WiFI - USB versus PCI-e

[Suntoucher]

USB if you want cheap and easy with no plans to do anything more than the interwebs, would be surprised to see a USB 3.0 802.11N adapter.

PCI-E/PCI Card if you want more reception, to free up USB slots or if you plan on doing file transfers over 802.11N.

For me, I've got a 300mb PCI-E card because I have a home server that centrally stores all my media and don't want to run cables to stream across my house.

[pzkpfw]

The chipset on the card is probably bog standard

Plug the card in

The hardware should be recognised
...

... For Win7, the hardware detection is pretty good...

Heck yes!

Maybe I spent too much time years ago setting dip switches and jumpers. I just hadn't expected it to be so easy.

I just banged in the WiFi card from the old PC (for the record, it was 32 bit XP, new PC is 64 bit WIn7; drivers on supplied CD were up to Vista)...

...and it all just worked.

lmfao. why would two versions of windows use the same drivers. that would be easy and sensible....

The anti-Microsoft fanboyism is pretty pointless. And in this case, very very wrong.

[Akzle]

The anti-Microsoft fanboyism is pretty pointless. And in this case, very very wrong.

no it isn't

do you have any idea how a computer works?

just a'cause win7 has a massive semi-gerneric-driver repository...
that has nothing to do with 32 bit xp. do you even know what it is that's 32 bit?

[pzkpfw]

no it isn't

do you have any idea how a computer works?

just a'cause win7 has a massive semi-gerneric-driver repository...
that has nothing to do with 32 bit xp. do you even know what it is that's 32 bit?

Wow. You really really missed the point. (Twice).

[Akzle]

i'll take that as a no.

you deserve windows. enjoy.

[pzkpfw]

i'll take that as a no.

you deserve windows. enjoy.

I'll take that as a "I have very poor comprehension skills and like to make pointless generic anti-Microsoft comments while misunderstanding what people write".


I'm quite happy to admit there are levels of understanding about some of these things that you have, that I don't.

But in these last few posts, you've misunderstood what I've asked, made off-target and wrong comments in reply, then gone off on a tangent thinking I've said something that I didn't.

Take a breath, you've got nothing to prove on a semi-anonymous web forum.

[avgas]

lmfao. why would two versions of windows use the same drivers. that would be easy and sensible....

They do. In fact you can almost massacre anything to work on anything.
API's.

Most problems people seem to have with drivers these days has nothing to do with drivers and everything to do with how they are installed. The Java vs C++ vs Silverlight vs IIS vs..........

The linux solution is simple, don't install anything that we don't have a driver for - which is a bit like riding a Ducati on the farm....... in first gear.
Thank god they started putting more smart goodies from UNIX in it over the last 4 years. Ubuntu 6 needed more modding than a Hyosung.

Mac's solution was even simpler - remove everything we don't have a driver for and then double the price.

[p.dath]

Need to get a PC onto the home WiFi network.
...
(Reception isn't "great" in the PCs location.)

For the second reason above, I'd go USB. It is far easier to get a USB extension cable and move the WiFi adapter to a place with better reception than it is to dick around with RF cables and associated antennas.

And note that if reception is poor, then you're not likely to see any performance difference, especially between USB2 and PCI(anything).

One time I had to duct tape the USB WiFi adaptor at the top of a wall to get it to work - which was a trivial job since it was USB based.

[pzkpfw]

For the second reason above, I'd go USB. It is far easier to get a USB extension cable and move the WiFi adapter to a place with better reception than it is to dick around with RF cables and associated antennas.

And note that if reception is poor, then you're not likely to see any performance difference, especially between USB2 and PCI(anything).

One time I had to duct tape the USB WiFi adaptor at the top of a wall to get it to work - which was a trivial job since it was USB based.

Thanks. That's an interesting alternate view on the reception --> card vs USB decision.

[bogan]

For the second reason above, I'd go USB. It is far easier to get a USB extension cable and move the WiFi adapter to a place with better reception than it is to dick around with RF cables and associated antennas.

And note that if reception is poor, then you're not likely to see any performance difference, especially between USB2 and PCI(anything).

One time I had to duct tape the USB WiFi adaptor at the top of a wall to get it to work - which was a trivial job since it was USB based.

Chances are even with the gain from moving your usb wifi, you'd still have less reception than a decent card with RF antenna. And with the later theres no thudfuckery of taping things to walls!

[p.dath]

Chances are even with the gain from moving your usb wifi, you'd still have less reception than a decent card with RF antenna. And with the later theres no thudfuckery of taping things to walls!

I used 10m USB extension cable - enough to move the WiFi USB adapter considerably higher to get line of site with the AP it was trying to use.

[scracha]

Chances are even with the gain from moving your usb wifi, you'd still have less reception than a decent card with RF antenna. And with the later theres no thudfuckery of taping things to walls!

USB 2 is 480Mbps so it ain't gonna throttle your average Wifi 300Mbps N kit, most of which is markeing bullbonk and delivers a fraction of that speed even in pretty ideal conditions. Might struggle with the brand new multi channel multi frequency stuff but I guess that kit will have corresponding usb 3 adapters.

I agree with p.dath. Main thing I've always found with wifi is line of sight. Far more important than antenna size. Roughly 4x as important if you're using 5.8Mhz kit If you've got line of sight without too much metal and other stuff with high attenuation then an el cheapo nano usb adapter is more than enough. You can also get good usb wifi adapters these days with omni and directional antennae. Line of sight often easier to achieve with usb extension cable and you don't have to worry about the attenuation you'd have on a long coax cable coming from a PCI card. Above 5m you should be using "active" USB repeaters, but I'd generally go for a Wifi bridge PoE type thing with a patch cable for stuff more than 5m away.

RF interference including non wifi kit is becoming more of a problem. Wifi kit on same channel will normally still work, although performance will be degraded if it can't auto channel hop. Non wifi kit on same channel will generally completely bollux up your wifi and is hard to figure out without a proper spectrum analyser, especially if transmitting signal is intermittent (neighbour's cordless phone for example). More peeps getting things like reversing cameras, wireless security cameras, baby monitors, dect phones etc. The new dual frequency, multi channel wifi kit will only make the problem worse.

[p.dath]

USB 2 is 480Mbps so it ain't gonna throttle your average Wifi 300Mbps N kit, most of which is markeing bullbonk and delivers a fraction of that speed even in pretty ideal conditions. Might struggle with the brand new multi channel multi frequency stuff but I guess that kit will have corresponding usb 3 adapters.

100% concur with scracha.

If you are using 2.4Ghz spectrum (aka "g") then there is only three non-overlapping channels. Those three non-overlapping channels are used by everything in the ISM band. To get anything over 144Mb/s you have to bond two channels together. And from my experience, the chance of finding 2 of those 3 channels free to be able to bond them is almost zero.
But some cards choose to go and bond them anyway, even though they aren't free, so report a nice fast connection, but give you terrible throughput because the spectrum wasn't really free to use in the first place.

5Ghz spectrum (aka "a") has a lot more non-overlapping channels, and because the range of this spectrum is not as good, you tend to experience less interference. As a result, you are much more likely to be able to bond 2 channels together, and potentially get 300Mb/s. Note this gear costs a lot more ...


The latest Cisco stuff that we are playing with (which is all aimed at the enterprise market) has just started implementing 3 way bonding, and is now offering 450Mb/s connections, and the next generation is likely to be around the 1 Gb/s territory.
However the Cisco "stuff" has have full blown spectrum analysers in them, and can identify everything from a bluetooth iPhone to a leaky microwave, and as a result have very detailed maps of the spectrum around them, and as a result know exactly what they can use.