NDIS driver
> under Windoze. Any chipset that has an NDIS driver will work.

Well, seems to me I have read numerous threads about which radio chipsets
that are supported by netstumbler. Discussions in which the participants
say don't use that radio as the chipset is not supported by netstumbler.
Maybe I don't understand what they are saying then.

>
> Management software usually means SNMP. There are huge numbers of
> SNMP management applications. The only requirement is that the
> chipset supports ASN.1. This is usually not done by the chipset, but
> rather by the support chips. Any chipset that can be interrogated for
> performance statistics will support SNMP.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Network_Management_Protocol>


I am guessing the SNMP is what the programs I am referring to are written
for. So I am thinking that you're saying chipset is really not the
determining factor as to whether or not a radio is likely to have a good
program to control it's connnections, scanning, etc.

>
> Windoze, Linux, FreeBSD, and OS/X are operating systems. It's a
> little like judging a book by its cover. What under the cover is
> what's important. Once you get past the fancy cover and user
> interface, all operating systems are very similar by the time they
> talk to the chipset and run SNMP management software.


Already know what OS are. So are you saying that chipset is irrelevant when
selecting a radio for a specific OS?

>
>>I also need to know their general reputation for reliability,
>
> Reliability? Is that like 99.999% uptime? Perhaps it's production
> failure rate? Maybe ability to actually deliver chips on time? Maybe
> reliably delivering something close to their stated specifications?
> What manner of reliability were do you need to know?

Reliability is just what it says. Are you saying that all chipsets are
equal in terms of their propensity to enable the radio to connect and
maintain a stable connection? Again as with the vast majority of posters to
this group, I am asking about what chipsets make for a good radio. Or are
you saying that chipset is also irrelevant to answering that question.
Client Adapter--->connect to distant municipal AP; maintain a good stable
connection

>
>>transmit power and receive sensitivity.
>
> See the FCCID web site for specific products that use the chipsets for
> transmit power. Note that many manufactories use external power
> amplifiers with plenty of surplus gain because the chipset output
> tends to vary all over the place. (This is not totally the fault of
> the chip, but may also involve the PCB, passive components, and
> mechanical creativity.)

I don't have the ID info, I guess I can get it though. What is the url for
the FCCID web site? I guess the only thing that really matters is how much
warranty they will give me so I can return the product and get a refund if
it is not any good. So, from your answers, I guess I didn't really need to
post here.

>
> Receive sensitivity is a joke. Eveyone lies. In most cases, they
> measure the NF and gain of the receiver front end, and calculate the
> theoretical sensitivity based on the slowest speed and modulation
> type. Few have ever been able to come close to the alleged receive
> sensitivity because the all too necessary external components will
> reduce the sensitivity. In addition, few individuals have the
> necessary BER/PER generators and signal sources necessary to actually
> measure RF data sensitivity. So, the manufacturers just quote the
> exact chipset specs and pray that nobody will call their bluff.


Ok, so again warranty is the only criterion to use to buy or not buy.

>
> I started graphing some of the alleged sensitivities at:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/rx-sens/receiver%20sensitivity.htm>
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/rx-sens/receiver%20sensitivity.xls>
> It appears that DLink has actually measured the RX sensitivity on most
> of their access points. Note that their measurements are about 6-10dB
> worse than an example of just copying the chipset specs (Ubqt
> Lightstation 2).

So does your testing cover any of the chipsets mfg. I have mentioned?
>
>>I wrote the suppliers
>
> And you received an answer? Impressive. They won't talk to me unless
> I have a huge purchase order pending. I can't even get data sheets
> without signing an NDA (non disclosure agreement).


I have had good luck getting answers. I never hurts to ask, even if your
not an expert and don't fully understand all the engineering behind
everything.

>
>> and here are the chipsets these radios have:
>>usb radio 1:atheros
>>usb radio 2:RealTek 8187 chipset
>>usb radio 3: custom RealTek chipset
>
> Those are not radios or chipsets. That's also a very incomplete list
> of wireless chipset manufacturers. Use Google to find a list of
> supported wireless devices and chips.

supported for what? first your saying chipset doesn't matter, now you're
saying I should look up which are supported. Which is it? They are radios,
I just haven't given the brand names here because the suppliers imo don't
deserve the free advertising. I am not interested in getting a complete
list. I am only interested in finding one that will work best for me and
the purposee I have already mentioned here and in my o.p.

>
>>This is all the info I have so far on them. They are all in the
>>neighborhood of 300-400mw transmit power and the printed specs on
>>them show good receive sensitivity.
>
> Ummm.... I don't know of any chipsets that put out that much power.
> Most are about 50mw maximum. If you want 400mw, it requires an
> external amplifier chip.

They don't mention amplifiers directly, except in the case of the "custom"
realtek model which I think is 500mw. Don't know what they mean by "custom"
exactly.

>
>>I will be able to use external antenna if necessary on all three.
>
> To do what?

What do you usually use antennas for? To improve range and reduce noise
levels. I will use a parabolic reflector behind a pole antenna connected to
one of these usb radios.

>
>>Can anyone advise?
>
> Nope. You haven't disclosed what you're trying to accomplish.

Yes I have, I think your over analyzing things and not seeing the forest
through the trees. This is not a doctoral dissertation inquiry, I am just a
home user trying to get a few answers on what to buy.

LR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On 23/03/2009 04:02, Steve88J wrote:
>
>> Yes I have, I think your over analyzing things and not seeing the
>> forest through the trees. This is not a doctoral dissertation
>> inquiry, I am just a home user trying to get a few answers on what to
>> buy.
>>
>>
> Most home users don't feel any inclination to try and run Wireshark on
> a municipal AP.


I'm not a typical home user, :-)

> Most home users would have asked the Linux and FreeBSD forums for what
> wifi worked for them or failing that Google.

Ha they're even worse than this group for having computer guy types with
whom it is impossible to get an answer to questions w/out getting into a
pissing contest.

> <http://www.linuxwireless.org/en/users/Devices>
> <http://linux-wless.passys.nl/>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ireless_driver
> s#FreeBSD> It would have narrowed down your choice of chipsets or
> adapters. note that the chipsets do have numbers e.g. AR5210, AR5211,
> AR5212, AR5413, AR5414 not just Atheros.
> You also did not mention which 8187 chipset you were referring to, l
> or b.

Thanks for the links. I know they have numbers, it was hard enuf to just
get the mfg names. These vendors are often ignorant of what they are
selling and they assume that people will just buy on their advertising
hype, because most do.

> <http://www.realtek.com.tw/downloads/...angid=1&PNid=2
> 4&PFid=1&Level=6&Conn=5&DownTypeID=3&GetDown=false &Downloads=true>
> Quoting a chipset number is not advertising the wifi adapters brand
> name, most home users are not interested in which chipset is used and
> they can cover a wide range of manufacturers.e.g.
> <http://www.linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/zd1211rw/devices>

Read my post again, never said that quoting the chipset number was
advertising, just explaining why I am not supplying the link to their ad
pages.

>
> If you have already narrowed it down to 3 "unknown" devices then you
> will have checked that win98se drivers are available for them.
> If you have the FCC ID no's for those devices you can check out the
> test reports at
> <https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm>

Thanks for the link, I KNOW all this stuff is on the web, but I cannot find
time to search for it all, sorry.

>
> If you have done your reading on Netstumbler then you must know that
> you need a "Hermes" chipset to get it to work in win98se.
> <http://www.netstumbler.org/f20/faq-1797/#post11375>

Yes, so why is Jeff claiming it makes no diff?

I really do not understand this group. I thought it was supposed to promote
wifi use, but every time I post here all I get, sometimes with actual
answers, is slammed. If I knew everything about it and had time to research
everything I wouldn't need this group, now would I? Thanks again for the
links.

>
> ?
> http://tioat.net/wiki/index.php/Usenet
>

On Mar 23, 3:34*pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 23/03/2009 18:31, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Steve88J
> Win98SE doesn't use NDIS 5.1
> <http://www.ndis.com/faq/QA12030301.htm>

If there is no NDIS for 98, then you should probably get the Orinoco
classic card with Hermes chipset. I used to have one of those. B
only, but there is a driver out there that will let it do WPA
security. External antenna connector is atypical, I remember.

I believe that the difference in sets that play well with NetStumbler
is whether they have to use the NDIS driver or not. With the NDIS
driver, it does not seem to report noise level, just a relative
signal.

I remember that they had some list on the NetStumbler forums where
users report what has worked for them. Long, complicated list, to be
sure.

Staying with Win 98 is likely more trouble than it's worth, but I
imagine you have your reasons for struggling with it. Think about
whether it's really necessary for you to run a pre 2000 version of
windows.

It sounds like when you say managment software, you are referring to
what others call wireless utilities, not SNMP. Windows XP has one
built in that I prefer, called "Wireless Zero Configuration" Most
cards come with one, but I would check which ones work in 98. Again,
the Orinoco should be a good bet, it's old. Each OS would use a
different utility, I imagine.

Steve

Thanks for the additional info....

seaweedsl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:efb617c6-1bcb-4e94-b779-(E-Mail Removed):

> On Mar 23, 3:34*pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 23/03/2009 18:31, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Steve88J
>> Win98SE doesn't use NDIS 5.1
>> <http://www.ndis.com/faq/QA12030301.htm>
>
> If there is no NDIS for 98, then you should probably get the Orinoco
> classic card with Hermes chipset. I used to have one of those. B
> only, but there is a driver out there that will let it do WPA
> security. External antenna connector is atypical, I remember.

I have to use USB, computer does not have pcmcia.

>
> I believe that the difference in sets that play well with NetStumbler
> is whether they have to use the NDIS driver or not. With the NDIS
> driver, it does not seem to report noise level, just a relative
> signal.
>
> I remember that they had some list on the NetStumbler forums where
> users report what has worked for them. Long, complicated list, to be
> sure.
>
> Staying with Win 98 is likely more trouble than it's worth, but I
> imagine you have your reasons for struggling with it. Think about
> whether it's really necessary for you to run a pre 2000 version of
> windows.

Happy with 98SE on this old box. When it misbehaves I just restore from
image. If I switch OS, I will go to non-windows, which is one reason I
said in my original post win98se, linux and/or bsd. I will run a dual
boot system with win98se and one of the other two.

>
> It sounds like when you say managment software, you are referring to
> what others call wireless utilities, not SNMP. Windows XP has one
> built in that I prefer, called "Wireless Zero Configuration" Most
> cards come with one, but I would check which ones work in 98. Again,
> the Orinoco should be a good bet, it's old. Each OS would use a
> different utility, I imagine.


Yeah, that is what I was referring to. I have software for my laptop
that works fine with a senao card, but I need usb for the other machine.
Besides these radios I am looking at LOOK good on the surface and USB
avoids antenna cable losses and is very portable. One problem is that
the vender either does not answer emails or is sloowwwww, so that is a
red flag. I really do not see much differences between the various
flavors of Windoze, they are all pretty flaky.

>
> Steve