Discussion
I use a wireless router at home and everything works fine, however, as I can only have a 512K connection I am keen to maximise everything possible. My router is a couple of years old and only running at 54mbps
One of my clients has a 512K wired connection and this always seems far quicker than mine when surfing etc.
Would upgrading to an N series Wifi system make a significant difference or am I fooling myself? The cost will be about £200 so I would want to see a decent improvement.
One of my clients has a 512K wired connection and this always seems far quicker than mine when surfing etc.
Would upgrading to an N series Wifi system make a significant difference or am I fooling myself? The cost will be about £200 so I would want to see a decent improvement.
ThePassenger said:
Smartie said:
i realise i won't get faster internet access, just wondering if surfing itself will be quicker? Am i waiting for the ADSL or the wireless when a page is loading?
Your waiting either for the ADSL or the remote server.
Cool, thank you.
Sounds like it would be a waste of money upgrading really then.
Can your PC tell you anything about the quality of your wireless connection (e.g. error rates, signal strength, etc)? Does it tell you what speed it is actually running at (54mbs is the maximum theoretical speed on 802.11g, but the actual speed is varied depending on the quality of the connection)?
If there's nothing obviously wrong with the wireless connection, but your PC and wireless router have ethernet, I'd still go ahead see how they performed when wired together. If that allows you to browse more quickly, then there must be something wrong with your wireless setup.
If there's nothing obviously wrong with the wireless connection, but your PC and wireless router have ethernet, I'd still go ahead see how they performed when wired together. If that allows you to browse more quickly, then there must be something wrong with your wireless setup.
Edited by ATG on Thursday 12th April 12:59
Searching for info on another topic, I found some info on real-world n-spec (actually pre-n, tests in December). They were getting only 36Mbps transfer, even with a very good connection. I haven't found comparable figures for g-spec, but on the general assumption that n-spec is twice as fast, that would place g-spec at around 18Mbps for a good connection. By contrast, an ethernet link, especially on a quiet network, should give much closer to its theoretical 10/100/1,000Mbps transfer.
Now in context, a g-spec connection is still 30-40 times faster than your 512k internet connection. A 250kB web page should take 4 seconds of straight transfer time along the 512k line, and 0.1s on the 18Mbps wireless connection (these are theoretical times). So the wireless element should already be relatively negligible, and an upgrade to n-spec should not be noticeable. An upgrade would not be worth it.
As ATG says, you should seek to verify your wireless speed. Take a look at your router's diagnostics page to see whether it provides tests and measures. Try connecting via an ethernet connection, if you can, and see if that helps.
I would also take a look at your 512k line. Again, call up the diagnostics on your router. Also, try the speed test at ADSL Guide (now www.thinkbroadband.com ). Try it a few times for an aggregate result. There might be problems with your line, and BT may be able to do something about it. It is always possible that a 512k line, with a 50:1 contention rate, could drop a lot of speed if a lot of people are on line.
Finally, you could try an alternative browser. I'm not up to speed on the relative performance of current offerings, but the different rendering engines certainly used to make quite a difference, especially if your PC is old and steam-driven.
Now in context, a g-spec connection is still 30-40 times faster than your 512k internet connection. A 250kB web page should take 4 seconds of straight transfer time along the 512k line, and 0.1s on the 18Mbps wireless connection (these are theoretical times). So the wireless element should already be relatively negligible, and an upgrade to n-spec should not be noticeable. An upgrade would not be worth it.
As ATG says, you should seek to verify your wireless speed. Take a look at your router's diagnostics page to see whether it provides tests and measures. Try connecting via an ethernet connection, if you can, and see if that helps.
I would also take a look at your 512k line. Again, call up the diagnostics on your router. Also, try the speed test at ADSL Guide (now www.thinkbroadband.com ). Try it a few times for an aggregate result. There might be problems with your line, and BT may be able to do something about it. It is always possible that a 512k line, with a 50:1 contention rate, could drop a lot of speed if a lot of people are on line.
Finally, you could try an alternative browser. I'm not up to speed on the relative performance of current offerings, but the different rendering engines certainly used to make quite a difference, especially if your PC is old and steam-driven.
HiRich said:
Searching for info on another topic, I found some info on real-world n-spec (actually pre-n, tests in December). They were getting only 36Mbps transfer, even with a very good connection. I haven't found comparable figures for g-spec, but on the general assumption that n-spec is twice as fast, that would place g-spec at around 18Mbps for a good connection. By contrast, an ethernet link, especially on a quiet network, should give much closer to its theoretical 10/100/1,000Mbps transfer.
Now in context, a g-spec connection is still 30-40 times faster than your 512k internet connection. A 250kB web page should take 4 seconds of straight transfer time along the 512k line, and 0.1s on the 18Mbps wireless connection (these are theoretical times). So the wireless element should already be relatively negligible, and an upgrade to n-spec should not be noticeable. An upgrade would not be worth it.
As ATG says, you should seek to verify your wireless speed. Take a look at your router's diagnostics page to see whether it provides tests and measures. Try connecting via an ethernet connection, if you can, and see if that helps.
I would also take a look at your 512k line. Again, call up the diagnostics on your router. Also, try the speed test at ADSL Guide (now www.thinkbroadband.com ). Try it a few times for an aggregate result. There might be problems with your line, and BT may be able to do something about it. It is always possible that a 512k line, with a 50:1 contention rate, could drop a lot of speed if a lot of people are on line.
Finally, you could try an alternative browser. I'm not up to speed on the relative performance of current offerings, but the different rendering engines certainly used to make quite a difference, especially if your PC is old and steam-driven.
Now in context, a g-spec connection is still 30-40 times faster than your 512k internet connection. A 250kB web page should take 4 seconds of straight transfer time along the 512k line, and 0.1s on the 18Mbps wireless connection (these are theoretical times). So the wireless element should already be relatively negligible, and an upgrade to n-spec should not be noticeable. An upgrade would not be worth it.
As ATG says, you should seek to verify your wireless speed. Take a look at your router's diagnostics page to see whether it provides tests and measures. Try connecting via an ethernet connection, if you can, and see if that helps.
I would also take a look at your 512k line. Again, call up the diagnostics on your router. Also, try the speed test at ADSL Guide (now www.thinkbroadband.com ). Try it a few times for an aggregate result. There might be problems with your line, and BT may be able to do something about it. It is always possible that a 512k line, with a 50:1 contention rate, could drop a lot of speed if a lot of people are on line.
Finally, you could try an alternative browser. I'm not up to speed on the relative performance of current offerings, but the different rendering engines certainly used to make quite a difference, especially if your PC is old and steam-driven.
Lots of useful info there - thanks.
Pc is newish and pretty good spec (3.0ghz, 2.0MB ram etc). When running speedtest.net i get 440K ish so not awful i suppose.
I don't have a problem a such, just trying to speed things up wherever I can, without moving house really!
Thanks for all the help.
Download Netstumber from www.netstumbler.com and make sure that a neighbour isn't running a wireless lan on the same channel as yours. I had problems with my wlan slowing down and this was the cause. If they are on the same channel then change yours. Channels 1, 6, 11 are the best for not crosstalking.
Edited by wolves_wanderer on Thursday 12th April 15:11
54g is plenty fast enough for an normal internet browsing or even downloading as there are usually other bottle necks on the net that will slow you down first. The only problem with 54g is for transfering large files between machines on a netork, especially if the reception is a bit iffy.
if you are getting 440Kbps then its likely that the hold up is with your ISP or elsewhere in the network.
the lowest connection that standard 802.11g can keep (as per the spec) is 1Mbps - which equates to approx 500Kbps of real throughput (802.11 is a 50% effecient protocol, compared to wired ethernet at 90-95%)
so, even if you had the worse wireless connection possible, it still wouldt be restricting you down to 440Kbps.
440Kbps of real throughput from a 512Kbps (synch speed) ASDL line actually isnt that bad to be honest...at best you would see 480ish in the real world
the lowest connection that standard 802.11g can keep (as per the spec) is 1Mbps - which equates to approx 500Kbps of real throughput (802.11 is a 50% effecient protocol, compared to wired ethernet at 90-95%)
so, even if you had the worse wireless connection possible, it still wouldt be restricting you down to 440Kbps.
440Kbps of real throughput from a 512Kbps (synch speed) ASDL line actually isnt that bad to be honest...at best you would see 480ish in the real world
Smartie said:
I don't have a problem a such, just trying to speed things up wherever I can, without moving house really!
Thanks for all the help.
Thanks for all the help.
To be honest if you're that far from the exchange that all you can get is 512Kbp/s then you have two options to my mind:
1. Multiple ADSL links (this will require multiple phonelines) and some form of bonding router. This will be expensive...
2. VirginMedia. If they operate in your area then you could drop the ADSL and get Cable broadband from them. Yes they do suck like a spacial anomoly but for just 'net and nowt else they'll be on par with BT
Obviously if Virgin don't operate in your area and you don't want to go to the humungus expense of multiple ADSL lines then you're pretty much stuffed.
Running around with net stumbler is a good idea; you might find someone nearer to the exchange who's 'just' in range of you and be able to negotiate splitting the bill for a cantenna shot at them.
I think the other posters have it - most likely another AP close to you on the same channel. I have just upgraded to g from b as the wireless couldnt keep up with my 8MB DSL connection. But with g all is well again. Should be moving to 24MB ADSL2+ soon , but as I get full signal on my g band all through the house I shoudnt have a problem.
If you have a router with ethernet ports on the quickest test would be to connect the laptop to the router with a wire and check response speed. Then go back to wireless and test again. That'll tell you if its the wirless or not.
If you have a router with ethernet ports on the quickest test would be to connect the laptop to the router with a wire and check response speed. Then go back to wireless and test again. That'll tell you if its the wirless or not.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff