Routers

I'm thinking of changing from wired to wireless and would like some
clarification from the experts in the NG. Currently I have a Desktop
connected by wire in an Office and a laptop connected by wire in another
room. A new laptop is replacing the old laptop but because it has 802.11
b,g,n, I'm thinking of going wireless and when I say that I mean the Desktop
would probably remained "wired" but the laptop would go wireless.
From what I understand I should purchase an "N' Router but these vary
significantly in price. So I'm looking for input in terms of what I should
be considering. Specifically, we are connected via cable with download
speeds up to 8 Mbps. The "G" series Routers vary with speeds up to 54 Mbps
while the "N" series Routers vary with speeds up to 300 Mbps.

If my connection only allows up to 8 Mbps, why is any of the above router
speeds important? As usual I would appreciate any feedback that would
enlighten me on this subject.

Dan

Mike
Thu Dec 20 09:26:37 PST 2007

Remember that 811n has yet to be ratified so any current N WiFi _may_ not
fully work with the eventual ratified N standard although it should work
OK with most other current non ratified N adapters. Note however whether
you use G or N for your wireless connection will make no difference when
surfing as the rate determining step is the slowest of the links which in
your case is the 8Mbps cable connection between your modem and your ISP.

Where N is likely to be beneficial is when transferring large files
between systems where part of that link is wireless, say from your laptop
to your desktop. You won't see much of a difference when moving files up
to a couple of MB or so but should see an appreciable difference if
transferring larger files such as video files and the like, Also I
believe that the usable range with N is supposed to be better than that
for G.

I currently have a 12Mbps net connection and wireless 811g to connect to a
laptop and also Buffalo LinkTheatre (BLT) connected to my TV. Everything
else is wired including the network attached storage (NAS) that is used to
stream media to the TV (via wireless from the router/wap to the BLT).
--
Mike M


Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:

> I'm thinking of changing from wired to wireless and would like some
> clarification from the experts in the NG. Currently I have a Desktop
> connected by wire in an Office and a laptop connected by wire in
> another room. A new laptop is replacing the old laptop but because it
> has 802.11 b,g,n, I'm thinking of going wireless and when I say that
> I mean the Desktop would probably remained "wired" but the laptop
> would go wireless. From what I understand I should purchase an "N'
> Router but these vary
> significantly in price. So I'm looking for input in terms of what I
> should be considering. Specifically, we are connected via cable with
> download speeds up to 8 Mbps. The "G" series Routers vary with speeds
> up to 54 Mbps while the "N" series Routers vary with speeds up to 300
> Mbps.
> If my connection only allows up to 8 Mbps, why is any of the above
> router speeds important? As usual I would appreciate any feedback
> that would enlighten me on this subject.
>
> Dan

Dapper
Thu Dec 20 12:13:28 PST 2007

I appreciate the clarification, Mike, and you are certainly one of the
experts I was hoping to hear from.

We are not looking at transferring any significant data between computers.
Rather I have my desktop and my wife will have her Laptop which will be
available to both of us when we travel to connect and surf the web and to
read and respond to emails.

It sounds to me like getting an inexpensive "N" router may be the way to go.
It will provide the additional range (although for our use, I don't think
it's necessary) and just as importantly, it will also provide the additional
speed for transferring data, if we ever need it. I'm not understanding the
difference between a DLink "N" Router that goes for $60 versus a DLink "N"
Router that goes for upwards of $200. Should I be considering something
beyond range and speed?

Dan
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:e6ZcD6yQIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Remember that 811n has yet to be ratified so any current N WiFi _may_ not
> fully work with the eventual ratified N standard although it should work
> OK with most other current non ratified N adapters. Note however whether
> you use G or N for your wireless connection will make no difference when
> surfing as the rate determining step is the slowest of the links which in
> your case is the 8Mbps cable connection between your modem and your ISP.
>
> Where N is likely to be beneficial is when transferring large files
> between systems where part of that link is wireless, say from your laptop
> to your desktop. You won't see much of a difference when moving files up
> to a couple of MB or so but should see an appreciable difference if
> transferring larger files such as video files and the like, Also I
> believe that the usable range with N is supposed to be better than that
> for G.
>
> I currently have a 12Mbps net connection and wireless 811g to connect to a
> laptop and also Buffalo LinkTheatre (BLT) connected to my TV. Everything
> else is wired including the network attached storage (NAS) that is used to
> stream media to the TV (via wireless from the router/wap to the BLT).
> --
> Mike M
>
>
> Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of changing from wired to wireless and would like some
>> clarification from the experts in the NG. Currently I have a Desktop
>> connected by wire in an Office and a laptop connected by wire in
>> another room. A new laptop is replacing the old laptop but because it
>> has 802.11 b,g,n, I'm thinking of going wireless and when I say that
>> I mean the Desktop would probably remained "wired" but the laptop
>> would go wireless. From what I understand I should purchase an "N' Router
>> but these vary
>> significantly in price. So I'm looking for input in terms of what I
>> should be considering. Specifically, we are connected via cable with
>> download speeds up to 8 Mbps. The "G" series Routers vary with speeds
>> up to 54 Mbps while the "N" series Routers vary with speeds up to 300
>> Mbps.
>> If my connection only allows up to 8 Mbps, why is any of the above
>> router speeds important? As usual I would appreciate any feedback
>> that would enlighten me on this subject.
>>
>> Dan
>

Mike
Thu Dec 20 12:32:25 PST 2007

> Should I be considering something beyond range and speed?

I don't really know. Which (two) D-Link routers are you considering?
Post the details and I'll have a quick look. I'm not particularly
familiar with their plain routers as I'm on ADSL so tend to check out
routers that include and ADSL2+ modem (such as the DSL524 and DSL2640). I
haven't checked but the more expensive router's) might be because they
support gigabit wired connections rather then "just" 10/100.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:

> I appreciate the clarification, Mike, and you are certainly one of the
> experts I was hoping to hear from.
>
> We are not looking at transferring any significant data between
> computers. Rather I have my desktop and my wife will have her Laptop
> which will be available to both of us when we travel to connect and
> surf the web and to read and respond to emails.
>
> It sounds to me like getting an inexpensive "N" router may be the way
> to go. It will provide the additional range (although for our use, I
> don't think it's necessary) and just as importantly, it will also
> provide the additional speed for transferring data, if we ever need
> it. I'm not understanding the difference between a DLink "N" Router
> that goes for $60 versus a DLink "N" Router that goes for upwards of
> $200. Should I be considering something beyond range and speed?

Dapper
Thu Dec 20 17:12:44 PST 2007

Mike

Thanks for the quick return.

I was simply looking at DLink DIR 615 ($60) or DIR 625($80) or DIR
655($180). I could easily also include Linksys or Belkin because they also
have several models. But again, if speed and range are the only important
factors, it would appear to me that the DIR 615 should be more than adequate
for our needs, as previously explained. Or am I missing something? Put
another way, why would someone spend $180 for the DIR 655 model when the $60
DIR 615 model appears to provide the same performance.

I'm not trying to get you to select the model for me Mike, I'm simply trying
to understand what else could be involved. As always, I appreciate your
value opinion.

Regards

Dan

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:ufG3Sv0QIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Should I be considering something beyond range and speed?
>
> I don't really know. Which (two) D-Link routers are you considering? Post
> the details and I'll have a quick look. I'm not particularly familiar
> with their plain routers as I'm on ADSL so tend to check out routers that
> include and ADSL2+ modem (such as the DSL524 and DSL2640). I haven't
> checked but the more expensive router's) might be because they support
> gigabit wired connections rather then "just" 10/100.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I appreciate the clarification, Mike, and you are certainly one of the
>> experts I was hoping to hear from.
>>
>> We are not looking at transferring any significant data between
>> computers. Rather I have my desktop and my wife will have her Laptop
>> which will be available to both of us when we travel to connect and
>> surf the web and to read and respond to emails.
>>
>> It sounds to me like getting an inexpensive "N" router may be the way
>> to go. It will provide the additional range (although for our use, I
>> don't think it's necessary) and just as importantly, it will also
>> provide the additional speed for transferring data, if we ever need
>> it. I'm not understanding the difference between a DLink "N" Router
>> that goes for $60 versus a DLink "N" Router that goes for upwards of
>> $200. Should I be considering something beyond range and speed?
>

Mike
Fri Dec 21 01:30:54 PST 2007

Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick return.
>
> I was simply looking at DLink DIR 615 ($60) or DIR 625($80) or DIR
> 655($180). I could easily also include Linksys or Belkin because they
> also have several models. But again, if speed and range are the only
> important factors, it would appear to me that the DIR 615 should be
> more than adequate for our needs, as previously explained. Or am I
> missing something? Put another way, why would someone spend $180 for
> the DIR 655 model when the $60 DIR 615 model appears to provide the
> same performance.
> I'm not trying to get you to select the model for me Mike, I'm simply
> trying to understand what else could be involved. As always, I
> appreciate your value opinion.

Dan,

As I suspected and hinted at in my previous reply the more expensive of
the three (the DIR 655) includes a gigabit LAN port although why all the
LAN ports are not gigabit escapes me since one would still need to be
using a gigabit switch (as I do here) to link two or more devices on a
gigabit arm of the LAN.

Other than for that it would appear that the different routers are simply
including differing amounts of steroids with their wifi draft 811,n, The
615 being regular, the 625 RangeBooster and the 655 Xtreme. Note however
that to take advantage of these steroids the other end of the wifi link
(in your case your laptop) would also have to be using a wifi adapter on
identical steroids in the absence of which the connection would fall back
to regular 811.n, or, if the laptop adapters was wifi 811.g then to 811.g.
--
Mike M

Mike
Fri Dec 21 01:38:13 PST 2007

Correction, where I have typed 811.n and 811.g please read 802.11n and
802.11g,

I blame my not having yet had a caffeine fix this a.m.
--
Mike M


Mike M <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

> As I suspected and hinted at in my previous reply the more expensive
> of the three (the DIR 655) includes a gigabit LAN port although why
> all the LAN ports are not gigabit escapes me since one would still
> need to be using a gigabit switch (as I do here) to link two or more
> devices on a gigabit arm of the LAN.
>
> Other than for that it would appear that the different routers are
> simply including differing amounts of steroids with their wifi draft
> 811,n, The 615 being regular, the 625 RangeBooster and the 655
> Xtreme. Note however that to take advantage of these steroids the
> other end of the wifi link (in your case your laptop) would also have
> to be using a wifi adapter on identical steroids in the absence of
> which the connection would fall back to regular 811.n, or, if the
> laptop adapters was wifi 811.g then to 811.g.

Dapper
Fri Dec 21 13:24:26 PST 2007

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I think I under the basics, although I'm
not so certain I could debate this subject with anyone that knows anything
at all about this.

Sounds like the basic model is all I need, given that generally, there is no
transfer of significant data between both machines. The more significant
models provide either more range (range booster) or faster transfer rates.
If I were to go for one of the more elaborate models, then I think I
understood that I would then have to upgrade a component of the unit in
order to take advantage of whatever I was seeking to improve.

But for everyday performance, web browsing, e-mails and/or simple word
processing, performance is limited by the lowest common denominator; in this
case, even though it's considered fast, our cable connection provides speeds
of approx 8 Mbps.

I would like to better understand the gigabyte issue. Both the Desktop and
the Laptop have Ethernet rated 10/100. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't
this have implications only as it relates to the transfer of data between
Desktop and Laptop, or does it also impact between cable connection and
computer.

Thanks again Mike for taking the time to try and educate me on this.

Dan


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23Ri0$U7QIHA.5692@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Correction, where I have typed 811.n and 811.g please read 802.11n and
> 802.11g,
>
> I blame my not having yet had a caffeine fix this a.m.
> --
> Mike M
>
>
> Mike M <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:
>
>> As I suspected and hinted at in my previous reply the more expensive
>> of the three (the DIR 655) includes a gigabit LAN port although why
>> all the LAN ports are not gigabit escapes me since one would still
>> need to be using a gigabit switch (as I do here) to link two or more
>> devices on a gigabit arm of the LAN.
>>
>> Other than for that it would appear that the different routers are
>> simply including differing amounts of steroids with their wifi draft
>> 811,n, The 615 being regular, the 625 RangeBooster and the 655
>> Xtreme. Note however that to take advantage of these steroids the
>> other end of the wifi link (in your case your laptop) would also have
>> to be using a wifi adapter on identical steroids in the absence of
>> which the connection would fall back to regular 811.n, or, if the
>> laptop adapters was wifi 811.g then to 811.g.
>

Mike
Fri Dec 21 14:31:32 PST 2007

Gigabit LAN runs at 1GHz rather than 100MHz or even the older 10MHz.
These are the possible maximum rates for machines connected to the wired
portion of a LAN. In my case I have 2 PCs with gigabit NICs and also two
network storage boxes that have gigabit connections. I have these four
devices connected to a five port gigabit switch with the fifth port on the
switch connected to my router to which I also have another couple of PCs
and a colour laser jet printer all using 100MHz NICs plus a laptop and
media player connected via 802.11g wifi (maximum of 54Mbps). File
transfer between the two PCs with the gigabit connections is around three
times as fast as that between machines where one has a 100MHz NIC whilst
that between the laptop and any other machine on the network is even
slower, perhaps a third slower again - around a tenth of that between the
two machines connected by gigabit. Since I do a lot of media work being
able to move large multi-GB files between my two main PCs quickly is of
considerable benefit to me and not something I would want to do over
802.11g wifi nor regularly over the 100MHz portion of my LAN.

Sorry to digress but I thought I should mention a reason why some users
welcome the advent of gigabit LANs however unless you move large amounts
of data between machines or machines and storage you are unlikely to see
much benefit. Just remember that unless your laptop also has a draft
802.11n wifi adapter your wifi connection to the router will drop back to
802.11g however even this connection is likely to be capable of running
faster than your modem and ISP can supply you with data.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I think I under the basics,
> although I'm not so certain I could debate this subject with anyone
> that knows anything at all about this.
>
> Sounds like the basic model is all I need, given that generally,
> there is no transfer of significant data between both machines. The
> more significant models provide either more range (range booster) or
> faster transfer rates. If I were to go for one of the more elaborate
> models, then I think I understood that I would then have to upgrade a
> component of the unit in order to take advantage of whatever I was
> seeking to improve.
> But for everyday performance, web browsing, e-mails and/or simple word
> processing, performance is limited by the lowest common denominator;
> in this case, even though it's considered fast, our cable connection
> provides speeds of approx 8 Mbps.
>
> I would like to better understand the gigabyte issue. Both the
> Desktop and the Laptop have Ethernet rated 10/100. Correct me if I am
> wrong but doesn't this have implications only as it relates to the
> transfer of data between Desktop and Laptop, or does it also impact
> between cable connection and computer.
>
> Thanks again Mike for taking the time to try and educate me on this.

Dapper
Fri Dec 21 15:51:16 PST 2007

You're a gentlemen and a scholar, Mike. Thanks for the additional
clarification.

Translating "technical" into english is a skill that not too many possess.
I'll be sorry to see this NG disappear simply because of the wealth of
information that is made available to technically challenged old farts like
me.

Have a wonderful Christmas and very best wishes for a healthy and
prosperous 2008.

Dan



"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23GxxHFCRIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Gigabit LAN runs at 1GHz rather than 100MHz or even the older 10MHz. These
> are the possible maximum rates for machines connected to the wired portion
> of a LAN. In my case I have 2 PCs with gigabit NICs and also two network
> storage boxes that have gigabit connections. I have these four devices
> connected to a five port gigabit switch with the fifth port on the switch
> connected to my router to which I also have another couple of PCs and a
> colour laser jet printer all using 100MHz NICs plus a laptop and media
> player connected via 802.11g wifi (maximum of 54Mbps). File transfer
> between the two PCs with the gigabit connections is around three times as
> fast as that between machines where one has a 100MHz NIC whilst that
> between the laptop and any other machine on the network is even slower,
> perhaps a third slower again - around a tenth of that between the two
> machines connected by gigabit. Since I do a lot of media work being able
> to move large multi-GB files between my two main PCs quickly is of
> considerable benefit to me and not something I would want to do over
> 802.11g wifi nor regularly over the 100MHz portion of my LAN.
>
> Sorry to digress but I thought I should mention a reason why some users
> welcome the advent of gigabit LANs however unless you move large amounts
> of data between machines or machines and storage you are unlikely to see
> much benefit. Just remember that unless your laptop also has a draft
> 802.11n wifi adapter your wifi connection to the router will drop back to
> 802.11g however even this connection is likely to be capable of running
> faster than your modem and ISP can supply you with data.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I think I under the basics,
>> although I'm not so certain I could debate this subject with anyone
>> that knows anything at all about this.
>>
>> Sounds like the basic model is all I need, given that generally,
>> there is no transfer of significant data between both machines. The
>> more significant models provide either more range (range booster) or
>> faster transfer rates. If I were to go for one of the more elaborate
>> models, then I think I understood that I would then have to upgrade a
>> component of the unit in order to take advantage of whatever I was
>> seeking to improve.
>> But for everyday performance, web browsing, e-mails and/or simple word
>> processing, performance is limited by the lowest common denominator;
>> in this case, even though it's considered fast, our cable connection
>> provides speeds of approx 8 Mbps.
>>
>> I would like to better understand the gigabyte issue. Both the
>> Desktop and the Laptop have Ethernet rated 10/100. Correct me if I am
>> wrong but doesn't this have implications only as it relates to the
>> transfer of data between Desktop and Laptop, or does it also impact
>> between cable connection and computer.
>>
>> Thanks again Mike for taking the time to try and educate me on this.
>

Mike
Fri Dec 21 16:32:56 PST 2007

Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:

> You're a gentlemen and a scholar, Mike. Thanks for the additional
> clarification.
>
> Translating "technical" into english is a skill that not too many
> possess. I'll be sorry to see this NG disappear simply because of the
> wealth of information that is made available to technically
> challenged old farts like me.
>
> Have a wonderful Christmas and very best wishes for a healthy and
> prosperous 2008.

I'm not so certain about a prosperous 2008, although the thought was kind,
however let me also wish you an enjoyable Christmas and a 2008 that brings
you everything you want for yourself.

Cheers,
--
Mike

Dapper
Fri Dec 21 19:29:59 PST 2007

Thanks Mike

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:OYB10IDRIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Dapper Dan <dapperdan@home.com> wrote:
>
>> You're a gentlemen and a scholar, Mike. Thanks for the additional
>> clarification.
>>
>> Translating "technical" into english is a skill that not too many
>> possess. I'll be sorry to see this NG disappear simply because of the
>> wealth of information that is made available to technically
>> challenged old farts like me.
>>
>> Have a wonderful Christmas and very best wishes for a healthy and
>> prosperous 2008.
>
> I'm not so certain about a prosperous 2008, although the thought was kind,
> however let me also wish you an enjoyable Christmas and a 2008 that brings
> you everything you want for yourself.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Mike
>
>