Wireless N or G?

[Kenny]

Will be getting BT fibre optic broadband this week.
One PC using Win 7 will be hard wired to BT Home Hub, another using XP using
3Com USB Wireless G 54Mbps adapter.
Will there be any advantage upgrading to a Wireless N adapter, will file
transfer between the two PC's be quicker and will it speed up internet
access on the XP box?
Replies appreciated.

Kenny Cargill

 

[Char Jackson]

Will be getting BT fibre optic broadband this week.
One PC using Win 7 will be hard wired to BT Home Hub, another using XP using
3Com USB Wireless G 54Mbps adapter.
Will there be any advantage upgrading to a Wireless N adapter, will file
transfer between the two PC's be quicker and will it speed up internet
access on the XP box?
Replies appreciated.

Ideally, N will be faster than G, but N quickly falls back to G speeds
when interference is present, and interference can come from many
sources. You can be reasonably assured that N won't be slower than G,
but it's impossible to guarantee that it will be faster. It may be
exactly the same.

Regarding Internet access, it's impossible to say. You first have to
know how well your N is performing, and then you have to know how well
your Internet connection is performing. Compare the two and find the
weakest (slowest) link, and you'll have your answer.

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for the reply.
Will try a Wireless N adapter anyway since the Wireless G seems a bit
temperamental at times!
There used to be a group here specifically for network advice but it's
disappeared from the server

Kenny Cargill

 

[Brian Cryer]

Will be getting BT fibre optic broadband this week.
One PC using Win 7 will be hard wired to BT Home Hub, another using XP
using 3Com USB Wireless G 54Mbps adapter.
Will there be any advantage upgrading to a Wireless N adapter, will file
transfer between the two PC's be quicker and will it speed up internet
access on the XP box?
Replies appreciated.

Char Jackson has covered most of the bases.

If you are buying new equipment then I'd always go for the latest (assuming
there isn't a big cost difference), but personally I'd be reluctant to
upgrade from G to N because unless you are copying lots of big files around
its unlikely you'd notice a difference.

Yes for file transfer between your two PCs it has the potential to be twice
as fast - but how often do you copy large files around?

No its unlikely to speed up internet access because your wireless G
(assuming you get a 54mbps connection on G) runs faster than BT's fibre
optic broadband (40mbps). That said if you don't get a 54mbps connection
across G at present then yes N has the potential to give you a faster
browsing experience. Now, if you were going for virginmedia's 100mbps cable
offering then yes you'd need N to be able to take advantage of it, but for
what BT is currently offering I think your G network should be adequate.

Reality check: If your wireless network ran at say 24mbps and assuming N
would give you a faster transfer rate, and given that BTs fibre optic
broadband can give you 40mbps (download), then given your browsing habits
how likely is it that you would notice the speed difference between 24mbps
(the limit of your wifi) and 40mbps (the limit of BT's fibre optic
broadband)?

 

[Dave Rudisill]

There used to be a group here specifically for network advice but it's
disappeared from the server

alt.internet.wireless is no longer on your Usenet server?

 

[Kenny]

alt.internet.wireless is there, I meant the MS network group.

Kenny

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

alt.internet.wireless is there, I meant the MS network group.

MS has migrated many of its newsgroups to forums or else deleted them.
In fact, by now, perhaps all the MS newsgroups are gone from their news
server - I haven't looked in a few months.

 

[Ken Blake]

MS has migrated many of its newsgroups to forums or else deleted them.
In fact, by now, perhaps all the MS newsgroups are gone from their news
server - I haven't looked in a few months.

Yes, they are all gone from the *Microsoft* server. However they
remain on the many other servers around the world they are echoed on.

But as might be expected, even though they still exist on those other
servers, traffic on them is generally much lighter than it had been,
and continues to diminish. Some Microsoft newsgroups have next to no
traffic at all. So, alas, from a practical standpoint, the Microsoft
web forums have effectively already replaced those newsgroups almost
entirely.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Yes, they are all gone from the *Microsoft* server. However they
remain on the many other servers around the world they are echoed on.

But as might be expected, even though they still exist on those other
servers, traffic on them is generally much lighter than it had been,
and continues to diminish. Some Microsoft newsgroups have next to no
traffic at all. So, alas, from a practical standpoint, the Microsoft
web forums have effectively already replaced those newsgroups almost
entirely.

Good point, thanks. I really thought that the OP was saying that he was
trying to find a group on an actual MS server, but I should have
remembered about the old MS groups that were duplicated on non-MS
servers. I've even ventured into some of them back in the day.

alt.internet.wireless, mentioned by Dave Rudisill above, is not an MS
group, given its name. I do see it on the three newsgroup lists I have
easy access to (Aioe, Albasani, and Eternal-September), so I'd guess
it's not a rare bird.

 

[Char Jackson]

alt.internet.wireless, mentioned by Dave Rudisill above, is not an MS
group, given its name. I do see it on the three newsgroup lists I have
easy access to (Aioe, Albasani, and Eternal-September), so I'd guess
it's not a rare bird.

I've been lurking there for years and years. It hasn't been as busy
lately as it used to be, but the regulars still seem to be there when
needed.