You say sending a strong signal through walls with pipes is your first
priority. Have you given any thought to how much power your clients
are going to have to put out in order to get their signal through
those same walls? You need to be looking at a more balanced solution,
one that improves transmission as well as reception. The best way to
do that is with a good antenna.
The problem with multi-channel routers is that they're proprietary,
and you have to get multi-channel client radios in order to utilize
the increased bandwidth. It's not like you can just go out and
replace your router and get twice as much bandwidth.
Where is your bottleneck? If you're accessing the 'net with a cable
modem, I doubt you'd see any difference in speed regardless of whether
you connected your router and your PCs over a hard-wired gigabit
ethernet link or an 802.11b link. You're going to have to spend a lot
of money on multi-channel access points and client adaptors, for very
little gain in performance.
Regards,
- Steve Hull
On 12 Nov 2003 18:46:45 -0800,
(E-Mail Removed) (ivo welch)
wrote:
>I need to replace my DI-614+, which has recently gotten the fritz
>communicating with my cable modem. (locks up after 1-30 minutes). So
>I need to buy a replacement now. Sending strong signal through walls
>with pipes, etc., is first priority. has someone done an objective
>test of which wireless routers perform best when confronted with long
>distances and walls?
>
>are there any multi-channel wireless routers (that can send on two
>different channels simultaneously)?
>
>sincerely, /iaw
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
