Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Wireless G isn't capable of more than 25mbps at any distance. The technology simply does not allow it. You won't get 30 or 45 at any distance.
|
This isn't true, I've hit 30+ on a wireless G system, myself (it was good equipment and I was right next to the modem). And by Wireless-G I mean G, not G+ or any of those other ones rated above 54Mbps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Wrong. Wireless-N is far better in terms of advertised speeds vs real speeds. G will achieve 25 out of 54 at best. N will achieve 60 out of 72. 65/72 is the default, standard, basic rate of N. Speeds above 72/144 have to be disabled by default on most wifi certified devices.
|
I said
advertised speeds, I'm talking about what's written on the front of the box, not what Windows is telling you that you're idling at. You see plenty of stuff advertising as "Wireless-N, up to 300Mbit!" but it'll never hit that. It might say it's connected at that and report it to windows as 300mbit, but it won't get that kind of throughput.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
No.
|
Umm...yes? I mean "No" isn't exactly much of an argument. But the point is that most people, I'm talking about 90% of Virgin's 4million BBI customers, will buy cheap stuff because it's cheap. Why pay £700 for a laptop when PC world has one on sale for £250? Bargain! And that's where the cheapnesss creeps in - wireless is nearly always one of the first things to get cut down because it'll still be rated as Wireless-N on the box no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Completely wrong. Most laptops have 2x2, and 2x2 is 300mbit. 3x3 is 450, not 300. Wireless-N doesn't have any single speed rating (up to 600 is easily possible), just because 300 is the most common rating so far doesn't mean wireless-N is only 300.
|
Read what I said above, the problem is what's written on the box doesn't necessarily meet what the equipment can actually handle - you only have to look at the Superhub itself to see that.