Slashdot Mirror
Upgrading Wi-Fi — What, When, and Why
lessthan0 writes "Wi-Fi (802.11x) networks have been around long enough that many businesses and home users run their own. The first widely deployed standard was 802.11b, while most new hardware uses 802.11g. The latest 802.11n hardware is just around the corner. If you run an existing wireless network, is it time to upgrade?"
Upgrading Wi-Fi: What, When, and Wi?
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
The summary says that 802.11n is just around this corner...what about this article yesterday that says it's been delayed to 2008?????
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Even 802.11b is still faster than the DSL or cable connections that these places use.
Obviously that depends on what you need the wireless LAN for. If your applications work with 802.11b, why would you upgrade? If you want to do something which needs more bandwidth, then upgrade. Duh.
If 802.11b/g works for me, why would I upgrade? Don't be a consumer whore just because some shiny new wireless protocol comes out... stick with what you have unless it sucks.
Why upgrade at all? Unless you can really use the extra speed of 802.11g because you have an insane internet speed it's just a waste. Transferring files across the LAN non stop is probably very rare for most users. I'm not even using wireless at all on my network, it would be a lot of money for almost no benefit. If I need an extra 100m of cat5 or get a laptop then maybe I'll go wireless but really, it's not needed.
It will be "time to upgrade" when the card manufacturers start being able to tell me which device to buy reliably for linux installations.
I have *never* been able to find an 802.11g PCI card that I could put on a purchase order by vendor and part number. The few devices I have found (b and g) that worked, have been changed by the vendors into incompatable devices without notice.
The linux wi-fi community routinely points questions on this matter to a compatability chart that doesn't answer the question. I know about NDISWrapper. I know to avoid Broadcom chips. That knowledge helps for my personal computing, but it doesn't help when the professional task involves making a purchase order for a device that can be reliably, consistently obtained, or even identified.
On the end of the spectrum we'd like to be on, several competing vendors would warranty the merchandise as being compatable with linux, and would provide source-code compatable drivers (for kernel independence). We're at the extreme far other end of that spectrum, as far as I can tell.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
for me anyway.
I have 3 problems with WiFi.
1) Too many people near by with WiFi makes the connectivity suck within my apartment(have tried many channels). How about a new system where base units can figure out the best configuration when there are others nearby and even change them when the radio pattern(/coverage) changes.
2) My existing devices are not compatible with "New" security standards, fx. Ipaq and wpa2. For every WiFi enabled unit you buy, you have the problem of not being able to upgrade your security unless all devices support it.
3) My HP notebook drops connection when a cellphone is used in my apartment.
There are so many things that can break my WiFi net that I still prefer to use cables. Thought about getting a Squeezebox with WiFi, but I think I might as well save the money and just use cable.
Yeah, I'm not happy with the pushback to 2008 either. I still run an 802.11b network guys, n needs to come and save me. I've had experience with 104mbps g, but it sucks.
Not until Linux (the kernel) supports the new cards and authentication schemes. So ask in another year.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
I'm still using a "1b" router and can't see that changing for a long while. Since my internet connection is far less than 10Mb ( max speed of "1b" ), there's simply no point in upgrading. Until my cable company provides higher broadband speed access than that, I'll keep this router.
Mind you, I'm sure my Linksys router will crap out before I can attach a higher broadband connection to it, so I probably will upgrade sooner than later. But that's a rant for another thread!
I don't expect a lot from wireless. It's sort of like plugging a wonky network cable into a hub. You're connected to the network, but everything is delivered at 'best effort' or worse. Most of the time, that's really all that you need.
Can I open a web page? Check.
Send an email? Check.
VNC into a box? With some patience, check.
SSH into a device? Check.
IM? Check.
Can I do 95% of what I do at work over a wireless connection? Check.
The other five percent? I'm hoping for Gig-E because I'm using all of it.
The key is having realistic expectations of wireless. If your users don't understand that then they'll probably be disappointed with whatever you rollout.
802.11a/b/g Best security buy 802.11g with WPA2
The best security is not to rely on WEP or WPA of any version by itself. While using ssh (secure shell) is great, Windows PCs are notoriously open and emit enough to get you hacked. But rely on an access point that can do VPN or IPSEC and block all other activity. Although I would enable WEP, WPA or most desirable WPA2 if it were there, it only keeps 14 year olds out. But add VPN or IPSEC and it can also keep the pro's out when configured properly. So I would rewrite above:
802.11a/b/g Best security buy 802.11g with WPA2 *and* VPN or IPSEC.
If you are on 802.11b and are happy with the speed it provides, then stay with what you have. If you're unhappy with it, upgrade to 802.11g.
If you are are unhappy with 802.11g, well, tough luck: as someone else already mentioned, 802.11n isn't coming out until 2008. Start punching holes in the wall and running some Ethernet cable!
Problem solved.
Does it really matter how much bandwidth one needs in terms of consumers? I would rather see improvments be made on how far the signal goes rather than how much it can handle. It never really mattered to me whether I had a B or G router as I only had a few computers using the internet at once. Granted, once FIOS is more widely used in the States the amount of bandwidth will have more of an effect.
Music, my drug; dance, my ecstasy.
In my case, it will be as hardware gets replaced. Either when the hardware dies or needs replacement because it can't do it's job anymore.
The wireless base will most likely get replaced when it dies. The laptop will get replaced when my needs outweight it's capabilities.
I upgraded from 802.11b to 802.11g when my wireless base died. At that point my laptop already had 802.11g capability.
FYI, IEEE is still debating on 802.11n. The second vote is scheduled in Jan-2007.
Other posters have addressed the compatibility and security issues, and I agree with them. No one has addressed the issue of bandwith saturation and new deployment.
;-) We boys just LOVE our toys!
Take a look at your bandwidth utilization. If you are using less than 50% what would be the point of doubling your LAN speed? If you are using over 80% then I would think about upgrading to whatever suits the situation.
Another issue is getting a new machine and placing it on your LAN. Can you still easily and cheaply get ahold of an 802.11b/g? Can you get one from the same manufacturer (if you only have to support one manufacturer then you only have to remember one set of oddities)? While this may seem pointless at the moment for WiFi, I when throught these same questions when upgrading my personal LAN from AUI to 10baseT.
Find real reasons to upgrade or not -- but remember somtimes you just need to get one to "check out"
and switching to the better standard, 802.16x? 802.16x has better range and bandwith than 802.11x so why not use WiMAX to replace Wi-Fi?
Reading articles about 802.11n, there seems to be no compeling reason to upgrade to this draft specification for most folks right now... Poor interoperability with other "n" devices, poor backward compatibility with both "b" and "g" devices, more expensive hardware, and buggy firmware. The bottomline is, upgrading to 802.11n today means you are willing to be a beta tester for the hardware manufacturers.
1. If you buy 802.11n products, your AP needs to have easy firmware updates, because there is no standard, and you WILL want to update the firmware when the standard is ratified plus three months, meaning the summer of 2008.
2. 802.11n is faster than 802.11a,b, and g. But you need to buy everything from the same vendor, because that'll ensure it works together as compatibility is iffy. You can't do as nifty antenna tricks with 802.11n as you can with b and g. The 802.11a rules in the US currently prohibit antenna tricks. So, flexibility with standards means 802.11g.
3. If you use any 802.11 product, use WPA, or upgrade to it, and keep checking for firmware upgrades every few months, then do it.
4. Currently, the fastest *standardized* method is 802.11g. There are various turbo modes that may or may not allow you faster downloads, but most APs are inhibited by upstream throttle-back anyway. And for this reason, you might like it for home use but don't use it on mobile machines as hotspots sometimes have trouble with cards that are in 'auto-turbo' mode.
5. Unless you have backhaul that's faster than the WiFi transport, it's useless to buy anything faster because it will make no difference in speed. If you have a crappy DSL connection, the speed will still be crappy DSL speed. It's nice to have your WiFi router speed as the fastest common denominator because DSL and cable and other transports keep getting faster and faster. If you have asymetrical backhaul, that won't change no matter what you do (example: 3MB/s down, 750KB/s up).
WPA secures at minimum. Using AES with TLS is thought to be the most solid method. Having a temporal key is important as key life had a bearing on breaking the key. Currently, no one will sit around and wait for long keys to be broken unless THEY REALLY WANT YOU. If they do, they'll do something smarter. All WEP can be broken in under 22minutes, period.
For better paranoia, read WiFoo-- currently the most interesting hacker cookbook I've found.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What next? "Is it time to wash your car? With all the sludge and dirt on the roads these days, cars get a lot of grime on them. When is the right time to was your car, and what should you use?"
I know I'd never see something this lame on Reddit or Digg.
'n' is for sissys.
So true. 802.11n has been "just around the corner" for years and will continue to be so for the next few years. 802.11b/g fullfills user demands and performs acceptably for now.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I fine that I do not need wireless stuff. Just drag a network cable around the house. I do not have to worry about stuff in the walls hindering my connection. I will stack my 10Mbit network against your wireless network any day.
:-D
PS. I also do not have to worry about the wife sniffing my pr()n.
...until we have a greater bandwidth (LOTS of channels) of a microscopic slice of the microwave spectrum. And use frequency hopping.
Why are free channels on the radio spectrum so scarce?
Am I the only one that has a problem with the author's download rates? He says he's getting 2.3Mbps with 802.11g vs. 5Mbps with 100BaseT for an internet download. He obviously needs to look at his wireless setup. I can copy files around on my internal g network at 16Mbps, and that's going through one wall and several of my neighbors running 802.11g. The wireless is way faster than my 6Mbps internet link.
Do the upcoming offerings provide working cross-platform hashing algorithms? Meaning, if I have a LinkSys/Netgear/Foo 802.11x router, will I be able to use the password I entered or will I have to type out an increasingly lengthy hexadecimal equivalent on my MacBook? Try explaining to Mom why, after setting the cat's name as the password on the wireless router, they can't type that in when the system asks for the network password.
Fix this stuff first, then get the speed and latency stuff worked out. Sheesh!
I am not a lawyer. This post does not constitute any form of legal advice.
Signal is constatly changing, link quality is going from 60% to zero (even as people move around). Security issues. The only upgrade to Wi-Fi is good old gigabit ethernet period.
"Wi-Fi (802.11x) networks
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't use 802.11x to describe a bunch of different 802.11 protocols. I've recently rejoined the tech field (University HD) while I return to school, and we are rolling out 802.11x authentication support. When "802.11x support" was first mentioned to me, I asked "We already use b & g, so don't we already support 802.11x?" and was summarily pointed to about a billion articles on 802.11x.
No it is not time to upgrade.
At the moment the 802.11n standard is at draft 2 stage. The 802.11n gear available now is based on 802.11n draft 1.
The manufacturers of this hardware are betting that any changes in the spec between draft 1 and the final version can be fixed by a firmware upgrade. It is by no means certain that this will be the case.
In addition, it isn't clear whether hardware for the 802.11n draft from different manufacturers will work together.
So the answer (as with most technology) is to wait and see. In this case, given that this is based on a draft, that has been superceded, waiting is certianly a good idea.
meh
Somewhat interesting, but very basic and commonsense. Good for the newbie, not much use for others.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I went shopping for a new wireless router the other day , and 3 or the four manufacturers had N draft 1.0 units out. The one that wasn't had one that was labeled 802.11g MIMO, and cost the same as the others.
I understand N draft 1.0 was formally rejected a few months ago, but it seems the manufacturers aren't paying a lot of attention.
Assuming the various N draft 1.0 products can actually talk to each other we may have the new standard already without meaning to.
I had one of the first in-home 802.11b networks. I plunked down like $700 for a Cisco WAP back in 2000 or 2001 because I had a really challenging home network solution that would've cost a lot more than that to run wiring where I needed it. The WAP kept chugging along - those old Cisco units were really reliable - and I finally retired it about a month ago.
My DSL is (supposedly) 6Mbps downstream, so I could've justified it just on that grounds. My wireless was definitely slower than my network connection. But, at the end of the day, the fact that I process video and (now very large RAW) pictures on my laptop caused me to pull the trigger. After I'm done processing, I generally want to copy my files up to a server for backup. On a recent trip, I shot 8 GB of photos. Copying that on b would take about 18 hours. Copying it on g would take about 20 minutes. Obviously, even bigger video files would be worse.
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option. It's hard for me to imagine upgrading to g or n just for security - anything that does need to be secure in my world already is. Trusting ANY network is a good way to get caught with your pants down.
So, don't dismiss the performance gains from b to g. I increased my Internet download speed from 1Mbps to 6Mbps, and that was certainly worth the (compared to 2001) cheap cost of my new WAP. Even if your Internet connection is 1Mbps or slower, you may still have significant benefits if you copy large files around inside your network.
UPGRADE IF YOU HAVE MONEY TO BURN AND NO BRAINS. The "pre" versions out right now are buggy, and you will have to do it all over again when the real stuff gets finalized. The only point to this is if you are a moran who feels they must stay on the bleeding edge.
Wouldn't Leopard's Time Machine feature benefit from a much faster and more secure WiFi network?
Beats the hell out of carrying a Firewire external drive dangling from your PowerBook all over the house.
If there is a driving force for getting home WiFi systems on a faster standard, it will probably be video streaming.
As others have said, why go faster than the slowest bottleneck, unless you are serving higher bandwidth than your web connection anyway.
Public WiFi space, may update sooner due to number of users.
How good is your router? I have found that the quality of your networking equipment can make a huge difference. I too live in an apartment building with lots of nearby access points--at night if I sit by my window I can catch at least ten signals. I used to have a POS Netgear router that would drop the connection repeatedly. Then I got the DLink DGL 4300, and this thing is rock solid. Drops maybe once a month.
Keeping the equipment cool also matters. For awhile I had the DGL 4300 on the floor, on its side, behind my PC, near the case and power supply exhaust fans. In the summer it sure gets hot back there, and my connection would drop quite a bit. I moved the router so it's on top of my case, and now the performance is rock solid.
All routers are not of the same quality. (I could say the same of cable modems, but that's another story entirely.) Cheap networking equipment does not pay. Make sure you have a good router and WiFi can work well even in tough circumstances.
Penny - plain text accounting
Some people need more current and voltage.
Other people use clever designs.
That's how the 120mi+ Defcon 13 was done. Not with current, but with legal antennas.
It's like nuclear weapons: you don't have to be very accurate. However, with single xray pulse, knowing the right spot can be very effective.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
if I didn't have VPN over wifi thanx to m0n0wall and my RADIUS server...... as such I guess I will wait for N assume my trusty BEFW11S4 (b router) dosn't crap out.
if anyone is thinking of going G the WRT54GL with the dd-wrt firmware is pretty sweet.
whatever you do DO NOT buy a WRT54GS or later model WRT54G models..as they suck pretty much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
When 802.11b first became standardized I bought a PCMCIA card for my laptop and a base station.
My next laptop had 802.11b built in.
My next laptop had 802.11a/b/g built in.
I'm still using the 802.11b bridge that I originally bought. I'll get a new base station eventually, but there's not any hurry, since the bottleneck out of my apartment is the 1.5Mb DSL line, and the 11Mb WiFi is just fine.
I especially don't see the need to buy some add in card for my laptop that may hang out the side and cause other problems.
over short distances (15-20 feet) when running cables is not an option?
For those who don't know: WPA (1/2, tkip, AES) in pre-shared key mode is vulnerable to a brute force attack. The four packet authentication sequence can be captured and brute force attacked offline. There are WPA rainbow tables based on dictionary words "in the wild." A long multi word passphrase with some numbers should be sufficient. A 63 character string of upper and lower case letters, and numbers is best. Unfortunately many access point web interfaces do not handle special characters and punctuation well.
You can generate a longer psk with:it is a pain in the ass to manage though.
Want a faster network? Run your own DNS and webcache, your users will notice the difference. Throw in SMTP and anyhing else you can pull off, too.
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option.
Properly configured WPA and WPA2 are just as secure as your application-level security or VPN (and more secure than some crappy VPNs). Although the weakness of WEP was a major problem, its failure ensured that its successors would get very heavy scrutiny, and the WPA variants have stood up very well. If you really want to be careful, use both wireless network security and end-to-end security. If you don't need to be that paranoid, WPA is just as good as and more convenient than using a home VPN.
OTOH, if you're like me, I like to leave my WLAN open so that passersby can use it if they need it. I appreciate all of the open WLANs I make use of, so I like to return the favor. In that case, a VPN is critical.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's too bad the original WRT54G is not available. I had to replace my wap because the old trendnet was not able to mac filter and I had a couple neighbors that I wanted to give access to but the entire neighborhood was apparently interested. (can you say.. slow internet? six of them were active on bittorrent all the time!)
I had a bit of a fight with the new 54g I just got. It decided to stop allowing me into the admin menu. 25 minutes on the phone with some gal (in India, of course) and we finally got it fixed. Required a firmware upgrade and repeated reboots and resets to finally clear it out where we could get in and get mac filtering working properly.
But yes 54g is nice. (the trendnet was cutting edge at the time... 802.11b/x, bet you have not heard of that?) I will be looking forward to N, but really, my internet connnection is slower than my G, so besides faster wireless access to my server, have I really gained anything? Not really. N won't be an improvement for me because I won't have a need for any of the speed increases it promises. There's no point in putting a firehose end on your garden hose. If I want faster access to my server I jack into gigabit on my desk where I am most of the time anyway. If I'm on the front porch I don't need to be copying gigabyte files.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
You can call me paranoid if you want but I will never use the wireless access on my router. I use the very same router the guy used in the article. WEP, WPA or WPA2 are too insecure for me to use.
A wireless router I would use is a router that uses at least 256bit encryption but would prefer military strength. And I want routers to containt a SD Memory card so I can use multiple encryption keys.
Wireless Routers are not ready YET. They are to insecure.
\
I had 802.11b up until 2 weeks ago, when I decided I wanted faster rates. Due to my normal store's stock levels, I got a D-Link DWL-G650M, and a NetGear WPN802 access point (I've already got a perfectly good OpenBSD firewall/router for my ASDL line, so I don't need another router). /now/ - and I haven't had to wait until 2008.
While I'm getting 108Mbps, I haven't noticed any range increase (it seems to be about the same as it was for the back of my house).
I'm not worried about incompatibility with the final specs, since it works
Wii should I upgrade my Wi-Fi?
Just out of curiosity, where was your 2000/2001-era Cisco WAP made?
I saw an aritcle (which has since gone offline: Manufacturing: Probably made in China, by someone else) that said Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley until 1999 or so. The massive movement to Chinese factories was triggered by the need to cut costs at the tail end of the dot-com bubble.
$700 sounds like a price you'd have to charge if you were paying Americans to put your industrial-grade wireless widget together... (I'm assuming your WAP was built like a tank - cisco used to be all about quality, until they bought Linksys for the "consumer grade" product lines.)
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I believe that everyone and their mother should upgrade to n the second it comes out. This will set in stone my lack of need to ever pay for internet(as I am now), as there are 5 completely open networks within range of my apartment living room with just G, I can only imagine what improved distance/stability would do for me.
God I wish I was joking.
"I saw a 5-port gigabit switch at a retailer yesterday for under $12/port. Cards are equally cheap. The problem is that for most users, they won't notice the difference,"
I think the problem is that it's unlikely that switch supports JUMBO frames. 1500 bytes don't cut it at gigE speeds. Even on a Barton XP 2500+, you get 100% CPU saturation around 250MBps with 1500 byte ethernet packets. My very high quality Intel gigE NICs support jumbo frames of 9000 mtu (and up), but this cheap Airlink switch (the only one I could find in town) is broken past 1500 MTU, meaning it's garbage (don't buy Airlink gear).
I'm sure the Airlink would be fine if you had garbage gigE nics, though, which is probably their target market.
" or they'd have to change the cabling fro cat5 to cat6, or they have one or more boxes that are still runing 100mb, so there is zero point in upgrading."
All of these are bunk. Most cat5 that's properly wired has 4 conductors in it (which is what you need for gigE) and are shielded well enough. You mentioned a switch; you should know that a switch allows for mixed speed devices with no general speed drop (unlike the old hubs that used to exist).
If you have a fileserver in your house serving up to 3-4 client machines like I do, gigE is well worth it, since the network is no longer the bottleneck.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I've purchased several Airlink gigE switches. All of them use Broadcom chipsets, and the chipset technically supports jumbo frames. Typically I payed $5/port for the 8port and $6/port for the 5port.
I'm running a mix of Airlink (rt8169), nFORCE4 onboard, Marvell, etc. on the NIC side. All cheap cards (the rt8169 is now $6 at frys).
I can typically push 350Mbps (all machines are running with an MTU of 1500). CPU utilization on my Athlon64 is maybe 20%. Same on my friend's computer (sempron barton 2800).
I have a SMC switch that specifically supports jumbo frames, but I have not been able to test it because whenever I use jumbo frames I cannot contact machines that are running 100megabit.
I agree with you on the cabling, I have run with 10 year old cat5 that's stapled in my crawlspace, and brand new cat6. Both will run gigabit no problem.
cat5 UTP is not shielded (the U stands for unshielded). STP is available, but generally quite expensive and usually not worth it.
With these values, I get 3 hours for the b network and a little under an hour for the g network for a bulk transfer of 8 GB of data.
Of course, due to signal conditions b network can be slower than 3 hours, but there is absolutely no way ordinary g can be faster than ~50 minutes, unless you're using some non-standard linkboost kind of thing.
Why is such a non-original article like this posted? It's been submitted by its author for no purpose other than collecting Google revenue.
Instead of spending $100s so get the the newest "wifi" standard, make the real upgrade, the one that actually makes your network faster, the one that operates almost at advertised speed, rather than 1/6th of it, the one that doesn't require you behind your computer aligning your antenna to transmit on the same plane as your AP's antenna to squeeze out that extra 10 ft of connectivity. Good ol' 802.3ab
I fear the Y2038 bug
Until I get over 768kbps DSL, the extra speed does me no good, and at $15/mo, it doesn't look like I'll be switching. Phased Array antennas and MIMO processing does promise significantly better range, and since I can't use my "b" wireless from my porch, it might make me consider upgrading.
I did a number of wireless installations when 802.11g came of age. Since then I have converted most all of those installations to wired and will only do wireless when absolutely necessary. There were essentally three reasons for this. Customers demanding better up time than wireless was typically providing, the extreme variability of wireless components and the amount of lost time, money and customer satisfaction while dancing around that variability.
Without doubt the worst offender was wireless NICS. Any brand, make or model, it didn't matter. Buy three and one will work well, one will work sorta and one won't work at all. Two out of the three marginal or worse was a recipe for disaster.
I had better luck with wireless routers and access points and what remains of my initial foray into wireless is access points bridging network segments (two components) or simple wireless routers providing mobility access for laptop users. Laptop NIC's being better tested in the quality control stage it seems. Most laptop wireless adapters (built in) seem to be at least OK and the majority function fairly well to very good.
Over the year that I was doing this, I built up a rather significant inventory of wireless parts, the cost of which I ultimately ate one way or another. I also wound up creating a test network just for qualifying wireless components. What was long suspected from ancillary evidence was born out in testing under more controlled conditions. The technology was sound within the scope of wireless, but the quality controls of manufacture was horrid.
So here we are almost two years later. Has the quality issue improved? Will 802.11n really be better in the aggregate. I would hope so but I don't know that for a fact. Burn me once shame on you and all that. It will be a while before I recommend wireless lashups beyond those situations where there is an obvious need or overriding desireability. Expect the quote to be near twice what it normally would be for as long as we have to buy twice or three times the number of components to get working sets that are reasonably close to meeting specification and prove out in real world use.
Having said all that I would relay a comment from a big box department head who stated that for a time they would repackage wireless returns and put them back on the shelves untested, assuming the cause for returns were predominately end user incompetence and such returns were in very large numbers. The chances of getting bad components more than doubled during that phase. Now they send them straight back to the manufacturer untested. My understanding is that the wireless isle remains the single largest source of returns and customer dissatisfaction by an order of magnitude.
In those situations where I have been able to procure and deploy proper functioning hardware, the systems have meet expectations.
I am still using 802.11b as well. However, my WAP only supports WEP for security. I still use cat5 network cables for realiabilty, speed, and security. Most of the times, I have the WAP turned off (sleeping, out, etc.). I would have to replace/upgrade most of my network cards if I want WPA, speed, etc. for wireless. It is not worth spending. I will just wait for my WAP and others to break. I just don't have the money and free time even if I had them at this time.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Well, if you limit your sample size to the Jews and the Muslims in the Middle East, or the Irish protestants and Catholics in Ireland, I think that you can make the case that organized religion is not a good thing.
.sig than mine.
If, however, you look at the facts - that these battles are more about the politics of power and control than they are about closely following the teachings of the various religious leaders of antiquity - is "religion" to blame there?
Moreover, if you look at the persistence of good done in the name of pleasing God - not just from a Christian perspective, but as expressed in other organized religions as well, I think that you will find far more than is covered in the news. The list of good things goes on and on and on.
Finally, listing the evil done by those who espouse atheism or anarchy would FAR eclipse the good done by those who eschew religion. That is not to suggest that atheists and anachists never do good, just that the logical outcome of their worldview does not intrinsically motivate them to do good, and therefore there tends to be less good done.
But then, your ideas are more wittily expressed in a
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'm not sure how representative of Cisco in general this is because I'm pretty sure Cisco got into the wireless business the way they've gotten into basically every other business: They bought someone. Aironet, in this case, and not long before mine was made. The PCMCIA cards I had for it were marked Aironet, and the WAP is marked as "Cisco Aironet 340." It was MUCH more capable than the consumer WAPs are - it can be a bridge, or mesh, or repeater. I suspect that a factor in cutting the price from $700 is that they typically cut out all the non-WAP functionality for the consumer grade versions. So, if you want a WAP, that's one part number, if you want a bridge, that's another.
:).
Be that as it may, however, the back does say "Assembled in USA." But, again, that may have more to do with Aironet's business setup than Cisco's. Also, at the time I bought this I believe it was essentially the only one available, so it may be that a big factor in cutting the price from $700 to $100 was not the cheaper assembly but the realities of competition.
Also, I'd like to correct my previous post - I'd misremembered that b was 1Mbps (I confused it with 10-base T ethernet, I guess), it was 11. So, in fact, my example 8 GB copy would take 99 minutes on 802.11b, and my Internet connection IS slower than 802.11b, anyway, at 6Mbps. More or less removing my entire justification, though 20 minutes to copy versus 99 is pretty nice
Walt Mossberg's recent column says they're not any better yet anyway.
OTOH, if you're like me, I like to leave my WLAN open so that passersby can use it if they need it. I appreciate all of the open WLANs I make use of, so I like to return the favor. In that case, a VPN is critical.
;) Finally, remember I had to make all this work originally using 2000-era WEP, which wasn't worth the trouble in any event. Now that it all works, WPA doesn't seem like it would add much, and I don't have to worry about any security flaws in it, moving forward.
Well, there is that, and I do that at home, as well, as much for friends who come over as for strangers. But, in general, I find there is little that I would ever need to be secure from just one place - I'll need to access it from another place (e.g., work), even if the physical network it's connected to is secure.
Also, the vast majority of my traffic - other than streaming music internally and the backup mentioned before - goes off my network, so I definitely don't want to think "Hey, I'm using an encrypted wireless link, so I'm safe!" for that stuff. Just in general, I tend to think that, if you're relying on the unbreakability of the network, it's very easy to end up accidentally sending information all over the place if you're not paying a lot of attention. Running all of your sensitive stuff on virtual-only VPN networks seems less likely to break without you noticing, to me.
And, at the end of the day, I'm really lazy. If I have to get the VPN going to make it possible to connect from work, anyway, why would I then bother with WPA?
... is when the "draft" standard becomes the "real" standard.
I'm trying to help out some folks with a network in their home office - at the moment there are Ethernet cables strewn everywhere and it's a hazard (not to mention constant cable failures from chair casters, etc.). Wifi seemed to be a likely solution, but when I arrived, I discovered that I can pick up 4, sometimes 5 nearby 802.11b/g signals from many places in the house, on channels 1, 6, and 11. The people I'm helping have several 2.4GHz cordless phones (including a very expensive 4-line one that would be painful to abandon). The neighbours on one side, believe it or not, have six 2.4GHz cordless phones (at least that's how many I've spotted around the house so far). I haven't been in the other neighbours' house but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same over there.
So 802.11b/g is pretty hopeless. I travel with an access point, and gave it a try, but the signal conked out every few minutes.
I looked into 802.11a, but could not find a single router that did not get trashed in Amazon reviews and the like. If reviewers say it's hard to set up, I don't care about that. But they all had multiple reports of frequent lockups requiring resetting the hardware, which isn't acceptable. The situation here is such that any sufficiently disruptive technology problem, such as a router that crashes every few days, is going to require me flying 20000 miles (Asia to USA and back) to deal with it, and I would prefer to minimise that.
So we've just ordered a pair of Netgear XE104 HomePlug switches to see if those do the trick. Based on what I've read, I'm optimistic.
Where I live there aren't any 2.4GHz cordless phones (that I've seen) and wifi interference seems to be much less of a problem. It's all 1.9GHz DECT phones. But given the potential hazards of all this microwave energy in the home, I'm thinking of ditching the cordless phone and, if the XE104s work out, getting some of those for my apartment since I basically use the laptop in the same 2 or 3 places all the time anyway.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Upgrade security as soon as your existing security is inadequate. For almost all users, WEP is inadequate. WPA/PSK and WPA2/PSK may not even be adequate. Radius may be required. Encrypted ethernet-over-powerline or installing CAT5 may be required if your security requirements have increased beyond what wireless can deliver.
Upgrade your speed as soon as your existing speed is inadequate. For most users 11mbps is more than adequate.
Upgrade your range and tolerance to noise as soon as your existing system is inadequate. For most users nothing has changed here since they installed their existing system. Note that repeaters may suffice if noice-levels have gone up or range has decreased. It may *not* be necessary to upgrade your technology.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
All the newest built-in wireless are not fully supported in linux, you have to use ndiswrapper, and no monitor mode. I'm still using my old orinoco gold with my linux laptop, eventhough it has a built-in wireless. Can't live without monitor mode, kismet, airsnort.
I can appreciate where you're coming from with respect to evil done in the name of God. Perhaps we disagree on some points, but I'll stand with you in opposition to things like the rule of the Taliban, the abuses in Ireland, the coverup within the roman catholic church about sexual abuse committed by priests, the way that televangelists take advantage of the stupid, the battles in the Middle East over Israel. And it goes on and on.
Power corrupts. For better or worse, connection to God (or a claim thereof) brings influence, and subsequently brings power of one kind or another.
In spite of standing with you on these issues, I still believe that your worldview leaves unanswered quesstions, some of which are listed below:
1. What if you're wrong? I know on slashdot it's considered trite to bring up Pascal's wager, but - what if Christianity is true, and what you believe is wrong? Would you want to know? Would it make any difference in the way that you choose to live your life?
2. What about the good done in the name of pleasing God? (Under any religion?)
3. Where did matter come from?
4. How do you explain the information density within DNA and our genes? It flies in the face of how we see entropy played out in the rest of the universe.
5. Why are we here?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The author tried b, g, and wired.
b and g performed about the same; wired was more than twice as fast.
I started with a "b" network (SMC Barricade, DWL-810+). This works well, and I still use it, but is not fast enough to move video reliably. I added "g", and tripled the performance. I can now do video over wireless.
However, I replaced the 2dbi antennas with 7dbi units. "n" would be welcome, but I wonder if antenna replacement will be practical. I have also been considering "boosters" to bump power output (to 500mw).
The author provides no insight into this at all. Indeed, his results are hard to interpret:
802.11b 802.11g 100 Base-T
2057 Kbps 2369 Kbps 5042 Kbps
2057 Kbps must be BITS per second, unless the data has been compressed. If we assume compression, the 802.11g result shows no improvement (the link is working at 11mpbs, perhaps? Due to range, interference, what?) What link quality was achieved? And WHERE ARE THE "n" NUMBERS?
All in all, a very poor article.
YMMV
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Heck,
My internet access is 720 down/64k up. I think my 802.11b is fast enough.
I was reading my print edition of the Wall Street Journal, in the personal tech section, and they basically said that not only isn't it time - in terms of cost - but it's not time in terms of performance.
They did real world tests with the same brands using their 802.11g and 802.11n versions, and found little or no difference.
I think I'll wait until I see a demonstrated reason for upgrading from 802.11b/g, quite frankly.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --