Wireless B slower than Ethernet?

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
connection?

The configurations for the two machines are...
- wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
- ethernet connection on W2K box.

I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
The wireless box took over a minute.

I thought...
-USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
-802.11b runs at 11Mbps
-my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps

Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?

-w

[1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html
24 answers Last reply
More about wireless slower ethernet
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04>,
    wendi <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    :I thought...
    : -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    : -802.11b runs at 11Mbps

    802.11b's signalling rate is 11 megabits per second. Many of those bits
    are used for preambles, requests to send, pauses between frames,
    beacons, and error correction. The maximum end-to-end througnput
    you can get with 802.11b depends on whether you are using udp or TCP,
    and for the TCP case would be in the range of 5 to 6 megabits per second.

    That assumes the maximum signalling rate is being used, that the signal
    is strong enough for the maximum rate -- and it assumes that there
    is no radio interference.
    --
    Tenser, said the Tensor.
    Tenser, said the Tensor.
    Tension, apprehension,
    And dissension have begun. -- Alfred Bester (tDM)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    802.11b can theoratically reach speeds of 11Mbps. In reality, you will only
    get half that, 5Mbps.
    There could also be factors such as interference from things like other
    users on the same channel, cordless phones and microwaves.


    Ray Taylor

    "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04...
    > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my
    Ethernet
    > connection?
    >
    > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    >
    > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box
    took
    > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps
    (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > The wireless box took over a minute.
    >
    > I thought...
    > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    >
    > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?
    >
    > -w
    >
    > [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Yeah, I read it at...

    http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/Actiontec_Wireless_Adapter/Actiontec_
    pg4.html
    It's an old 2002 though...

    Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
    that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps. And, the wireless USB is 6 times
    slower!!! Something is not right!


    "Ray Taylor" <administrator@kaycee.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:40848608$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
    > 802.11b can theoratically reach speeds of 11Mbps. In reality, you will
    only
    > get half that, 5Mbps.
    > There could also be factors such as interference from things like other
    > users on the same channel, cordless phones and microwaves.
    >
    >
    > Ray Taylor
    >
    > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04...
    > > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my
    > Ethernet
    > > connection?
    > >
    > > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    > >
    > > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box
    > took
    > > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps
    > (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > > The wireless box took over a minute.
    > >
    > > I thought...
    > > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    > >
    > > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any
    clue?
    > >
    > > -w
    > >
    > > [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Ray Taylor <administrator@kaycee.co.nz> wrote:
    > 802.11b can theoratically reach speeds of 11Mbps. In reality, you will only
    > get half that, 5Mbps.
    > There could also be factors such as interference from things like other
    > users on the same channel, cordless phones and microwaves.

    In practice, I can see quite good speeds.
    For example, at 5.5Mbps, I see well over 80% throughput.
    (I hope to see similar results with 11g after I replace the 10base2
    section of my network.)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
    <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
    >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.

    You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from the
    internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
    matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and thats
    what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are you
    on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair measure
    if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.

    And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further, by
    downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the ethernet
    machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.

    >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!

    As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm afraid.
    Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps from an
    11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
    0.5Mbps or worse.


    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
    internet connection.
    >
    Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8 is very
    reasonable.

    > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further, by
    > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    >
    I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are somewhat
    consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer the
    different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing bandwidth). I
    choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site varies
    from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very reliable. I
    should really do my test through a speedtest site.

    > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
    >
    I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for wireless
    USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
    internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the wireless
    USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able to
    provide 1.8Mbps.

    -w
    [1] See my previous post for reference


    "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
    > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
    > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
    >
    > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from the
    > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
    > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and thats
    > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are you
    > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair measure
    > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
    >
    > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further, by
    > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the ethernet
    > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
    >
    > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
    >
    > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm afraid.
    > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps from an
    > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
    > 0.5Mbps or worse.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mark McIntyre
    > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    > CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
    Newsgroups
    > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
    =---
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    wendi wrote:
    >> .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
    >> internet connection.
    >>
    > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8
    > is very reasonable.
    >
    >> And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
    >> further, by downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    >>
    > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
    > somewhat consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you
    > would prefer the different time method as it makes the math easier
    > (no sharing bandwidth). I choose the simultaneous method because
    > usage of the destination site varies from time to time. I realized
    > that both methods are not very reliable. I should really do my test
    > through a speedtest site.
    >
    >> As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
    >>
    > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for
    > wireless USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the
    > bottleneck. The internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially
    > lower than the wireless USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the
    > wireless USB should be able to provide 1.8Mbps.
    >
    > -w
    > [1] See my previous post for reference
    >
    >
    > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
    >> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless ,
    >> "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
    >>> reveals that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
    >>
    >> You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from
    >> the internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it
    >> doesn't matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you
    >> get (and thats what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast
    >> internet connection. Are you on a company LAN connection? Are you
    >> sure you're performing a fair measure if so, remember company
    >> bandwidth is shared.
    >>
    >> And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
    >> further, by downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    >> Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the
    >> ethernet machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when
    >> finished.
    >>
    >>> And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
    >>
    >> As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
    >> afraid. Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than
    >> 4Mbps from an 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could
    >> easily drop to
    >> 0.5Mbps or worse.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Mark McIntyre
    >> CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    >> CLC readme:
    >> <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
    >>
    >>
    >> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    >> News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
    >> World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized
    >> Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

    Some sites will give priority download speed to the first download from
    a given IP address with the second download slowed. This prevents
    bandwidth bandits from stealing their show. One test I use is to ftp
    download from file storage on my ISP, and late at night local time. I
    get the most consistent download estimates this way.

    Q
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    wendi <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote:
    > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
    > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > The wireless box took over a minute.

    If you have access to a Unix or Windows command line somewhere on the wired
    network, you can run iperf to get some readings on the speed. This will
    still share a connection with other uses, but the reports are very stable
    and reasonable. From my Unix ISP shell, I run
    iperf -s -w 256k ( or some other reasonable window size )
    on my Windows box I run
    iperf -c ISP-unix-ip-address
    This shows speed from the client to the server.
    I can't reverse those roles because of NAT firewall.
    If I run between two systems inside my network, I can use iperf in either
    direction, or even test both ways simultaneously with -d
    iperf -c server-ip-address -d
    The bidirectional only works on some server/client pairs.

    iperf might allow you to nail down where a problem resides.

    http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/

    ---
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Just jumping into this thread so might be unrelated but...

    My broadband connection regularly gets me more than 7.5mbit/second
    (950Kbytes/second). Definately faster than a wireless B router would
    provide.


    "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:qIohc.17950$dZ1.12299@fed1read04...
    > > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
    > internet connection.
    > >
    > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8 is
    very
    > reasonable.
    >
    > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further,
    by
    > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > >
    > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
    somewhat
    > consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer the
    > different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing bandwidth).
    I
    > choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site
    varies
    > from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very reliable. I
    > should really do my test through a speedtest site.
    >
    > > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
    > >
    > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for wireless
    > USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
    > internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the
    wireless
    > USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able to
    > provide 1.8Mbps.
    >
    > -w
    > [1] See my previous post for reference
    >
    >
    > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
    > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
    > > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
    reveals
    > > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
    > >
    > > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from the
    > > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
    > > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and
    thats
    > > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are
    you
    > > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair
    measure
    > > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
    > >
    > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further,
    by
    > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the ethernet
    > > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
    > >
    > > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
    > >
    > > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
    afraid.
    > > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps from
    an
    > > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
    > > 0.5Mbps or worse.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Mark McIntyre
    > > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    > > CLC readme:
    <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
    > >
    > >
    > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
    > Newsgroups
    > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
    Encryption
    > =---
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Wow! Would you mind telling us which area are you in? Cable or DSL?

    "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:0nzhc.199514$Ig.45402@pd7tw2no...
    > Just jumping into this thread so might be unrelated but...
    >
    > My broadband connection regularly gets me more than 7.5mbit/second
    > (950Kbytes/second). Definately faster than a wireless B router would
    > provide.
    >
    >
    > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:qIohc.17950$dZ1.12299@fed1read04...
    > > > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
    > > internet connection.
    > > >
    > > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8 is
    > very
    > > reasonable.
    > >
    > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further,
    > by
    > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > >
    > > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
    > somewhat
    > > consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer
    the
    > > different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing
    bandwidth).
    > I
    > > choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site
    > varies
    > > from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very reliable.
    I
    > > should really do my test through a speedtest site.
    > >
    > > > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
    > > >
    > > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for
    wireless
    > > USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
    > > internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the
    > wireless
    > > USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able to
    > > provide 1.8Mbps.
    > >
    > > -w
    > > [1] See my previous post for reference
    > >
    > >
    > > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
    > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
    > > > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
    > reveals
    > > > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
    > > >
    > > > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from
    the
    > > > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
    > > > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and
    > thats
    > > > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are
    > you
    > > > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair
    > measure
    > > > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
    > > >
    > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further,
    > by
    > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the
    ethernet
    > > > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
    > > >
    > > > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
    > > >
    > > > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
    > afraid.
    > > > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps
    from
    > an
    > > > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
    > > > 0.5Mbps or worse.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Mark McIntyre
    > > > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    > > > CLC readme:
    > <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > > News==----
    > > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    >100,000
    > > Newsgroups
    > > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
    > Encryption
    > > =---
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Quaoar,

    Would you try the following site and post your results... Just click on
    personal test. This site allows 3 tests per day.
    http://www.bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/

    I'm getting ~1.3mbps for the ethernet. And, ~600kbps for the wireless.
    These numbers seem more reasonable than my non-scientific test.

    -w


    "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:yaCdne3ukqIIDRvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

    > Some sites will give priority download speed to the first download from
    > a given IP address with the second download slowed. This prevents
    > bandwidth bandits from stealing their show. One test I use is to ftp
    > download from file storage on my ISP, and late at night local time. I
    > get the most consistent download estimates this way.
    >
    > Q
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I can also point out that in New Zealand we have internet connections
    through DSL running from 128k up to 5.8mbps as well as satellite access
    which is even faster.

    Ray Taylor


    "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:YuKhc.19592$dZ1.15624@fed1read04...
    > Wow! Would you mind telling us which area are you in? Cable or DSL?
    >
    > "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    > news:0nzhc.199514$Ig.45402@pd7tw2no...
    > > Just jumping into this thread so might be unrelated but...
    > >
    > > My broadband connection regularly gets me more than 7.5mbit/second
    > > (950Kbytes/second). Definately faster than a wireless B router would
    > > provide.
    > >
    > >
    > > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:qIohc.17950$dZ1.12299@fed1read04...
    > > > > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
    > > > internet connection.
    > > > >
    > > > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8
    is
    > > very
    > > > reasonable.
    > > >
    > > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
    further,
    > > by
    > > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > > >
    > > > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
    > > somewhat
    > > > consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer
    > the
    > > > different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing
    > bandwidth).
    > > I
    > > > choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site
    > > varies
    > > > from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very
    reliable.
    > I
    > > > should really do my test through a speedtest site.
    > > >
    > > > > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
    > > > >
    > > > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for
    > wireless
    > > > USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
    > > > internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the
    > > wireless
    > > > USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able
    to
    > > > provide 1.8Mbps.
    > > >
    > > > -w
    > > > [1] See my previous post for reference
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
    > > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless ,
    "wendi"
    > > > > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
    > > reveals
    > > > > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
    > > > >
    > > > > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from
    > the
    > > > > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it
    doesn't
    > > > > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and
    > > thats
    > > > > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection.
    Are
    > > you
    > > > > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair
    > > measure
    > > > > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
    > > > >
    > > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
    further,
    > > by
    > > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > > > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the
    > ethernet
    > > > > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
    > > > >
    > > > > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
    > > > >
    > > > > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
    > > afraid.
    > > > > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps
    > from
    > > an
    > > > > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop
    to
    > > > > 0.5Mbps or worse.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Mark McIntyre
    > > > > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    > > > > CLC readme:
    > > <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > > > News==----
    > > > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > >100,000
    > > > Newsgroups
    > > > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
    > > Encryption
    > > > =---
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, wendi wrote:
    > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
    > connection?

    You don't state the speed of your Ethernet: 10Mbit/s, 100Mb/s, or 1Gb/s.

    > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    >
    > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
    > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > The wireless box took over a minute.

    That cannot be a 10Mbit/s ethernet. It must be 100Mbit/s at a minimum.
    There's your reason. You expect 11Mb/s to be faster than 100Mb/s? Duh.

    > I thought...
    > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    >
    > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?
  14. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, wendi wrote:
    > Yeah, I read it at...
    >
    > http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/Actiontec_Wireless_Adapter/Actiontec_
    > pg4.html
    > It's an old 2002 though...
    >
    > Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
    > that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps. And, the wireless USB is 6 times
    > slower!!! Something is not right!

    That's because your computation is in MBytes/second, not Mbits/sec. You're
    comparing incompatible units.

    > "Ray Taylor" <administrator@kaycee.co.nz> wrote in message
    > news:40848608$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
    > > 802.11b can theoratically reach speeds of 11Mbps. In reality, you will
    > only
    > > get half that, 5Mbps.
    > > There could also be factors such as interference from things like other
    > > users on the same channel, cordless phones and microwaves.
    > >
    > >
    > > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04...
    > > > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my
    > > Ethernet
    > > > connection?
    > > >
    > > > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > > > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > > > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    > > >
    > > > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box
    > > took
    > > > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps
    > > (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > > > The wireless box took over a minute.
    > > >
    > > > I thought...
    > > > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > > > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > > > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    > > >
    > > > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any
    > clue?
  15. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Calgary, Canada... And DSL will NEVER see those speeds. Cable all the way!

    "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:YuKhc.19592$dZ1.15624@fed1read04...
    > Wow! Would you mind telling us which area are you in? Cable or DSL?
    >
    > "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    > news:0nzhc.199514$Ig.45402@pd7tw2no...
    > > Just jumping into this thread so might be unrelated but...
    > >
    > > My broadband connection regularly gets me more than 7.5mbit/second
    > > (950Kbytes/second). Definately faster than a wireless B router would
    > > provide.
    > >
    > >
    > > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:qIohc.17950$dZ1.12299@fed1read04...
    > > > > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
    > > > internet connection.
    > > > >
    > > > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8
    is
    > > very
    > > > reasonable.
    > > >
    > > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
    further,
    > > by
    > > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > > >
    > > > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
    > > somewhat
    > > > consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer
    > the
    > > > different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing
    > bandwidth).
    > > I
    > > > choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site
    > > varies
    > > > from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very
    reliable.
    > I
    > > > should really do my test through a speedtest site.
    > > >
    > > > > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
    > > > >
    > > > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for
    > wireless
    > > > USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
    > > > internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the
    > > wireless
    > > > USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able
    to
    > > > provide 1.8Mbps.
    > > >
    > > > -w
    > > > [1] See my previous post for reference
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
    > > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless ,
    "wendi"
    > > > > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
    > > reveals
    > > > > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
    > > > >
    > > > > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from
    > the
    > > > > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it
    doesn't
    > > > > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and
    > > thats
    > > > > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection.
    Are
    > > you
    > > > > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair
    > > measure
    > > > > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
    > > > >
    > > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
    further,
    > > by
    > > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
    > > > > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the
    > ethernet
    > > > > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
    > > > >
    > > > > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
    > > > >
    > > > > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
    > > afraid.
    > > > > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps
    > from
    > > an
    > > > > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop
    to
    > > > > 0.5Mbps or worse.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Mark McIntyre
    > > > > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    > > > > CLC readme:
    > > <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > > > News==----
    > > > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > >100,000
    > > > Newsgroups
    > > > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
    > > Encryption
    > > > =---
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:02:09 GMT, "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
    wrote:

    >Calgary, Canada... And DSL will NEVER see those speeds. Cable all the way!

    nonsense. The G.dmt standard is for 8 Mbps ADSL and in Japan services
    are running at 28 M with upgrades to 45 M in the pipeline.

    Phil
  17. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 04/19/04 17:02 wendi spoke:
    > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
    > connection?
    >
    > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    >
    > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
    > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > The wireless box took over a minute.
    >
    > I thought...
    > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    >
    > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?
    >
    > -w
    >
    > [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html

    Maybe your ISP is using a proxy to cache results.
    Many ISPs do that now.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Remove .NOSPAM from my email address to reply directly.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04>...
    > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
    > connection?
    >
    > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    >
    > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
    > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > The wireless box took over a minute.
    >
    > I thought...
    > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    >
    > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?
    >
    > -w
    >
    > [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html

    I am having the same problem and have been searching for a answer for
    almost a year now, there is none!. I 'think' it is more likely the
    wireless system and/or the wireless receiver/card driver related issue
    here.

    I have used QCheck to verify the speed between CAT5 connect and
    wireless connect, the CAT5 give me 9+/- while the wireless is 4.4+/-.
    Some posts claimed that it is due to the wireless system's half-duplex
    method and overheads. If this is true, then we should still get HALF
    of what CAT5 connect gets, instead I am having 1/3 or lower while
    surfing and d/l.

    If you do find a solution, please do share with us.

    MR814v1 + USB Phoebe wireless card.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Nice4" <nice4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:88a0c64a.0404252030.76ceaa34@posting.google.com...
    > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:<tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04>...
    > > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my
    Ethernet
    > > connection?
    > >
    > > The configurations for the two machines are...
    > > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
    > > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
    > >
    > > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box
    took
    > > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps
    (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
    > > The wireless box took over a minute.
    > >
    > > I thought...
    > > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
    > > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
    > > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
    > >
    > > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any
    clue?
    > >
    > > -w
    > >
    > > [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html
    >
    > I am having the same problem and have been searching for a answer for
    > almost a year now, there is none!. I 'think' it is more likely the
    > wireless system and/or the wireless receiver/card driver related issue
    > here.
    >
    > I have used QCheck to verify the speed between CAT5 connect and
    > wireless connect, the CAT5 give me 9+/- while the wireless is 4.4+/-.
    > Some posts claimed that it is due to the wireless system's half-duplex
    > method and overheads. If this is true, then we should still get HALF
    > of what CAT5 connect gets, instead I am having 1/3 or lower while
    > surfing and d/l.

    9? 4.4? What?

    ....and I don't know where you went to school, but 4.4 is almost exactly half
    of 9, not a third.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 25 Apr 2004 21:30:39 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , nice4@yahoo.com
    (Nice4) wrote:

    >"wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04>...
    >> Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
    >> connection?
    >>
    >I am having the same problem and have been searching for a answer for
    >almost a year now, there is none!. I 'think' it is more likely the
    >wireless system and/or the wireless receiver/card driver related issue
    >here.

    Guys, this is practically a FAQ.

    >the CAT5 give me 9+/- while the wireless is 4.4+/-.

    >Some posts claimed that it is due to the wireless system's half-duplex
    >method and overheads. If this is true, then we should still get HALF
    >of what CAT5 connect gets,
    ....
    >If you do find a solution, please do share with us.

    This has been explained about a zillion times. A google groups search of
    this group would turn up answers.

    Reduction factors:
    1) half duplex
    2) wireless protocol overheads
    3) transmission quality.

    Getting 4.4Mbps from your wireless is actually quite good.

    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  21. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    >
    > Reduction factors:
    > 1) half duplex
    > 2) wireless protocol overheads
    > 3) transmission quality.
    >
    > Getting 4.4Mbps from your wireless is actually quite good.
    >
    Well the 4.4Mbps is very good I agreed, but when it comes to internet
    d/l, it is a major problem. Lets put it this way, assumed the wired
    connection d/l from a site for 120KB/s +/-, if I do the same d/l from
    the same site at the same time via wireless connection, I will only
    gets around 50~60KB/s. So it seems the 4.4Mbps is helpless at all. I
    wonder what if I have an 11G with 54Mbps enabled, under the same
    situation describled aboved, what could be my d/l speed?

    Thinking of 11G solution. BTW, can a 11G wireless adapter works with
    a 11B wireless router in 11Mbps connection ?
  22. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Nice4 wrote:
    >>Reduction factors:
    >>1) half duplex
    >>2) wireless protocol overheads
    >>3) transmission quality.
    >>
    >>Getting 4.4Mbps from your wireless is actually quite good.
    >>
    >
    > Well the 4.4Mbps is very good I agreed, but when it comes to internet
    > d/l, it is a major problem. Lets put it this way, assumed the wired
    > connection d/l from a site for 120KB/s +/-, if I do the same d/l from
    > the same site at the same time via wireless connection, I will only
    > gets around 50~60KB/s. So it seems the 4.4Mbps is helpless at all. I
    > wonder what if I have an 11G with 54Mbps enabled, under the same
    > situation describled aboved, what could be my d/l speed?
    >
    > Thinking of 11G solution. BTW, can a 11G wireless adapter works with
    > a 11B wireless router in 11Mbps connection ?

    The key is "at the same time". 120KB/s D/L speed may well be the limit
    of your path from your ISP, so running two D/L's concurrently can only get
    a total of 120 KB/s, split in your case by the wired and the wireless
    PCs.

    What do you get when you D/L single-stream to the wireless PC?
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  23. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 6 May 2004 08:15:46 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , nice4@yahoo.com
    (Nice4) wrote:

    >>
    >> Reduction factors:
    >> 1) half duplex
    >> 2) wireless protocol overheads
    >> 3) transmission quality.
    >>
    >> Getting 4.4Mbps from your wireless is actually quite good.
    >>
    >Well the 4.4Mbps is very good I agreed, but when it comes to internet
    >d/l, it is a major problem.

    Eh? Sure, if you have a 10MBps link to the internet, then its a bottleneck
    having to "do" wireless at 4.4MBps. If you have a 10meg internet connection
    tho, you can afford a better wireless network.

    > Lets put it this way, assumed the wired
    >connection d/l from a site for 120KB/s +/-, if I do the same d/l from
    >the same site at the same time via wireless connection, I will only
    >gets around 50~60KB/s.

    Then you have a network problem which has nowt to do with wireless.
    There's no way that the wireless part can impact the internet connection
    d/l speed.


    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  24. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Thu, 06 May 2004 15:21:49 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Bob Willard
    <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:

    >The key is "at the same time". 120KB/s D/L speed may well be the limit
    >of your path from your ISP, so running two D/L's concurrently can only get
    >a total of 120 KB/s, split in your case by the wired and the wireless
    >PCs.

    Hah. I mentioned this in my first post, and assumed he'd already fixed that
    mistake. Then I re-read his last post, and you're right, he's still testing
    the wired on its own, then starting a 2nd download and is surprised that
    the speed falls off...

    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Connection WiFi Ethernet Card Wireless Networking