Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
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.
|
No you didn't, it's impossible. Period.
Quote:
|
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.
|
No, but if it's connected at 300 you can get up to 220. If wireless G was scaled to 300 the protocol still wouldn't allow more than ~120
Quote:
|
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.
|
Even £150 Netbooks have 2x2.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If it's written on the box, the equipment can handle it. Whether it can handle it well and reliably is another matter. What's your point? N is slower than G? Rubbish.