Is there any instance where Wireless N would NOT be as good as Wireless G?

[ManBearPig]

Eh? Thanks!

 

[ScottMac]

Well, yes, of course. any superior technology, poorly implemented, will usually perform worse then the inferior technology that is implemented properly, in spec, and according to best practice design principles.

Just because you give a monkey a hammer (the best hammer ever created in the existence of mankind), you can't expect him to build a perfect house.

 

[jjmIII]

Well, yes, of course. any superior technology, poorly implemented, will usually perform worse then the inferior technology that is implemented properly, in spec, and according to best practice design principles.

Just because you give a monkey a hammer (the best hammer ever created in the existence of mankind), you can't expect him to build a perfect house.

Awesome non-answer! :sneaky:

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Awesome non-answer! :sneaky:

No, it was a perfect answer to a poor question.

He is saying the instance where a superior tech is worse is only when it is poorly implemented.

Now if he had asked something like, is there any instance where 5ghz is worse than 2.4, we would be able to give more information

 

[Emulex]

5ghz is worst in most cases. Alot of people are using SOC for the entire device then taping on a 5ghz modem. 5ghz requires twice the power roughly and while there are more channels - the buffalo airstation 2.4ghz (300 or 450) smoked the other top dogs (e4200,wndr(same as e4200), new airport with hard drive overpriced). I was sure the E4200 would be great - got it refurb with 30% cisco F&F coupon so it was $80 - nope. 2mb/s slower on both 2.4 and 5ghz- buffalo was hitting 17MB/s where the e4200 was more like 14-15 for long copies (DVD). same with fancy new apple time capsule, same with wndr (exact same hardware as e4200 but less flash).

Probably because the airstation is 843mw and programmable to 1watts and comes with commercially licensed copy of dd-wrt (support the project!). They now have a 450meg 2.4ghz product that essentially chews the entire 2.4ghz band. hotness. but since all my clients are 300 i just stick with that . $62 shipped amazon prime. $84 for 450 model.

5ghz is overrated - my wireless phones are DECT so it was a fair comparison. 15 neighbors with 2.4ghz range - 3 with 5ghz. 5ghz failed epic for me.

 

[Lemon law]

I think I can provide somewhat of an answer because I live in a rural area. And I used to use a totally secure hard wired method of networking and now use a only 3G MIFI device capable of only wireless B or G Networking.

Since any Networked wireless device, be it B, G, or N can be hacked, I need only enough wireless range to connect the computers in my house, and at the same time I hope my G router has insufficient range to reach my nearest public road where a passing car might detect the signal and give it a go in hacking me. And yes, I have security on top of that, but like I say, any wireless security can be hacked. And since wireless N has greater range than wireless G, less range is an advantage in my case.

Nor is the superior speed of wireless N a consideration for me, when the best I can do, is 1.5 Mbits/sec down, mere G speeds don't even come close to limiting my speed.

 

[Matt1970]

I think I can provide somewhat of an answer because I live in a rural area. And I used to use a totally secure hard wired method of networking and now use a only 3G MIFI device capable of only wireless B or G Networking.

Since any Networked wireless device, be it B, G, or N can be hacked, I need only enough wireless range to connect the computers in my house, and at the same time I hope my G router has insufficient range to reach my nearest public road where a passing car might detect the signal and give it a go in hacking me. And yes, I have security on top of that, but like I say, any wireless security can be hacked. And since wireless N has greater range than wireless G, less range is an advantage in my case.

Nor is the superior speed of wireless N a consideration for me, when the best I can do, is 1.5 Mbits/sec down, mere G speeds don't even come close to limiting my speed.

Good point. Since 99% of WiFi users only need to reach to the back yard to get internet while sitting on the porch, having a footprint 3 blocks over does invite more hacking oppertunities.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Since any Networked wireless device, be it B, G, or N can be hacked, I need only enough wireless range to connect the computers in my house, and at the same time I hope my G router has insufficient range to reach my nearest public road where a passing car might detect the signal and give it a go in hacking me. And yes, I have security on top of that, but like I say, any wireless security can be hacked. And since wireless N has greater range than wireless G, less range is an advantage in my case.

This is false security. Not everyone is using the cheap low-gain omnidirectional antennas found on most consumer wireless gear. A "passing car" with a decent sector or patch antenna would be able to pick up your wireless network from a substantial distance.

 

[Lemon law]

This is false security. Not everyone is using the cheap low-gain omnidirectional antennas found on most consumer wireless gear. A "passing car" with a decent sector or patch antenna would be able to pick up your wireless network from a substantial distance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily, given the fact my nearest road is 90 degrees off the direction I have to connect to my networked computer. So a simple metal plate between my wireless G device and the road will block any signal reaching the road. That and the fact that any nearby parked car on my road with no parking would be easily visible from my window and would be trespassing on my property. And even if my house is protected by Smith and Wesson, I would simply call the cops. Given I have yet to call the cops says my strategy must be working.