wireless G is SOOOO slow!

[VirtualLarry]

On my XP laptop from 2005 era. Only has wireless G. Connected at 54Mbit/sec. Task Manager shows only 22% max network utilizations on a 54Mbit/sec link.

On my Win7 laptop with wireless N, connected at 65Mbit/sec, I could get a solid 3MB/sec to my NAS.

XP doesn't show the MB/sec transfer rate of network copies like Win7 does, but it sure feels slower.

 

[masterbm]

agreed I refuse to use wireless g other then tether on the go from old laptop.

 

[JackMDS]

Every thing on earth has it pupose. Wireless Network known as WIFI was not meant to be fast and do the things that people wants to do with.

Most dogs are terrific pets, but only few breeds meant to be use as Race Dogs.

 

[Lifted]

XP doesn't show the MB/sec transfer rate of network copies like Win7 does, but it sure feels slower.

Yes it does. You just have to show the field in the networking tab of task manager.

Actually, I think it's called "bytes sent/received per interval" just as it is in the Windows 7 task manager... so now I'm confused.

Edit: Ahh, you're talking about explorer copy window... doh.

 

[IGemini]

It could be worse...you could be using 11b connections.

 

[spidey07]

Max thruput on 802.11g is 22-23 Mbs. Because of overhead, half-duplex and management frames you'll never see more than that.

And wireless is slow no matter what. Throw in interference and it's much worse than 22 Mbs.

 

[Eug]

I've standardized on 802.11g in my house. Yeah, it's slow, but I'm not too impressed by non-dual-band 11n either, which is one reasons I haven't upgraded yet. The other reason is cost, as I'd need 4-5 access points ideally, and I'm not keen on spending $500. If those dual band access points drop significantly in price, then I'll buy a bunch.

However, when I really need the speed for large file transfers, I just plug in via Gigabit. IMO, a 4 GB file transfer over Gigabit with local playback is often better than trying to stream over wireless, esp. if someone wants to use the microwave oven or something.

 

[alkemyst]

wireless is good for connecting to the internet, not running a file server from. /thread

 

[Rifter]

wireless is good for connecting to the internet, not running a file server from. /thread

this x2, couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Eug]

Indeed, x3.

3 MB/s to the NAS is absolutely terrible IMO. Just a 500 MB file would take almost 3 minutes to transfer. Ouch. And that's assuming nobody turns on the microwave.

 

[VirtualLarry]

wireless is good for connecting to the internet, not running a file server from. /thread

Well, I'm going to have to do just that. Just got FIOS installed, was on DSL. DSL connects in living room, FIOS connects in bedroom closet. Server is going to be in the living room. So I get a 65Mbit/sec N WDS link between the living room and the bedroom.

Edit: I put 3dmark11 on my NAS, and had a friend on comcast 16/2 try to DL it. He was getting 200KB/sec. What's up with that?

With a computer connected wired to my FIOS router, I get 30Mbit/sec down, 25Mbit/sec up. With my laptop connected at N wireless 65Mbit/sec, I get 25Mbit/sec down, 20Mbit/sec up. That same laptop can pull 3MB/sec from my NAS, which is gigabit and wired to a gigabit switch, with the wireless N router in WDS connected via a 100Mbit LAN port.

So, why can't someone connecting in from the outside, get at least 2MB/sec out of my NAS, with the 65Mbit/sec wireless N WDS connection between the FIOS router and the NAS?

Hmm, just did the speedtest again (on wireless N laptop), and I got 11Mbit/sec down, and 14.5Mbit/sec up. I have no idea why my download is so bad all of a sudden.

Also just did speedtest.net on my wired desktop, and I got 30.6M down and 24.5M up.

Edit: Forgot, Firefox's flash implementation is slower than IE. I used IE8 at speedtest.net, on the wireless N laptop, and I got 18.5M down, 18M up.