any wireless N (non draft) routers worth getting yet?

[PingviN]

i can hear it now. will IPv6 make the pages on the intertubes faster?

Yes, it will also make your GBs bigger.

 

[Eug]

I have an all 802.11g network with 5 access points and have been wondering if I should upgrade to 802.11n. However, it's annoying to see that most products out there are still draft n.

 

[smitbret]

I have an all 802.11g network with 5 access points and have been wondering if I should upgrade to 802.11n. However, it's annoying to see that most products out there are still draft n.

Are you hitting bottlenecks? If you're just surfing the web at different locations, then I doubt it. It might, however, be something that's worth looking forward to and preparing for, but not necessary unless you have a need for it. 99.9% of internet connections won't tap out a well-managed wireless G setup.

As was mentioned before, draft N = N. There's is virtually no difference between the two except for a certification process. It wouldn't stop me from buying an otherwise perfect router for my needs.

 

[Emulex]

the later modems like my wzr-hp300gn can sustain 16.5MB/s (smb copy) on 2.4 using a common dual transmitter usb (300mbps) all day long. no crashing. I leave switching to switches, routing to a good router, and everything else as AP.

16.5MB/s is hella better than my wrt54GS.v2 which does 3.7-4.5MB/s

 

[Eug]

Are you hitting bottlenecks? If you're just surfing the web at different locations, then I doubt it. It might, however, be something that's worth looking forward to and preparing for, but not necessary unless you have a need for it. 99.9% of internet connections won't tap out a well-managed wireless G setup.

I sometimes like to download a large file from my NAS or my iMac (which acts as my primary file server), or else stream HD.

Most of the time it's not an issue, and I have run Gigabit wired ethernet around most of the house, but it's still sometimes a bit annoying to have to run upstairs to grab that ethernet cable just to download that 500 MB file.

On g, it would take several minutes. On n it should take less than a minute.

As for streaming HD, it depends on the bitrate and the location in the house. Close to the access point it works with HD, but further away it becomes problematic. N would hopefully give me an extra cushion.

As was mentioned before, draft N = N. There's is virtually no difference between the two except for a certification process. It wouldn't stop me from buying an otherwise perfect router for my needs.

Maybe true, but I still run into compatibility issues from time to time. I figure having it n certified would make for 1 less variable.

My thinking was that since I already had a functioning g network, I may as well wait until n was fully certified and available before upgrading.

 

[smitbret]

I sometimes like to download a large file from my NAS or my iMac (which acts as my primary file server), or else stream HD.

Most of the time it's not an issue, and I have run Gigabit wired ethernet around most of the house, but it's still sometimes a bit annoying to have to run upstairs to grab that ethernet cable just to download that 500 MB file.

On g, it would take several minutes. On n it should take less than a minute.

As for streaming HD, it depends on the bitrate and the location in the house. Close to the access point it works with HD, but further away it becomes problematic. N would hopefully give me an extra cushion.


Maybe true, but I still run into compatibility issues from time to time. I figure having it n certified would make for 1 less variable.

My thinking was that since I already had a functioning g network, I may as well wait until n was fully certified and available before upgrading.

That surprises me that you are having compatibility problemsm I was under the impression that virtually nothing was different between N and draft N routers.

N is a huge improvement over G, though. I run a dual band netwok with the N on the 5GHz channel and get 3-4 times the bandwidth that I do from the B/G network running on the 2.4GHz band. It's at the expense of range, though, less than half the range of the 2.4GHz band.

 

[Eug]

Well, one reason I've held off is dual-band cost. Given that I'd want 5 or 6 WiFi access points, dual-band costs add up quick.

As for 2.4 GHz-only hardware, I'm not sure if my Apple hardware supports channel bonding over 2.4 GHz. The el cheapo hardware I've been looking at is 2.4 GHz-only stuff, to be used with no channel bonding, mainly because of cost but I also wonder if it would be important for compatiblity plus the lack of non-overlapping channels in a multi-access point setup. Unfortunately, the speed boost with 20 MHz 2.4 GHz seems to be much less, which is the other reason I haven't been in a big rush to upgrade.

Still, 802.11g is really starting to get annoying these days.