Harondel J. Sibble wrote:
> Have you actually read the reviews on the shipping gear? It's not
> anywhere
> close to 4x. Plus the vaunted N has other issues, see:
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1977784,00.asp
No I hadn't read that review. Thanks for the URL. Based
upon those reviews, the news definitely doesn't look good.
Looks like 802.11n isn't ready for prime time.
>
> > future standards isn't an issue, since you're hooking up
> > a bridge anyway.
>
> How do you come to that conclusion, future standards are always
> an issue when
> running hardware on alpha or beta "standards".
Since the routers at either end of the bridge are the
same, it would seem to be only important that they interoperate
with each other.
>
> > That said, even 802.1g may have sufficient range with a good antenna
> > and LOS.
>
> With proper antenna's and LOS, IIRC, the longest shot with G or
> was that A
> router was like 50 miles. Oh yeah, it was 55 miles
> Whoah, just reread that, 125 miles!!!!!
I was assuming not-so-esoteric antenna technology.
But basically, I agree, 802.11g with decent off-the-shelf antennae
should be able to hit 750ft. Note that the nominal range of 802.11g
is approx. 100-175 feet, so some sort of boost is needed.
--
----------------------------------------
WIN-HOME Archives: http://PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM/archives/WIN-HOME.html
Contact the List Owner about anything: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Official Win-Home List Members Profiles Page
http://www.besteffort.com/winhome/Profiles.html
