Wireless Better/Faster Than Wired?

[smcinsjc]

Have a Draft N router, offbrand Airlink, that works very well for me with solid 300mb connections wirelessly. Wired connections are only standard 10/100 (non-Gigabit). Question: am I really better off going completely non-wired and having a wireless N card on my "main" computer that is currently connected via a Cat5 wired port? In theory, the 300 "should" be much faster transferring files back and forth, just wondering if this is or should be the case, "real world". Anyone tried it both ways?
Any links to tests or info/data?


To put it simply:

Draft N 300mb wireless 0 obstructions 1 inch distance vs 100mb wired. Which will be faster file transfers. pc to pc, all other things being equal?

 

[jlazzaro]

its just not happeneing...

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30184/100/

 

[smcinsjc]

Good stuff...thanks.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
its just not happeneing..

It would happened when the Wireless would reach 300' indoor.

 

[smcinsjc]

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
its just not happeneing..

It would happened when the Wireless would reach 300' indoor.

What does that mean?

 

[JackMDS]

Many Network related specs (and a lot of other computer specs in general) are not providing the functional working numbers but the core specs of the hardware.

E.g., 100Mb/sec. means that the chipset in the NIC is running at this number but it does not mean the total sum of the Network related components and the software using them are capable to follow this "Speed".

Wireless share all the trepidation of wired Network + the instability and loses of the signal in air. As a result, its functional outcome is much less than the spec numbers of the chipset core components.

Example, all Entry level Wireless 802.11g are rated as capable to reach 300' indoor and 1200'.

In reality, 99% of Entry Level Wireless installations would not work for a distance that is even close to these numbers (more like 20-60 feet depending on the environment).

So, why they are using these numbers? Because it sounds Good and it attracts business.

So, are they Lying? No!!! If you created a special 300' long straight indoor tunnel with specific height and width that take into consideration the transmission wavelength, and use a directional antenna, it would do 300'.

Since it is a tunnel it can be called indoor.

How many users are living in a 300' indoor tunnel?

 

[spyordie007]

Most of it's already been said however one other thing comes to mind and that is that wireless is essentially half-duplex. If you have multiple streams your speed is going to get cut down very quickly.

FYI I've seen bench tests pushing as much as 180Mb/sec through Cisco's 1250 (WiFi Alliance Draft 2.0 Certified), but that's with 'artificial' traffic.

Erik