Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
No you didn't, it's impossible. Period.
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
|
You keep missing the point I'm making. The difference between advertised (on the box) speeds and actual speeds. Wireless-G is so old and so mature that even the cheapest of Wireless-G equipment is comparable to the mid end stuff. As long as you don't seriously cheapen out, your wireless-G bog-standard dongle will probably be about as good as a Netgear dongle that's twice the price (as an example). Wireless-N, being relatively new doesn't have this effect and so you get a huge variance in quality. Compare a no-name Wireless-N dongle with say a TP-Link dongle, then compare that to say the Intel Advanced Wireless-N you find in some decent laptops and the difference is like night and day between each (with the intel one completely stomping over the pair of them). The Cheap Wireless-N stuff is only marginally better than Wireless-G, but the good Wireless-N stuff is terrific.
However, most people only own cheap equipment, either because they don't care or just seen "wireless-N" and thought it was as good as any other. I mean really, when was the last time you even seen a laptop advertise which flavour of Wireless-N equipment it used?
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Even £150 Netbooks have 2x2.
|
Ok, so I'll stand corrected on the antennae arrangement if it keeps you happy, but the point is still there - most consumers have crap equipment with limited range and throughput. Even some 3x3 devices suck compared to decent 2x2 stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
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.
|
Whether it can handle it well and reliably is exactly what I'm talking about, but as I said you keep missing the point. I don't know where you get that I said N was worse/slower than G, please quote me on that one. All I said was that the difference in advertised speeds versus actual speeds was greater, due to the above point.