Wireless A Spec is 5.0GHz range with 54mbps transfer rate! And that is if the signal is perfect!
Wireless G Spec is 2.4 GHz range with 54mbps transfer rate! --- // ---
Wirles B is 2.4GHz range with 11mbps maximum transfer rate!
All transfer rates are, considered on LAN, and now WAN connections, since there is hardly any connectioun outhere besides T3 or Fiber that will come close to even touching 4mbps hardly 54 or even 11.
To conclude this, if you need more technical data, I will pull it out from my information booklet. Since I install networks, and these are the specs we go by, it dosent matter which company makes the router, or supports wirless these are actuall specs for WiFi.
Anyone looking to buy Wirless equipment, i would recomend Lynksis or D-Link and nothing less than that.
On those two brands, which is better for range of connection. I know it depends on the walls and materal in them, but overall what gets you further stronger range? is it based on 2.4ghz or 5ghz. what do I look for?
I'm A Genetic Freak!!!
256mb Mushkin pc150
128mb Micron pc133
Western Dig 100gig
Western Dig 250gig
Well, since I am not too much of a computer geek, and wouldn't mind acting like one. I have a laptop, and would like to know if there is such thing as like a wireless receiver, where you have that device and you can receive signals in places where you wouldn't be able to have without one (from my laptop, and not a device put into the router) ... currently i have that centrino technology, and works kinda good. And I would like to know what is the best "out there", for that thing I am trying to talk about. I've seen antenna's and stuff, but I don't know specifications and all the good things you guys know... HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!
Well, actually I just connect to my school's router, and I don't even know what's the router. The thing is that, in one of my classes I receive 1/5 bars, so I was thinking if I had something to make the connection better, I might not get disconnected often on... But I am still interested in wireless reception...
Originally posted by WeirdMind Well, actually I just connect to my school's router, and I don't even know what's the router. The thing is that, in one of my classes I receive 1/5 bars, so I was thinking if I had something to make the connection better, I might not get disconnected often on... But I am still interested in wireless reception...
I believe it has more to do with their network than your computer.
But you can try the Linksys wireless PCMCIA network adapter and see if you get better signal.
Well, I was thinking since someone made the comment about cellphones & signal strength. I thought that putting my cellphone next to the wireless receiver will boost a lil' the signal strength, sometimes I think it does but not too sure (since it plays with radiation and stuff, maybe ). I also thought of another thing which I never tried though, since there is that lil' sticker for cellphone to boost the signal strength, I thought I could probably put that next to my wireless receiption... I am just a noob. So... just spit it out if I just talk none sence...
The only things you can rely on when using a Pre-Shared-Key (PSK) form of security are:
1.) The length and complexity of the pre-shared key. At least 8 characters with capital letters, numbers and characters (like %*$).
2.) The strength of the encryption algorithm that carries that key. AES encryption is a government approved algorithm. WPA2 security uses AES encryption by default but can fall back on TKIP. WPA2 also makes RADIUS server (mentioned below) integration on the Windows platform better with support for the new Cisco/Microsoft developed EAP mechanisms for authentication. Previously, you could only use a RADIUS server for wirelees key rotation for WEP encryption on Windows PCs. The majority of the hardware that supports WPA-PSK supports only TKIP encryption which is derived from WEP. Many security experts claim that TKIP encryption will be cracked sooner rather than later. AES encryption has a more certain future.
Security features that do not work because they are either easily subverted or rely on "security through obscurity (STO)":
1.) Disabling the SSID. This is an STO method and can be found by more enterprising wireless hackers. Not only does enabling this feature prevent you from using Windows built-in Wireless Zero service (which is very nice now that it supports WPA2), but it will not prevent you from getting hacked. What will prevent you from getting hacked I already mentioned above.
2.) MAC Address filtering. MAC addresses can be easily faked. Most common wireless sniffers will pick up MAC addresses. From there the hacker can use another free utlity to crack the WEP key and or just spoof the MAC address to get access to the unsecured network.
If you want comfort in your wireless security, you should be using a RADIUS server to change keys on a schedule. If you have a Windows 2003 server, the service is known as the Internet Authentication Server. McAfee will be coming out with a similar technology for home users very shortly. I would assume it's a self-contained RADIUS server made easy to configure and interface with your wireless router/access point.
Last edited by wrathchild_67; August 17th, 2005 at 02:37 PM.
Granted, hiding the SSID doesn't protect you completely. It's like keeping valuable items in your car out of plain sight. Sure, someone can still break in and steal everything, but they are more likely to move to another target where everything is in plain sight.
The long-awaited next-generation Wi-Fi standard has been delayed again and won't likely be ratified until sometime in 2008.
The new standard that will allow notebook users to connect to wireless access points at much faster speeds than is currently available was expected to be finalized later this year.
In January, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) approved a draft version of the standard called 802.11n, after much controversy and infighting among chipmakers. A second draft was due for the standard by late fall of this year, but now a new draft won't likely be ready until January 2007. This could push back the final ratification of the standard until 2008...
Full story available at the following link,