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?"
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.
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.
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.
Most comments seem to indicate upgrading is useless because speed improvements don't matter as long as the slowest wifi protocol is still faster than your internet connection, but speed is not the only concern. Future protocols are said to offer better/easier security and more reliabality, which if true is a good enough reason to me to upgrade.
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"
The point still stands: If the security/speed/range you have is enough for you, then there is no need to upgrade. If you want or need to do something that requires an improvement of your wireless network, then it is time to upgrade. Better systems will always be around the corner. If you buy right after new tech has arrived, you get to pay the early adopter premium, find the bugs and occasionally bet on the wrong horse. If you buy when a technology has had its quirks ironed out, chances are there will soon be something new and better on the market which devalues your new acquisition. If you always wait because there's going to be a better time to buy, you'll save a lot of money, but you'll also forever be without a WLAN network. IOW: If you need it and can afford it, buy it. If you don't need it or can't afford it, don't buy it. Duh.
> 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.
802.11a is generally much less crowded than 802.11 b/g and as fast as 802.11g. Wireless
in a crowded area can suck quite bad.
most people get along just fine with 100mb because 1. the internet is the primary use of the network.. which comes nowhere near 100mb of bandwith.. and im sure gigabit is pretty widely used in very high bandwith environments.. its just.. why use a more expensive technology when there is no need for it (as in most home and small office environments)
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.
Well, gigabit ethernet is no longer "much more expensive." 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, 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.
Give it 5 years ...
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.
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.
\
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