802.11 - B or G???

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

Buying a new router and need help deciding on which to get.

I use a DSL line on two wireless laptops.
Never transfer files over the network - only internet access.
Each laptop is standalone and doesn't need to even see the other.

If my DSL line runs at 768/128 - am I going to benefit from the 802.11G?

Will I see a speed difference when web surfing between the B and G systems?

My current 802.11B router speed seems just fine - wondering if it's really
worth the extra few bucks for the G setup.

Thanks-
13 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Fri, 7 May 2004 08:30:43 -0700, Tom C. spoketh

    >Buying a new router and need help deciding on which to get.
    >
    >I use a DSL line on two wireless laptops.
    >Never transfer files over the network - only internet access.
    >Each laptop is standalone and doesn't need to even see the other.
    >
    >If my DSL line runs at 768/128 - am I going to benefit from the 802.11G?
    >
    >Will I see a speed difference when web surfing between the B and G systems?
    >
    >My current 802.11B router speed seems just fine - wondering if it's really
    >worth the extra few bucks for the G setup.
    >
    >Thanks-
    >

    If it work, don't change anything. Since there's no LAN traffic to speak
    of, and your internet connection is the bottle neck, there's little
    point in spending money on more speed that you won't be using.

    The only potential benefit with replacing equipment at this point in
    time would be to get something that supports WPA, preferably AES
    encryption rather than "just" TKIP.

    Lars M. Hansen
    www.hansenonline.net
    Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
    "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <c7ga310m3s@enews2.newsguy.com>,
    Tom C. <tomcNO@SPAMfastnetit.com> wrote:
    :Buying a new router and need help deciding on which to get.

    :I use a DSL line on two wireless laptops.
    :Never transfer files over the network - only internet access.
    :Each laptop is standalone and doesn't need to even see the other.

    :If my DSL line runs at 768/128 - am I going to benefit from the 802.11G?

    No.

    :Will I see a speed difference when web surfing between the B and G systems?

    No.


    :My current 802.11B router speed seems just fine - wondering if it's really
    :worth the extra few bucks for the G setup.

    Not in your situation. If you were communicating between the laptops
    or doing something like streaming music around your house, then G would
    usually be better.
    --
    Admit it -- you peeked ahead to find out how this message ends!
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    >
    > :If my DSL line runs at 768/128 - am I going to benefit from the 802.11G?
    >
    > No.
    >
    > :Will I see a speed difference when web surfing between the B and G systems?
    >
    > No.
    >
    >
    Please allow me to jump in. I am looking for answer of this question
    as well. I currently have a 11b and my d/l speed between the wired and
    wireless (assumed from same site and same file) is about 45%+/- short
    on wireless side, which means if the wired d/l is 120KB/s, my wireless
    most likely is about 60-70KB/s. As there is a difference with an 11b
    and 11g in term of transmittal speed, should it be better result with
    a 11g over 11b ?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Tom C. mused:
    |
    | Buying a new router and need help deciding on which to get.

    What is your reason for buying a new router? Especially since ...

    | My current 802.11B router speed seems just fine - wondering if it's really
    | worth the extra few bucks for the G setup.

    If you are going to be purchasing a new router, then there is no need to
    buy another B router if the one you have is working fine ... why replace it?
    However, as Lars points out, one advantage of G wireless products is their
    support or WPA and WEP. Most B units, if they don't already support it,
    will not be updated to support WPA. Since WEP is faulty in terms of
    security, WPA is recommended. Also, the increased LAN speed of G is there
    should you ever decide you want it.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I actually need to extend the range of my current Netgear MR314 but the
    antenna isn't removable. So, I figure might as well buy a new one that I
    can extend with an upgraded 5dbi antenna to increase my range. Moving the
    router isn't an option, so I'll be moving the antenna to a more central
    location in my house with a 30 foot (+/-) cable and mounting it in my attic.

    Thanks for the reply. Sounds like the G unit is the best upgrade, and
    there's not that much difference in price.


    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
    news:ywSmc.508$z06.237039@attbi_s01...
    > Taking a moment's reflection, Tom C. mused:
    > |
    > | Buying a new router and need help deciding on which to get.
    >
    > What is your reason for buying a new router? Especially since ...
    >
    > | My current 802.11B router speed seems just fine - wondering if it's
    really
    > | worth the extra few bucks for the G setup.
    >
    > If you are going to be purchasing a new router, then there is no need
    to
    > buy another B router if the one you have is working fine ... why replace
    it?
    > However, as Lars points out, one advantage of G wireless products is their
    > support or WPA and WEP. Most B units, if they don't already support it,
    > will not be updated to support WPA. Since WEP is faulty in terms of
    > security, WPA is recommended. Also, the increased LAN speed of G is there
    > should you ever decide you want it.
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    You should be able to get up to 4 - 7 megabits/sec for a one-way data
    transfer on 802.11b. If your ISP is capable of sending data to you at 120
    kilobytes/sec (960 kilobits/sec), you should be able to move it at 960
    kilobits/sec through the whole network. (You *do* mean "kilobyte" by "KB",
    right? :-)

    If you get 120 kilobytes/sec wired, 70 kilobytes/sec wireless, maybe you
    have a TCP/IP tuning issue on the wifi client. If you don't have a big
    enough receive buffer, or a poorly chosen segment size that causes IP
    fragmentation, it could affect your throughput quite a bit.

    Check out:

    http://www.dslreports.com/tools

    Look at the tweak tools. This site also has excellent network performance
    test tools, with a list of servers that covers Europe and Latin America.

    "Nice4" <nice4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:88a0c64a.0405071902.64beecf6@posting.google.com...
    > >
    > > :If my DSL line runs at 768/128 - am I going to benefit from the
    802.11G?
    > >
    > > No.
    > >
    > > :Will I see a speed difference when web surfing between the B and G
    systems?
    > >
    > > No.
    > >
    > >
    > Please allow me to jump in. I am looking for answer of this question
    > as well. I currently have a 11b and my d/l speed between the wired and
    > wireless (assumed from same site and same file) is about 45%+/- short
    > on wireless side, which means if the wired d/l is 120KB/s, my wireless
    > most likely is about 60-70KB/s. As there is a difference with an 11b
    > and 11g in term of transmittal speed, should it be better result with
    > a 11g over 11b ?
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <c7gvs402r3o@enews3.newsguy.com>,
    Tom C. <tomcNO@SPAMfastnetit.com> wrote:
    :I actually need to extend the range of my current Netgear MR314 but the
    :antenna isn't removable. So, I figure might as well buy a new one that I
    :can extend with an upgraded 5dbi antenna to increase my range. Moving the
    :router isn't an option, so I'll be moving the antenna to a more central
    :location in my house with a 30 foot (+/-) cable and mounting it in my attic.

    What kind of cable are you planning on? 30 feet of cable does nasty
    things to signal power unless it's good quality cable. You always want
    the shortest antenna cable that you can get away with.

    Perhaps a second AP with wireless bridge might be a better solution for your
    situation?
    --
    Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow.
    That's my point.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > You should be able to get up to 4 - 7 megabits/sec for a one-way data
    > transfer on 802.11b. If your ISP is capable of sending data to you at 120
    > kilobytes/sec (960 kilobits/sec), you should be able to move it at 960
    > kilobits/sec through the whole network. (You *do* mean "kilobyte" by "KB",
    > right? :-)
    >
    > If you get 120 kilobytes/sec wired, 70 kilobytes/sec wireless, maybe you
    > have a TCP/IP tuning issue on the wifi client. If you don't have a big
    > enough receive buffer, or a poorly chosen segment size that causes IP
    > fragmentation, it could affect your throughput quite a bit.
    >
    > Check out:
    >
    > http://www.dslreports.com/tools
    >
    > Look at the tweak tools. This site also has excellent network performance
    > test tools, with a list of servers that covers Europe and Latin America.
    >
    Maybe I am even more confuse. KB=KiloByte and I wish you are right,
    but I just can not achieve such result with my 11b. This is my
    impression.

    Modem -> wireless router -wireed-> w2k PC and getting 120KB/s

    --usb 11b adapter--+-> wireless 11b on w2k PC and getting 60-70KB/s,
    since wireless is working in HALF-DUPLEX mode plus its overheads,
    therfore the result is more likely 40% lower in overall performace.

    Am I right ?. I have tweaked my network with dslreports tools, ensure
    all router and wireless adapter with MTU 1500 (1460 * 32 =46720
    buffer) with cable. There is no re-transmit packet(s) as per tweak
    test shown. Is there any other thing(s) that I have missed here with
    my 11b system ?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <88a0c64a.0405071902.64beecf6@posting.google.com>,
    Nice4 <nice4@yahoo.com> wrote:
    :Please allow me to jump in. I am looking for answer of this question
    :as well. I currently have a 11b and my d/l speed between the wired and
    :wireless (assumed from same site and same file) is about 45%+/- short
    :on wireless side, which means if the wired d/l is 120KB/s, my wireless
    :most likely is about 60-70KB/s. As there is a difference with an 11b
    :and 11g in term of transmittal speed, should it be better result with
    :a 11g over 11b ?

    I have an ADSL connection. I ran the 'bandwidthplace.com' speedtest
    on my wired side, and also on my wireless side (a different
    computer connected via a Linksys WET11 <-> Linksys BEFW11S4 (version 2)
    wireless link (with WEP turned on.) The results were identical to
    within the margin of error of the tests -- 1.3 megabits per second
    "communications speed" to both.

    Last night, I got 1.2 megabits per second to the wired side on
    the speedtest at the same time that someone on the wireless side was
    streaming video.

    If you are seeing a distinct slowdown on the wireless side, then either
    something is not configured correctly, or your firmware needs an
    update, or your hardware is broken, or you aren't getting anywhere
    near a full-strength signal and the link has fallen back to a slower speed.

    --
    Oh, to be a Blobel!
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Nice4 wrote:
    >>You should be able to get up to 4 - 7 megabits/sec for a one-way data
    >>transfer on 802.11b. If your ISP is capable of sending data to you at 120
    >>kilobytes/sec (960 kilobits/sec), you should be able to move it at 960
    >>kilobits/sec through the whole network. (You *do* mean "kilobyte" by "KB",
    >>right? :-)
    >>
    >>If you get 120 kilobytes/sec wired, 70 kilobytes/sec wireless, maybe you
    >>have a TCP/IP tuning issue on the wifi client. If you don't have a big
    >>enough receive buffer, or a poorly chosen segment size that causes IP
    >>fragmentation, it could affect your throughput quite a bit.
    >>
    >>Check out:
    >>
    >>http://www.dslreports.com/tools
    >>
    >>Look at the tweak tools. This site also has excellent network performance
    >>test tools, with a list of servers that covers Europe and Latin America.
    >>
    >
    > Maybe I am even more confuse. KB=KiloByte and I wish you are right,
    > but I just can not achieve such result with my 11b. This is my
    > impression.
    >
    > Modem -> wireless router -wireed-> w2k PC and getting 120KB/s
    >
    > --usb 11b adapter--+-> wireless 11b on w2k PC and getting 60-70KB/s,
    > since wireless is working in HALF-DUPLEX mode plus its overheads,
    > therfore the result is more likely 40% lower in overall performace.
    >
    > Am I right ?. I have tweaked my network with dslreports tools, ensure
    > all router and wireless adapter with MTU 1500 (1460 * 32 =46720
    > buffer) with cable. There is no re-transmit packet(s) as per tweak
    > test shown. Is there any other thing(s) that I have missed here with
    > my 11b system ?

    Should not be that much difference between wired and wireless. I just
    DL'd a 1 MB file into one PC via a 100 Mb/s link thru the BEFW11S4 router
    at 330 KB/s, and DL'd the same file into another PC via a 11 Mb/s link
    thru the same router at 280 KB/s. FWIW, the PC with the 11 Mb/s link
    is a Toshiba Satellite laptop running W2K PRO, and its wireless signal
    is excellent -- good enough to get the whole 11 Mb/s.

    Since you've fixed the MTU and your RWIN sounds OK, check that your link
    is running at 11 Mb/s (if not, move the PC closer to the WAP for testing).
    Also, turn off WEP; I found that WEP makes a minor (10% or so) diff, but
    it might be more with your hardware.

    And, check that no other device is on your wireless link; sharing a link
    with multiple PCs and a wap will eat some datarate. If you haven't
    already, check that the driver for your wireless NIC is current.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > Should not be that much difference between wired and wireless. I just
    > DL'd a 1 MB file into one PC via a 100 Mb/s link thru the BEFW11S4 router
    > at 330 KB/s, and DL'd the same file into another PC via a 11 Mb/s link
    > thru the same router at 280 KB/s. FWIW, the PC with the 11 Mb/s link
    > is a Toshiba Satellite laptop running W2K PRO, and its wireless signal
    > is excellent -- good enough to get the whole 11 Mb/s.
    >
    > Since you've fixed the MTU and your RWIN sounds OK, check that your link
    > is running at 11 Mb/s (if not, move the PC closer to the WAP for testing).
    > Also, turn off WEP; I found that WEP makes a minor (10% or so) diff, but
    > it might be more with your hardware.
    >
    > And, check that no other device is on your wireless link; sharing a link
    > with multiple PCs and a wap will eat some datarate. If you haven't
    > already, check that the driver for your wireless NIC is current.
    Thanks Bob, now the only suspect seems my USB wireless adapter -
    Phoebe made USB1.1 wireless adapter. The wireless router should not be
    the problem because I have used this same Phoebe adapter to test
    against a Netgear MR814 and SMC7004VWBR with a software called QCheck.
    It has shown wired (high 9Mbits/s) while the wireless lower (high
    4Mbits/s) from both tests. This is why I was so believe that the 40%
    drop might be 'Normal' with the wireless world.
    Now my attention should be on this wireless adapter. Thanks
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Nice4" <nice4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:88a0c64a.0405080855.36fedc44@posting.google.com...
    > > You should be able to get up to 4 - 7 megabits/sec for a one-way data
    > > transfer on 802.11b. If your ISP is capable of sending data to you at
    120
    > > kilobytes/sec (960 kilobits/sec), you should be able to move it at 960
    > > kilobits/sec through the whole network. (You *do* mean "kilobyte" by
    "KB",
    > > right? :-)
    > >
    > > If you get 120 kilobytes/sec wired, 70 kilobytes/sec wireless, maybe you
    > > have a TCP/IP tuning issue on the wifi client. If you don't have a big
    > > enough receive buffer, or a poorly chosen segment size that causes IP
    > > fragmentation, it could affect your throughput quite a bit.
    > >
    > > Check out:
    > >
    > > http://www.dslreports.com/tools
    > >
    > > Look at the tweak tools. This site also has excellent network
    performance
    > > test tools, with a list of servers that covers Europe and Latin America.
    > >
    > Maybe I am even more confuse. KB=KiloByte and I wish you are right,
    > but I just can not achieve such result with my 11b. This is my
    > impression.
    >
    > Modem -> wireless router -wireed-> w2k PC and getting 120KB/s

    So far so good. You get 120 kilobytes/sec over your modem to a wired PC,
    which is 960 kilobits/sec. It sounds like your modem supports 1 megabit/sec.
    Is this correct? Is it cable, DSL, fractional T1, something else?

    BTW, for comparison, I have a DSL modem that supports 1.5 megabits/sec from
    the network. I routinely get 1.2 - 1.3 megabits/sec downloading to my
    wireless client.

    >
    > --usb 11b adapter--+-> wireless 11b on w2k PC and getting 60-70KB/s,
    > since wireless is working in HALF-DUPLEX mode plus its overheads,
    > therfore the result is more likely 40% lower in overall performace.

    We always get balled up over half-duplex. Half-duplex is an issue only if
    you are concurrently sending and receiving on the wireless connection. There
    is only one antenna (or one pair for diversity), and it is either
    transmitting or receiving, not both. So, if you are receiving and sending a
    file concurrently, then the maximum throughput is divided between the two
    datastreams. A special case is an infrastructure network (a wifi network
    that communicates via an access point, rather than directly between hosts).
    If a wireless client sends a file to another wireless client via the access
    point, then the throughput is cut in half, because the access point has to
    receive and then retransmit each wireless data frame. It is as if you were
    concurrently sending and receiving the file.

    But if you download a file from an internet server via the modem to a single
    wireless client, almost all of the data on the wireless network flows to the
    client. The only data flowing in the opposite direction are small 802.11
    management frames, and TCP/IP connection management packets such as ACK.
    Almost all of the maximum theoretical throughput should be occupied by the
    data moving to the client.

    So, if your modem can supply nearly 1 megabit/sec of data, your 802.11b
    network should be able to move it at nearly that rate. In fact, it should be
    90% idle at that rate.

    >
    > Am I right ?. I have tweaked my network with dslreports tools, ensure
    > all router and wireless adapter with MTU 1500 (1460 * 32 =46720
    > buffer) with cable. There is no re-transmit packet(s) as per tweak
    > test shown. Is there any other thing(s) that I have missed here with
    > my 11b system ?

    Two things I'd look at here.

    First, I wonder if the USB connection is contributing to this problem. USB 1
    is supposed to provide up to 12 megabits/sec, but if you have several
    devices on the bus, you may not have anywhere near that kind of througput.
    Also, I'm not entirely sure there aren't performance problems with wifi on
    USB, at least with some vendors. USB is notoriously unreliable. Here's a
    quote from an Intel white paper on USB-connected ADSL modems:

    "Many service providers tried USB products early in their DSL deployment.
    Unfortunately, the providers encountered poor data throughput performance
    and numerous USB compatibility issues."

    Of course, they claim *their* USB modem works great, but it makes the point.
    The white paper is at
    http://www.intel.com/network/broadband/modems/ADSL_White%20Paper.pdf.

    Also, the correct settings for MTU and MSS depend on whether or not your
    modem is using PPOE. PPOE is typically required with ADSL, and usually not
    used with cable (but might be in some places). I have MTU set to 1492, to
    accomodate the 8-byte PPOE header inserted by my wifi router before each
    frame is passed to the ADSL modem. I have MSS set to 1452, to leave room for
    the 40-byte IP header that will prefix each TCP segment. The receive window
    is a multiple of 1452 (MSS size, not MTU size), because it should hold an
    integral number of TCP segments. Don't take these numbers as definitive -
    optimal settings may vary from country to country and ISP to ISP. You have
    to experiment.

    You might want to run the TCP analyzer at

    http://www.speedguide.net/
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Sat, 08 May 2004 20:37:25 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Bob Willard
    <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:

    >Also, turn off WEP; I found that WEP makes a minor (10% or so) diff, but
    >it might be more with your hardware.

    But be sure to turn it on again after you have tested. Running without even
    basic security is a BAD idea.

    --
    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 Routers Wireless Networking