WAP + PCI Comparison?

I have moved into a new house and need wireless connectivity for my
desktop PC. I stream internet radio and will stream video, I also play
real-time online games like Vendetta Online. I already have DSL plus a
hub and etc. Usually 2-3 users using wireless constantly with an
occational 1-2 laptops visiting using 80211b.

I want speed and QoS for the desktops, and looking at
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2006/0...006/page8.html
it appears I want either a combination of

D-Link DWL-7100AP (access point) + DWL-AG530 (PCI card for the
desktops)
or
Netgear WAG-311 (access point) + WAG-102 (PCI card for the
desktops)

But all of the online reviews have said that these families of AP
products stink and generally don't work as advertised. I am used to
D-Link's poor tech support, and I hear that Netgear's is not really
better.


Does anyone have a recommendation for 108mbps wireless networking that
works as advertised?

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have moved into a new house and need wireless connectivity for my
> desktop PC. I stream internet radio and will stream video, I also play
> real-time online games like Vendetta Online. I already have DSL plus a
> hub and etc. Usually 2-3 users using wireless constantly with an
> occational 1-2 laptops visiting using 80211b.
>
> I want speed and QoS for the desktops, and looking at
> http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2006/0...006/page8.html
> it appears I want either a combination of
>
> D-Link DWL-7100AP (access point) + DWL-AG530 (PCI card for the
> desktops)
> or
> Netgear WAG-311 (access point) + WAG-102 (PCI card for the
> desktops)
>
> But all of the online reviews have said that these families of AP
> products stink and generally don't work as advertised. I am used to
> D-Link's poor tech support, and I hear that Netgear's is not really
> better.
>
>
> Does anyone have a recommendation for 108mbps wireless networking that
> works as advertised?
>

Your Internet speed is distributed across each computer according to
it's needs until your DSL pipe is filled. Your DSL pipe is far smaller
than 54mbps, more like 5mbps (since you chose not to specify). Your high
speed 108mbps is burst only. Your average speed is governed by each
wireless signal and might average 10-20mbps, but of course, your DSL
pipe is far smaller than this so the high-speed router is essentially
useless. Useless unless you are communicating within your LAN. If all
of your computers are simultaneously transfering within your LAN, then
you might have a complaint about the router's transfer speed. Otherwise,
no harm, no foul, except that you spent extra $$ for minimal gain.

Q

I do not want any latency/lag issues when playing my real-time internet
game, and I do not want the same issues when trying to stream video to
my desktop. I also do a lot of large file transfers within the LAN.
That's why I was interested in hearing about the capabilities of the
D-Link and Netgeat 108mbps units. I understand that more users = less
overall speed. I have also seen many negative things about the 108mbps
802.11 a/b/g units, so I was hoping I could get some more good info
here.

Thanks.



Quaoar wrote:

> Your Internet speed is distributed across each computer according to
> it's needs until your DSL pipe is filled. Your DSL pipe is far smaller
> than 54mbps, more like 5mbps (since you chose not to specify). Your high
> speed 108mbps is burst only. Your average speed is governed by each
> wireless signal and might average 10-20mbps, but of course, your DSL
> pipe is far smaller than this so the high-speed router is essentially
> useless. Useless unless you are communicating within your LAN. If all
> of your computers are simultaneously transfering within your LAN, then
> you might have a complaint about the router's transfer speed. Otherwise,
> no harm, no foul, except that you spent extra $$ for minimal gain.
>
> Q

(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:

>I do not want any latency/lag issues when playing my real-time internet
>game, and I do not want the same issues when trying to stream video to
>my desktop. I also do a lot of large file transfers within the LAN.
>That's why I was interested in hearing about the capabilities of the
>D-Link and Netgeat 108mbps units. I understand that more users = less
>overall speed. I have also seen many negative things about the 108mbps
>802.11 a/b/g units, so I was hoping I could get some more good info
>here.

Let's take your requirements apart one at a time.

1. Latency. Internet latency is controlled by the
DSL/cable/satellite connection latency. Typical wireless latency is
very small. For example, pinging the neighbors client radio connected
at 2Mbits/sec through a dense forest yields:
Reply from 192.168.1.50: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=127
Reply from 192.168.1.50: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=127
Reply from 192.168.1.50: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=127
Reply from 192.168.1.50: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=127
Note that the 2nd packet had double the normal latency. That's a
"lost" packet and retransmission caused by interference from another
nearby wireless system on the same channel.

With anything above a 25MHz wireless connection, latencies of 1 or 2
msec are typical. Going to 108Mbit/sec is not going to improve that
much. Compared to the 15 to 30msec minimum latency for a broadband
wired connection, the added latency of the wireless is minimal.

2. 108Mbits/sec will work up to a range of about 1 meter. Beyond
that, it will slow down. At about 15 meters range, you're down to a
54MBit/sec connection. Range and speed are inversely related. You
can improve the 108Mbits/sec range with larger antennas. However, if
you're expecting 108Mbits/sec connections from a laptop, forget it.

3. Wi-Fi currently involves 3 incompatible modes. There's 802.11b,
which uses a modulation scheme that's incompatible with 802.11g, which
uses a modulation scheme that's incompatible with the various
proprietary 108Mbit/sec enhanced speeds. By incompatible, I mean that
an access point running one of these modes, will not detect the
others. The result is that the configuration for these multimode
access points has various "compatibility" modes, which include
allocating some time slices for listening for other modes. For
example, the common "802.11b compatibility mode" will slow down the
maximum UDP throughput from 30.5Mbits/sec to 19.5Mbits/sec simply
because it has to stop and listen for 802.11b clients.
http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi...ance_and_Speed
Same for the 108Mbit/sec proprietary modes. The result is that if you
actually want to use the 108Mbit/sec mode for speed, you have to turn
off all the other modes, and run *ONLY* 108Mbit/sec clients.

4. Uncompressed streaming NTSC video requires about 15Mbits/sec UDP
thruput which is no big deal over wireless. HDTV can go up to about
48Mbits/sec, which is a problem, but that's going to be the job of UWB
Wireless USB. Since 108Mbit/sec will yield a thruput of about
55Mbits/sec thruput maximum, it's a marginal proposition for HDTV.

5. 802.11a (5.7GHz) has less range than 802.11g (2.4GHz). If you're
going through walls and floors, you may have a problem (depending on
building construction).

I suggest you look into MIMO based technology. It's not the maximum
speed or the latency that's important in wireless. It's the ability
to maintain a connection under adverse conditions and deliver the data
reliably. See the article at:
http://www.antennasonline.com/ast_ne..._11-05.htm#why
for a comparison of popular products and some interesting clues.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

That is real interesting stuff. The Tom's Hardware site didn't really
mention MIMO at all. I already planned to get a bundle of AP + PCI card
from the same manufacturer in order to maximize the speed of the
desktops. I didn't realize that having an 802.11b guy on the network
would slow down the 108mbps stuff, however. Hmmm...

I guess I need to see who has MIMO offerings out there.

Thanks.



Jeff Liebermann wrote:


> Let's take your requirements apart one at a time.

[snip]