The Time is Now to Go to 802.11n Wi-Fi
April 21st, 2008 (4:00pm) Samuel Dean 11 Comments
Are you using 802.11n wireless technology to power your home Wi-Fi network? If not, you really should. Recently, I upgraded my home Wi-Fi network and the devices I have attached to it. I bought a Linksys WRT105N router for under $100, and a few inexpensive adapters for connected devices. The performance is outstanding, and the price is right.
The issue with 802.11n Wi-Fi, of course, is that it’s not ratified technology yet, although ratification is expected this year. The router I’m using is Draft-n Wi-Fi, and the first generation of Draft-n routers had problems. At this point, though, the performance boost you get from the Draft-n technology makes it irrelevant whether 802.11n ratification comes this year or not.
Many readers here use Macs, and if you do and have a home Wi-Fi network you’re probably already using Draft-N technology, because you probably have Apple’s AirPort Extreme router, which has Draft-N. However, many PC-based users, especially those used to years of Linksys and D-Link wireless routers, have not gone to 802.11n just because of the ratification issue. Also, many PC users have bought computers and laptops that don’t come with 802.11n technology built in.
Now that the prices have fallen dramatically on the Draft-N routers, access points and adapters, though, it’s a no-brainer to make this upgrade. In addition, many people are confident that there will be firmware updates with the eventual ratified 802.11n hardware that will keep your Draft-N products compatible.
For many web workers, Wi-Fi at home is an essential part of staying efficient and productive. With 802.11n technology, and the built-in MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) antennas, you not only get better performance but I’ve found that I get much better wireless range around the house. I can’t think of a more worthwhile upgrade if you haven’t gone for it yet.
Have you been considering upgrading to 802.11n?
11 Comments Post your own comment
Peter says: April 21st, 2008 6:10pm
Unless you’re moving huge files around your internal network, what’s the point?
Very few people have an Internet connection that even comes close to saturating a ‘G’ router.
Buy a G router for half the price and get more RAM with the savings.
John B says: April 21st, 2008 6:43pm
I’ve been thinking about upgrading to draft-n, (I’m having range issues, in my house). I have a mac and would like to get a time capsule, (cheaper than an Airport Extreme + 500GB HD), however, I’m waiting for Apple to introduce an SPI firewall on their products. I run dd-wrt now, and am comfortable with the extra security if the SPI firewall, and don’t want to go back to NAT.
beckley says: April 21st, 2008 7:20pm
I just replaced a netgear g router with an airport extreme and couldn’t be happier. I have no emperical data but range is hugely increased and wifi seems noticably “snappier”. So far, well worth the cash.
Steven says: April 22nd, 2008 2:11am
I second Peter’s comment.
Assuming a typical reader of this blog is mainly working on the web, why upgrade?
Just wait for 802.11n to become mainstream in PCs as well. By that time, you may notice the difference with faster internet connections.
Jim A says: April 22nd, 2008 5:41am
If you are looking to by a Wireless ROuter, or even a simple Wired ROuter go for one of the new 802.11n systems. No reason to go back to older 802.11b or g systems when you can have a system that will allow you to address all your future bandwidth needs-and you will need to be able to provide 100Mbps+ in the next few years so why spend twice.
The ideal solution is one of the new 802.11n radios with both 2.4 & 5.8Ghz radios which will allow you to deal with all interference issues and provide very big pipes to grow into.
The other option is to look at the new Ruckus Wireless routers that work with a single 2.4Ghz radio and allows one to avoid most interference and deliver very high speeds as well. ($150)
You will not save much money buying the older 802.11g radios and will eventually run into interference issues and bandwitdh limitations.
Wait until you try and move movies or audio across the wireless network to view on your TV etc.
Jim A
coreyweb says: April 22nd, 2008 7:26am
I totally agree with beckley.
My Airport was decent with my old “G” laptop, but it lights up with my new Macbook Pro.
Platypus says: April 23rd, 2008 6:11am
I had endless problems with my MacBook Pro dropping connections while using “n.” Apple forums are filled with posts about this. I switched my router to “g” and haven’t had any problems since that time.
Web Worker Daily » Archive More on Why 802.11n is Essential for Your Home Wi-Fi « says: April 23rd, 2008 4:00pm
[...] 23rd, 2008 (4:00pm) Samuel Dean No Comments In a post I did the other day titled The Time is Now to Go to 802.11n Wi-Fi, I made the point that many people who aren’t switching to Draft-N Wi-Fi because the standard [...]
Web Worker Daily » Archive Interop: A Glimpse at the 802.11n Future « says: April 29th, 2008 4:00pm
[...] 29th, 2008 (4:00pm) Samuel Dean No Comments In a similar vein to a post I put recently titled The Time is Now to Go to 802.11n several 802.11n-related inititiatives are taking shape this week that should be of interest to web [...]
Web Worker Daily » Archive Four Ways to Get More Out of Your 802.11n Wi-Fi Network « says: June 11th, 2008 4:01pm
[...] 11th, 2008 (4:00pm) Samuel Dean No Comments In a recent post, I made the argument that even though the 802.11n Wi-Fi standard is draft technology, it’s [...]
Jeff says: June 11th, 2008 7:58pm
As is pointed out by Peter and Steven and my own personal experience with my customers, wireless router connectivity for residential consumption is overwhelmingly used to connect and share the internet, not to share files from computers within a LAN or any other typical LAN functions.
With the best of broadband connections theoretically reaching 20-50 megabits a second (Verizon’s FIOS), the older “G” band technology, which is theoretically 54 Mbps, covers this span adequately. But clearly, the vast majority of people who have broadband (cable modem and DSL) don’t have anywhere near this capacity. The ranges are usually between 256 kilobits a second, roughly a quarter of a megabit, to 6 megabits a second. Yes, 256 Kbps is less common but I do run across this with customers who want wireless conectivity none the less. Again, the vast majority of customers just want to connect to their broadband wirelessly.
I do inform customers that it’s possible to share folders from other computers, share printers, music, etc. But, they just aren’t interested.
As far as cost is concerned, a popular and quality wireless “G” router that easily “gets it done” with capacity to spare, can be had for as little as $40 plus shipping. A quality wireless “N” router is more than twice that.
I agree that you do get more range with an “N” router using “N” wireless cards in a computer. However, I have setup a “G” in a 2500 square foot, multi-level home, where the router is located on the top most floor with an average throughput, in the basement, of 20 megabits per second. This was with an unmodified router using the packaged (attached) antennas. This still exceeded the 6 megabit cable modem throughput located at this home. Once you have reached the max capacity of your internet connection, you’ve reached it. Changing to “N” equipment doesn’t change that.
Regarding equipment. Wireless customers are vastly laptop customers. “G” wireless is usually the standard option. To add “N” costs more or isn’t available for pre-configured models. Yes, you can get an after market card or mini-pci but customers are going to use what they have.
Pertaining to the “N” ratification. It does and doesn’t matter. If you configure a setup that plays nicely at home, great. You’ll be able to get that theoretical 108 Mbps at home regardless of any changes to the standard because that setup is isolated. But, there are still compatibility issues between manufacturers now. Because of that, when you leave your home you may not be able to connect to other “N” networks for whatever reason. Sure, there
Also, when the “N” standard is finally ratified, there is no guarantee that the draft “N” and the ratified “N” will play nicely with each other.
Again, as Peter points out, unless you are sharing 100’s of megabytes or more between computers on a LAN, you don’t make a convincing argument as to why you need to go the “N” standard.