Wi-Fi Router choice

[Steve Hayes]

I'm running Windows 7 Home Premium on my desktop computer and have had
a household wi-fi router setup for some time. A few weeks ago our
power line took a lightning strike and the surge from this knocked my
wi-fi system out. I have tried two replacements but can not get the
connectivity I had with the old Netgear setup. My wife's kitchen
computer, running Windows XP, will not hold a connection more than a
few minutes. This computer is downstairs and around the corner of our
L shaped house.

What is the best wi-fi router choice in terms of signal strength and
stability?

I had a similar problem when I bought a Toshiba Satellite laptop, which could
not connect to the wirless router unless it was in the same room. My wife's
computer (an older Toshiba) had no problems. I also had problems conencting
with WiFi while travelling. When i had to replace the router because of
lightining strikes I got one that was supposed to have a greater range (300
instead of 150), but it did not help, and eventually I bought an antenna
booster for the laptop called a Bear Extender, which solved the problem.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I'm running Windows 7 Home Premium on my desktop computer and have had
a household wi-fi router setup for some time. A few weeks ago our
power line took a lightning strike and the surge from this knocked my
wi-fi system out. I have tried two replacements but can not get the
connectivity I had with the old Netgear setup. My wife's kitchen
computer, running Windows XP, will not hold a connection more than a
few minutes. This computer is downstairs and around the corner of our
L shaped house.

What is the best wi-fi router choice in terms of signal strength and
stability?

D-Link | DLNA Devices | dir-645 DLNA router| D-Link CA
http://www.dlink.com/ca/en/home-solutions/connect/routers/dir-645-wireless-n-home-router-1000

The Dlink DIR-645 is supposedly designed for penetrating through
difficult homes. It's supposed to have 6 directional antennas as opposed
to a few broadcast antennas. I've used it on a family friend's home, who
was having sporadic wireless drop-offs, and it seems to do the trick in
his house at least.

Yousuf Khan

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Stan Brown

Before trying yet another one, you might want to look at How-To Geek
for methods to boost signal strength.

https://www.google.com/search?q=router+signal+site:howtogeek.com

I was assuming that pointed to an article about, basically, antennas
(aerials), and going to point out that aerials boost strength in some
directions but only at the expense of reducing it in others. But I
thought I'd better look at the article first, in case it genuinely
covered real boosting (probably not legal in most jurisdictions).

But: I _really_ dislike posts of apparent links that really only link to
a google search: they're on a par with people who say "use google".
(Yes, I could have spotted from the URL that it was such.)

 

[Daniel47]

In message <[email protected]>, Stan Brown

I was assuming that pointed to an article about, basically, antennas
(aerials), and going to point out that aerials boost strength in some
directions but only at the expense of reducing it in others. But I
thought I'd better look at the article first, in case it genuinely
covered real boosting (probably not legal in most jurisdictions).

But: I _really_ dislike posts of apparent links that really only link to
a google search: they're on a par with people who say "use google".
(Yes, I could have spotted from the URL that it was such.)

and from the google link given, you could have probably gone to the real
site, howtogeek.com, to search for the given words "router+signal,
producing 265 results in 0.17 secs!!

Daniel

 

[Char Jackson]

But: I _really_ dislike posts of apparent links that really only link to
a google search: they're on a par with people who say "use google".
(Yes, I could have spotted from the URL that it was such.)

Sometimes a link to a Google search is perfectly appropriate. It's not
unusual for someone with a problem or question to be looking in the
wrong place for a solution, simply because they don't know the proper
terminology (search terms or keywords).

Note that a link to a Google search is not at all the same as saying
'use Google'. The former is usually helpful, the latter less so.

 

[Paul]

and from the google link given, you could have probably gone to the real
site, howtogeek.com, to search for the given words "router+signal,
producing 265 results in 0.17 secs!!

Daniel

Did you guys look at the structure of the search he provided ?

router signal site:howtogeek.com

When you do that in Google, that's a "site search" done against
a single domain. That narrows the search down, so it's not a general
search. It means Stan thinks there is something of value on "howtogeek.com".

Using a site search from outside a site, can return a different
result than a search done using the search engine located on
the site itself. External searches are beneficial, for all those
site owners who don't know how to set up their own search
engine properly.

Some of these information sites, only host articles in the interest
of generating page hits (the articles exist for SEO purposes, not
as an aid to the visitor - they're filler material). The information
content is quite variable as a result, including articles which have
virtually zero value for solving problems.

So while a site search on some particular sites, virtually
guarantees "gold", not all sites are that well constructed,
and you could also end up with "overburden" rather than "gold".
If you know a site has hundreds of thousands of articles in it,
chances are no human has ever reviewed them for accuracy or
value.

*******

Antennas have a three dimensional radiation pattern, You can use
programs like 4NEC2 to model antennas, and get a result to show
you what the pattern might look like. Some people, trust the
output of an antenna simulation, more than the manufacturer's
spec (because manufacturers have been known to inflate
the stated specs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_Electromagnetics_Code

In the example here, you can see there is a major lobe pointing
out the front, and a minor lobe on the back. This antenna
might be suited to a Wifi client, but would likely be
a worse fit for a Wifi router. Unless the router was at
one end of the house, and all the client computers
were on the same floor of the house, and accessible to
the main lobe of the radiation pattern.

http://www.cjseymour.plus.com/dtvantenna/farfield.png

The antennas that come with Wifi equipment for home usage,
are likely to emit in all directions, so that all directions
have a chance of working. If you use an antenna with "gain",
it robs energy from some parts of the pattern, to put it
into other parts of the pattern. If the antenna has enough
"gain", eventually the antenna becomes hard to point.

Paul

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Sometimes a link to a Google search is perfectly appropriate. It's not
unusual for someone with a problem or question to be looking in the
wrong place for a solution, simply because they don't know the proper
terminology (search terms or keywords).

Note that a link to a Google search is not at all the same as saying
'use Google'. The former is usually helpful, the latter less so.

I take on board what you are saying, and what another has said about
some sites not knowing how to set up their own search engines properly
(or actually having useful content but only as ad.-pullers). I suppose I
was just ... well, if the OP had _said_ it was a google search.

 

[Stan Brown]

I take on board what you are saying, and what another has said about
some sites not knowing how to set up their own search engines properly
(or actually having useful content but only as ad.-pullers). I suppose I
was just ... well, if the OP had _said_ it was a google search.

Right, because there was no way to tell that. Oh wait, there was:
it started with "http://www.google.com/search".

Honey, if that doesn't tell you it's a Google search, then I'm not
smart enough to write any text that would do any better.

 

[Daniel47]

In message <[email protected]>, Stan Brown
[]
Before trying yet another one, you might want to look at How-To Geek
for methods to boost signal strength.

https://www.google.com/search?q=router+signal+site:howtogeek.com

I was assuming that pointed to an article about, basically, antennas
(aerials), and going to point out that aerials boost strength in some
directions but only at the expense of reducing it in others. But I
thought I'd better look at the article first, in case it genuinely
covered real boosting (probably not legal in most jurisdictions).

But: I _really_ dislike posts of apparent links that really only link to
a google search: they're on a par with people who say "use google".
(Yes, I could have spotted from the URL that it was such.)

and from the google link given, you could have probably gone to the
real site, howtogeek.com, to search for the given words
"router+signal, producing 265 results in 0.17 secs!!

Daniel

Did you guys look at the structure of the search he provided ?

router signal site:howtogeek.com

When you do that in Google, that's a "site search" done against
a single domain. That narrows the search down, so it's not a general
search. It means Stan thinks there is something of value on
"howtogeek.com".

Using a site search from outside a site, can return a different
result than a search done using the search engine located on
the site itself. External searches are beneficial, for all those
site owners who don't know how to set up their own search
engine properly.

Sorry!, I've never set up a search engine for my site, but would have
expected that any search of *my* site, done from *my* site, would be at
least as accurate (i.e. useful) as any offsite search of my site, and
not include any off-site references and/or any duplicate on-site locations.

Search on howtogeek.com using "router+signal" ..... 265 links
Search on Google using "outer+signal+site%3Ahowtogeek.com" ... 1,360 links!!

Interesting!!! Google says it's found 1,360 references, but only offers
a clickable link to page 32, which then only goes to page 31 which has
only two links on it (30 full pages of ten links plus one page of two
links = 302 links), so I wonder why it seems to offer page 32 and thinks
it has found 1,360 links??

Daniel

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Right, because there was no way to tell that. Oh wait, there was:
it started with "http://www.google.com/search".

Honey, if that doesn't tell you it's a Google search, then I'm not
smart enough to write any text that would do any better.

Not everybody reads URLs that people post in such a context. When
someone says "look here", or words to that effect, I don't always
examine what "here" is.

 

[Char Jackson]

Not everybody reads URLs that people post in such a context. When
someone says "look here", or words to that effect, I don't always
examine what "here" is.

Everything else aside, you gotta love the fact that he called you
"Honey", right? ;-)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Everything else aside, you gotta love the fact that he called you
"Honey", right? ;-)

Did make me smile! But I'm used to people not spotting the "(John)" and
thus not knowing my name, though it hasn't manifested itself in that
manner before!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Not everybody reads URLs that people post in such a context. When
someone says "look here", or words to that effect, I don't always
examine what "here" is.

I've paid little enough attention to Google search links that I wouldn't
be sure what the original link meant, i.e., whether it started a search
or indeed was the single-item result of a search.

I'd probably assume it was a search, not a result, but I also don't
necessarily read the link first. That's a security hole, probably

 

[Robin Bignall]

Did make me smile! But I'm used to people not spotting the "(John)" and
thus not knowing my name, though it hasn't manifested itself in that
manner before!

I've had to get used to it over many years on Usenet. Robin, in various
spellings, is now almost exclusively a girl's name in the States.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I've had to get used to it over many years on Usenet. Robin, in various
spellings, is now almost exclusively a girl's name in the States.

When I was around 6 years old, people teased me by pretending to think
Gene is a girl's name, in spite of famous people like Gene Tunney and
Gene Autry. Gene Tierney didn't help

You could mention Robin Williams - he's a famous person of the male
persuasion...

 

[Robin Bignall]

When I was around 6 years old, people teased me by pretending to think
Gene is a girl's name, in spite of famous people like Gene Tunney and
Gene Autry. Gene Tierney didn't help

You could mention Robin Williams - he's a famous person of the male
persuasion...

Yabbut, there aren't many of us left, famous or infamous.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Yabbut, there aren't many of us left, famous or infamous.

Which one applies to you?

I had to laugh at myself two or three days ago, when a radio announcer
said he was going to speak to Gene/Jean somebody. I anticipated a woman,
but the interviewee was in fact a man.

You'd think I would know by now that some Genes are men

 

[Chris S.]

Which one applies to you?

I had to laugh at myself two or three days ago, when a radio announcer
said he was going to speak to Gene/Jean somebody. I anticipated a woman,
but the interviewee was in fact a man.

You'd think I would know by now that some Genes are men

Do you have a pool, Gene?

Chris

 

[Robin Bignall]

Which one applies to you?

I'm too shy to tell you.

I had to laugh at myself two or three days ago, when a radio announcer
said he was going to speak to Gene/Jean somebody. I anticipated a woman,
but the interviewee was in fact a man.

You'd think I would know by now that some Genes are men

If we get a few more we could build our own chromosome, with Win7
support already evolved.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Do you have a pool, Gene?

Chris

No - I am genetically impaired.