Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
O/T Wireless Networking
Maybe this is obvious and should be to me....
I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station? Does this make sense? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
Oops. Model number is MR814 V2 --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2)
Oops. Model number is MR814 V2 --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. The slower speed is due to a higher error rate. If you had an error rate display, you would see the errors increasing and therefore the number of retransmissions increasing. So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station? No. BUT, if you get B cards with better receivers and more power, and/or external antennae, the speed will be faster at a distance because the error rates will drop. Think of your problem as being too many retransmissions not as being too slow throughput. If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. If you're using the higher band, I dunno. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. The slower speed is due to a higher error rate. If you had an error rate display, you would see the errors increasing and therefore the number of retransmissions increasing. So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station? No. BUT, if you get B cards with better receivers and more power, and/or external antennae, the speed will be faster at a distance because the error rates will drop. Think of your problem as being too many retransmissions not as being too slow throughput. If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. If you're using the higher band, I dunno. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will
increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? If the B card goes down from 11 to 5 to whatever at a distance, would the G be faster that the same distance? Do I just not get it? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will
increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? If the B card goes down from 11 to 5 to whatever at a distance, would the G be faster that the same distance? Do I just not get it? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Given the G router is sending "faster" data
through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? The same distance from the B router. Oops. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Given the G router is sending "faster" data
through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? The same distance from the B router. Oops. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"EggHd" wrote in message ... Given the G router is sending "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? The same distance from the B router. Oops. I think you're thinking 'faster' when 'wider' is more accurate. Think of it as a pipe (g router) that goes to a resizer then into a smaller pipe (b cards). The smaller pipe will still control the flow. You can only recieve data as fast as your pc cards will take it in. Is there a reason you don't want to switch to 802.11g cards as well? They are getting pretty cheap, around $40 retail. jb |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"EggHd" wrote in message ... Given the G router is sending "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? The same distance from the B router. Oops. I think you're thinking 'faster' when 'wider' is more accurate. Think of it as a pipe (g router) that goes to a resizer then into a smaller pipe (b cards). The smaller pipe will still control the flow. You can only recieve data as fast as your pc cards will take it in. Is there a reason you don't want to switch to 802.11g cards as well? They are getting pretty cheap, around $40 retail. jb |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
Maybe this is obvious and should be to me.... I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. I don't know exactly how 802.11 stuff works, but either it's have to retransmit (as someone else has stated) or it's falling back to a mode with simpler, more robust modulation and a lower bit rate. Either way, the problem is that the radio signal isn't strong enough when it gets to where it needs to be. Anyway, the MR814v2 that you have has a built-in antenna with a gain of about 2 dBi. You can get omni antennas with a gain of at least 12 dBi and probalby more. I'm not sure if the MR814v2 supports external antennas or not, but it seems like something to investigate. Another approach is to just update everything to 54 megabit stuff. Then, even if you drop down to (say) 1/4 speed, you're going at 1/4 of 54 megabit, which is considerably faster than 1/4 of the 11 megabit that 802.11b is capable of. Of course, it'll do no good to update just the access point, since it will have to "speak 802.11b" to the Macs. Still another approach is to try to optimize the equipment you already have. Do you have a 2.4 GHz cordless phone at home? If so, then that phone is operating at the same frequency, and the phone and the network are competing against each other. You could try moving them further apart (put the phone's base station in the other end of the house) or something similar. You might also experiment with placement of the Netgear base station. Apparently omni antennas are omni in a plane, and once you leave that plane, it drops off quickly. So, make sure your antenna is oriented such that the plane covers the house. You might also want to move it to a more central location or move it away from metal things or thick walls that will mess with the signal. - Logan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In this place, EggHd was recorded saying ...
Maybe this is obvious and should be to me.... I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station? Does this make sense? Only if you chnage the cards in the laptops to 'G' types at the same time. Otherwise, the bandwidth is still constrained by the 'B' cards (though the problem is caused by transmission error rather than outright bandwidth constraints). -- George Newcastle, England Problems worthy of attack Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Logan Shaw wrote:
EggHd wrote: Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. I don't know exactly how 802.11 stuff works, but either it's have to retransmit (as someone else has stated) or it's falling back to a mode with simpler, more robust modulation and a lower bit rate. I just did a little google-based research, so I wanted to elaborate a bit on this. With 802.11b, the maximum date rate is 11 megabits. But, there are four different data rates available to be used under varying conditions: 1 megabit (DBPSK modulation), 2 megabit (DQPSK modulation), 5.5 megabit (CCK modulation), and 11 megabit (also CCK modulation). So, depending on conditions, your "11 megabit" network might be transmitting at 1, 2, 5.5, or 11 megabits. The further away you get, the more likely it is to be transmitting at one of the lower speeds. With 802.11g, a whole different set of data rates exists. (And it apparently uses different types of modulation too, possibly OFDM for everything.) The data rates seem to be 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 54 megabits. So your "54 megabit" network might be transmitting at any of those speeds. Also, note that one device can slow another down. Imagine you have two laptops and one access point. One laptop is just across the room from the access point and so is operating at the full 11 megabits. The other laptop is out on the fringe (back porch or something) and so has had to drop down all the way to 1 megabit rate to keep connected. Problem is, when the fringe laptop transfers a chunk of data, it takes it 10 times as long to do so as the nearby laptop. And everything is sharing one channel, and that channel is tied up for 10 times as long, basically. One fringe laptop can hog the channel for so much time it's like having 10 laptops near the access point. Obviously, the best solution (assuming you have a good radio environment and have eliminated interference like cordless phones) seems to be to replace everything with 802.11g. Even if 802.11g drops down to its lowest possible speed, you're still at 6 megabit, and the fastest possible speed for 802.11a is not even twice that fast, so that's a big difference between the two types. - Logan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"EggHd" wrote in message
Maybe this is obvious and should be to me.... I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. That's life in the big city. Speed decreases with decreasing signal strength, beyond a certain point. However, if you can't get respectible distances, you may have a problem. So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station? No, you need matching G cards to go with the G base station if you want the speed boost, unless perchance the G base station just happens to put out a stronger signal. I have about a half-dozen customer installs of wireless mac/PC systems, not including the one in my house that basically serves my daughter's Powerbook. Every one of them works, but my happiness with them varies. For example, not all cards and not all base stations of a kind are equal. I've found that for example, Belkin cards, USB wireless, and base stations seem to be way down on range compared to the competition. The equipment changes so fast that at times I've had trouble getting matching hardware without a lot of hassle, because some of it went out of production. In general, I find that Netgear stuff is pretty credible, readily availble and competitively priced. The simplist, cheapest solution to longer range can often be to just toss in another base station some distance from the first. If you have a wireless LAN with two base stations, the PCs will pick the stronger one automagically. Security is easiest if all base stations have the same access control codes. Set their channels to channels no closer than alternate channels because adjacent channels overlap. At current pricing (as low as $20 with rebates) this can be a very economically attractive option. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? No, because the G router will be talking in B mode all the time, because there is nothing to listen to the faster data if it talked in G mode. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
EggHd wrote: If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. OK. But let me ask you this... Given the G router is sending "faster" data through the air waves wouldn't there be "faster" data hitting the B card at the same distance than the B card? No, because the G router will be talking in B mode all the time, because there is nothing to listen to the faster data if it talked in G mode. Agreed. The other consideration is that if the problem is range, then there's no guarantee that the G card has longer range than the B card. AFAIK G is just data compression, and data compression doesn't all by itself extend range. In fact, some data compression schemes cause more degradation with weak signals, due to the extra complexity and overhead. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is there a reason you don't want to switch to 802.11g cards as well? They
are getting pretty cheap, around $40 retail. Thanks to everyone for all the great information. All I can find that will work with Mac OS9 and in the card bus slot are B cards. And then only the Orinoco and one other brand I can't recall. From what I have read the Orinoco is the same as the original airport B card. The Mac Powerbook G3 Lombards that we have (and still "love") are pre airport ready and the card has to be used. I can say that when I figured out that the airport software would work with the card, the speed and connection improved dramatically. Go figure. The Wavlan and orinoco drivers (which are hard to find anyway) were very buggy. The USB G cards only work with OSX. The system I have here works well enough all over the house. It's just as has been said the G routers are so cheap now I was wondering if that would be worth the upgrade, but it appears it would be a waste of time. The only thing I need to figure out is (which seems stupid) is if I have my powerbook wireless I can't network to my Imac that is plugged into the router via ethernet. If I plug the ethernet cable into the powerbook and then turn appletalk to ethernet (and still be online wireless) I can network. Why would the same router be different plugged in vs wireless? Seems goofy to me. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
When Micro Center had an SMC wireless 802.11b card
on sale for $5.95 after rebates, I got one just to try. I wish these worked for Mac. I had to buy a $40 card! I bumped (at a cost of around 10 bucks a month!) my cable modem for 300K to 3 meg and that really helped the distance fall off. At 300K when at the furthest point from the router was super slow. With the new connection speed the furthest place works fine unless I need to download artwork or a big file. That's what got me thinking about an G router in terme of speed at a distance. I believe I understand this much better now. I agree placement of the router is ket. I spent a bit of time moving it around until i found the best spot. Higher was better but not alwasy praticle. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Obviously it was a crappy giveaway, and I've
had success using the SMC card in the PC at "hot spots" and hotels at reasonable speeds. There are a couple of web sites that show free wifi hot spots. There are a lot out there. Even some Burger Kings! You can sit in the parking lot. I was able to get my Sprint cell phone, a cable from radio shack, a driver I found on one web site and a modem script on another and trial and error, to be able to hook onto sprint's 3g web connection as part of the unlimited vision plan on my service. It only hooks at 14.4 but it's way cool to be able to hook up thru my cell. Super funny. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
EggHd wrote: I am using Orinoco (used to be Wavelan or Lucent) wireless "B" cards in both my and my Wife's Mac Lombard Powerbooks with OS9.2.2 and driving the card with Airport 2.04 software. Working very well. The "base station" is a Netgear 802.11b wireless router (version 2) Everything works very well and solid. However, the farther the computers are from the base station, the slower the speed. The slower speed is due to a higher error rate. If you had an error rate display, you would see the errors increasing and therefore the number of retransmissions increasing. So here is my question/thought. If I switch to a G router/basestation - sending data to B cards, will the speed be faster at a distance at the card compared to a B base station? No. BUT, if you get B cards with better receivers and more power, and/or external antennae, the speed will be faster at a distance because the error rates will drop. Think of your problem as being too many retransmissions not as being too slow throughput. If you get G cards and a G basestation, the overall system speed will increase but the distance at which it begins to slow will be more or less the same if you are still using the 2.4 GC band. If you're using the higher band, I dunno. --scott The higher band will trade range for bitrate. -- Les Cargill |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On 14 Aug 2004 16:41:30 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:
When Micro Center had an SMC wireless 802.11b card on sale for $5.95 after rebates, I got one just to try. I wish these worked for Mac. I had to buy a $40 card! Par for the course. Put a bit of translucent blue plastic around it, think of a number, multiply the price... :-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I wish these worked for Mac. I had to buy a $40 card!
Par for the course. Put a bit of translucent blue plastic around it, think of a number, multiply the price... :-) Wouldn't it seem that a B driver should work with any B card? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1092509926k@trad Somebody told me that people are able to chat from seat to seat on an airplane through these things, but I don't see how, without a hub and setting up everyone on the same network. WiFi has two modes of operation. One is called "infrastructure" which requires a wireless acess point. The other mode is called "Ad hoc" and allows computers with wireless networking cards to talk to each other. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
That's surprising, unless 300K was a bottleneck. Maybe it can make
more mistakes faster and not affect the throughput if it can get whatever it gets in faster. OK this goes back to my original post. At the furthest place from the router let's say it drops it half speed. At 300k that's 150 or so. I tested it on one of the speed test sites. When I bumped to 3 meg at the same place it was like 1200. That's how I got into thinking of the G router thing. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The only thing I need to figure out is (which seems stupid) is if I have my powerbook wireless I can't network to my Imac that is plugged into the router via ethernet. If I plug the ethernet cable into the powerbook and then turn appletalk to ethernet (and still be online wireless) I can network. Why would the same router be different plugged in vs wireless? Seems goofy to me. Dear Egg, weird indeed. I have a G5 and Ti Book running AIrports and an Airport basestation. I also have an ethernet hub connected to the Airport basestation. I can see the drives on the G4 tower, G5 tower and G4 laptop from each other and print from all three to my printer which is also connected to the ethernet hub. Again, I'm not using a router, it's a hub. I wonder if that makes the difference? Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Again, I'm not using a router, it's a hub. I wonder if that makes the
difference? My Netgear is wireless with 4 ethernet ports. The Imac isn't wireless so it's the only thing plugged in the back unless I need to network to it. At that point the powerbook has to be hard wired. I need to spend more time figuring this out. It should work.... It is operator error I'm sure. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ty Ford wrote: The only thing I need to figure out is (which seems stupid) is if I have my powerbook wireless I can't network to my Imac that is plugged into the router via ethernet. If I plug the ethernet cable into the powerbook and then turn appletalk to ethernet (and still be online wireless) I can network. Why would the same router be different plugged in vs wireless? Seems goofy to me. weird indeed. I have a G5 and Ti Book running AIrports and an Airport basestation. I also have an ethernet hub connected to the Airport basestation. I can see the drives on the G4 tower, G5 tower and G4 laptop from each other and print from all three to my printer which is also connected to the ethernet hub. Again, I'm not using a router, it's a hub. I wonder if that makes the difference? What does "can't network" mean? Can you ping one machine from the other? Or is it that Appletalk doesn't work between them? The home routers are actually a box with a hub in them and a router... one jack goes through the router to the hub, and the other jacks all are on the "inside network" together. I assume that you are only using the inside network jacks and that the WAN jack is connected to the outside world. And, I assume that your wireless hub is connected to the inside network, and not to the outside world, so there is no need for packets between the machine to go through the router section of the router/hub box. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
What does "can't network" mean? Can you ping one machine from the other?
Or is it that Appletalk doesn't work between them? It's weird. No matter what I do with my laptop wireless and the imac wired into the same wireless router with the 4 ethernet ports it will not see the imac unless i plug an ethernet cable into the laptop --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
What does "can't network" mean? Can you ping one machine from the other? Or is it that Appletalk doesn't work between them? It's weird. No matter what I do with my laptop wireless and the imac wired into the same wireless router with the 4 ethernet ports it will not see the imac unless i plug an ethernet cable into the laptop What does "Does not see" mean? You can't mount directories? You can't print? You can't see a web site hosted on the other machine? You can't ping or traceroute from one to the other? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What does "Does not see" mean? You can't mount directories? You can't
print? You can't see a web site hosted on the other machine? You can't ping or traceroute from one to the other? When I am using ethernet cables on the imac and powerbook the imac shows up on the chooser via Appleshare. If I use the powerbook wireless no mater what I do I can't see the imac on appleshare. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
What does "Does not see" mean? You can't mount directories? You can't print? You can't see a web site hosted on the other machine? You can't ping or traceroute from one to the other? When I am using ethernet cables on the imac and powerbook the imac shows up on the chooser via Appleshare. If I use the powerbook wireless no mater what I do I can't see the imac on appleshare. And you are using standard appletalk. Now, if you have the address of the imac, can you ping it from the powerbook? Or vice versa? This lets you know if IP gets from one to the other. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
And you are using standard appletalk. Now, if you have the address of the
imac, can you ping it from the powerbook? Or vice versa? This lets you know if IP gets from one to the other. Yes I am using standard appletalk. I have appletalk on thre powerbook switched to airport and it will not see the imac even if I add the Imac's address. Again add ethernet cable, switch appletalk to ethernet and bam imac shows up. It's the same wrieless router that's what's odd (to me) --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
EggHd wrote:
And you are using standard appletalk. Now, if you have the address of the imac, can you ping it from the powerbook? Or vice versa? This lets you know if IP gets from one to the other. Yes I am using standard appletalk. I have appletalk on thre powerbook switched to airport and it will not see the imac even if I add the Imac's address. Right. You now need to find out if you can get IP between the two machines. If you can get IP between them and not appletalk, something is filtering traffic between them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Right. You now need to find out if you can get IP between the two machines.
If you can get IP between them and not appletalk, something is filtering traffic between them. No doubt I don't have something set up right regarding wireless. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
EggHd wrote: Right. You now need to find out if you can get IP between the two machines. If you can get IP between them and not appletalk, something is filtering traffic between them. No doubt I don't have something set up right regarding wireless. Maybe. And MAYBE it's that your wireless base station is connected to the remote network side of the router and not to the inside network. That is one of the things that checking for IP connectivity will tell you. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sound-proof headphone recommendations? Also, wireless mics. Lots of questions! | General | |||
Sound-proof headphone recommendations? Also, wireless mics. Lots of questions! | Audio Opinions | |||
Sound-proof headphone recommendations? Also, wireless mics. Lots of questions! | Pro Audio | |||
Wireless ULXS Series Beta 87A | Pro Audio | |||
Possible to convert to wireless speakers? | Tech |