All USB nics I've seen have the antenna built into the device. This makes
the antenna smaller (maybe an 8th wavelength antenna), closer to the wifi
chipset (noise bleed), and non replaceable. Also drivers are somewhat
harder to get updated as the generic chipset drivers generally don't support
USB uses more CPU then PCI but I wasn't aware this was an issue.
I think quality varies between brand and varies even more between
models. However, if you can move the antenna to achieve better signal
then the transfer rate is usually increased as well.
warpmedia wrote:
Show me a good USB n
Show me a good USB nic with an antenna then? Last time I bought one from
netgear, I found the customer got better reception with the card &
antenna. To be fair, I have the same antenna issues with PCMCIA card on
my laptop but put up with it.
Also I had thought that USB created more CPU overhea
I think they are the same but when you can move the USB NIC around to
obtain a better signal it's a better deal. I use and sell USB NIC's.
Christopher Klein wrote:
I'm moving to a new apartment and will probably go
100% wireless. I prefer cat cable, but I want to keep
this place neat.
Is
CPU usage is likely higher with USB vs. PCI.
Christopher Klein wrote:
I'm moving to a new apartment and will probably go
100% wireless. I prefer cat cable, but I want to keep
this place neat.
Is there any difference between a wireless usb nic,
and a pci nic? I see the usb nics are cheaper.
I'm moving to a new apartment and will probably go
100% wireless. I prefer cat cable, but I want to keep
this place neat.
Is there any difference between a wireless usb nic,
and a pci nic? I see the usb nics are cheaper. Do
they have as high a transfer rate?
Thanks,
Chris
At 11:06 AM 13/05/2005, JRS wrote:
Have you checked power settings? Are they both set up for 100 percent
antenna power for comparison purposes?
All the settings are the same. The only thing I can figure is that there
is something wrong with the newer laptop. Perhaps something is wrong with
W
Have you checked power settings? Are they both set up for 100 percent
antenna power for comparison purposes?
>>I have two notebooks and two wireless NICs (one Surecom, and one
>>Linksys.) On the older notebook, both NICs get better reception than on
>>the newer one. Both are using XP Pr
At 10:22 AM 13/05/2005, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
Are the NIC slots positioned in the same relative location on both
notebooks? Are the screens the same size? It would seem to be that the
NICs antenna, when used on the newer one, must somehow be less effective
in reception...could be due to posi
Are the NIC slots positioned in the same relative location on both
notebooks? Are the screens the same size? It would seem to be that the
NICs antenna, when used on the newer one, must somehow be less effective
in reception...could be due to positioning near the housing of the
notebook, or due
I have two notebooks and two wireless NICs (one Surecom, and one
Linksys.) On the older notebook, both NICs get better reception than on
the newer one. Both are using XP Pro and the same drivers. Both are in
precisely the same position. The newer will get reception, but I have to
move about
11 matches
Mail list logo
