|
|
|
As long as it's not D-Link
|
|
|
Belgium9949 Posts
go Buffalo with preflashed DD-WRT
|
Usually I say the most expensive stuff is always the best stuff but that's not always the case. Even so, my bias opinion is to go for the more costy one as usually most of the time, they're better than the low cost one. Otherwise, follow the other advices here. Good luck!
|
I've got one of those LINKSYS by CISCO ones...the E3000 is beast.
|
if you're looking for gaming performance stick to wired
yeah I wish that I could but it's just not worth cabling through walls for me.
go Buffalo with preflashed DD-WRT
what does this firmware improve O_O, I looked at the wiki for it but it doesn't really tell me much.
Edit: Yeah I see the list of features on http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/What_is_DD-WRT?#Features but this pretty much means nothing to me as I have no clue what most of these things are 
|
On June 28 2010 11:00 zeuS~ wrote:So I've never bought a wireless router before and did some research on pcmag,cnet ... ect and I've narrowed it down to two routers. I've chosen a Linksys because I currently have one and never had any problems with it. Linksys E3000 ($146.85) Specs: + Show Spoiler +
Technology: Wireless-N
Bands: Simultaneous 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz
Transmit / receive: 2 x 3
Antennas: 6 Internal
Ethernet ports x speed: 4 x Gigabit
USB port: Yes
Linksys WRT610N ($169.99) Specs: + Show Spoiler +
Technology: Wireless-N
Bands: 2.4 GHz and 5GHz
Standards: Draft 802.11n, 802.11a, 802.11g, 802.11b, 802.3, 802.3u, 802.3ab
Antennas: 6 Internal
Ethernet ports x speed: 4 x Gigabit
If anyone has any suggestions / recommendations on other routers I'm really only willing to spend at most 180$.
Geez man, $180 for a home router? Why do you want to spend so much? I got a $60 router about 2 weeks back. That was my first one, and it was real easy to set up and works great.
http://www.amazon.com/Netgear-WNR2000-100NAS-NETGEAR-WNR2000-Wireless-N/dp/B001AZP8EW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1277693394&sr=8-3
The only thing I was really looking for was definitely 802.11n, I don't know why you feel like you need some of that stuff unless you're using it commercially.
|
Dan is so sexy. Nuff said.
|
On June 28 2010 11:57 Prozen wrote:
Dan is so sexy. Nuff said.
Quality contribution to the blog.
|
my main concern is signal strength over longish distances (50ftish). As the router would be placed in my homes office (where the other computer is) while my desktop will be on the other end of the house. simultaneous dual band routers are supposed to preform better at this.
How well does the WNR2000 preform at those distances?
|
A standard wireless N that runs at 5Ghz should work fine at 50ft even though thick walls.
A wireless G router could do that too but the 2.4ghz signal is used alot more so it's bound to have more interference from other devices.
|
On June 28 2010 11:06 PH wrote:
As long as it's not D-Link
What's wrong with D-Link? :|
As Semantics says V
+ Show Spoiler +On June 28 2010 12:12 semantics wrote:
A standard wireless N that runs at 5Ghz should work fine at 50ft even though thick walls.
A wireless G router could do that too but the 2.4ghz signal is used alot more so it's bound to have more interference from other devices.
|
On June 28 2010 12:06 zeuS~ wrote:my main concern is signal strength over longish distances (50ftish). As the router would be placed in my homes office (where the other computer is) while my desktop will be on the other end of the house. simultaneous dual band routers are supposed to preform better at this. How well does the WNR2000 preform at those distances?
Yeah dual band routers are nice because they get less interference. 2.4 Ghz is also the band used by phones and such so having dual on 5 Ghz also will get a better signal from far away.
I tested my WNR2000 about 35-40 ft away from the router and was at about ~90% signal strength, so it's really up to you if you need that additional small amount of speed. The WNR2000 is single band, mind you, and when I did test it the kitchen and living room were between me and the router so that ~90% signal strength is taking some interference into account.
|
On June 28 2010 12:12 semantics wrote:
A standard wireless N that runs at 5Ghz should work fine at 50ft even though thick walls.
A wireless G router could do that too but the 2.4ghz signal is used alot more so it's bound to have more interference from other devices.
5 Ghz is standard on 802.11n? Hmmm... did not know that, learn something new everyday 
|
Well though 5Ghz is standard in n i believe there are still routers laying around that are n-draft, and there are wireless receivers out that wont do 5Ghz but are listed as wireless n etc, tricky shit that messes with ppl right!
Just make sure it has the security protocol you want and the band operation you want.
http://www.wi-fi.org/discover_and_learn.php
I think it is standard, but also backwards support for 2.4 is part of that standard.
|
platypuses0
United States44 Posts
5 Ghz is standard on 802.11n?
802.11n can use either 5 Ghz or 2.4 Ghz
Edit: Beaten
|
I have the lynksis WRT610N, but I got it for way less :O I'm pretty sure I have the exact same model and got it for 80 $ at staples. Goin by there tomorrow, will confirm model number and price then.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On June 28 2010 11:06 PH wrote:
As long as it's not D-Link
It's true that the regular Dlink series is crap. But the Dlink Xtreme series is really good. The DIR 655 has been one of a best routers for a while. It's selling for $60 right now btw.
|
Holy cow why so expensive? I got my Linksys WRT54G for $30 and it works perfect, super fast, no problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
