WRT54G with DDWRT vs. Wireless N

Ecs / Ka3-mvp
October 16, 2010 at 22:25:30
Specs: Win7, 3.368 GHz / 4095 MB
Which would work better for remote desktop connection over a distance, a rangemax G router and a WRT54G running DDWRT firmware as a wifi adapter (having a strong radio) OR a rangemax N router with a rangemax N wifi adapter?

This is to control a robot via remote desktop connecion with cameras.


See More: WRT54G with DDWRT vs. Wireless N

Report •


#1
October 17, 2010 at 05:42:30
At the risk of being rude I'm going to ask why you didn't research this information yourself before coming in here and asking?

Keep in mind, I don't mean to be rude but I'm very sure all the products you mentioned in your post have spec sheets (specifications) listed on the manufacturer's website. So you should go there and read the spec sheets and compare the equipment. If you can do basic addition/subtraction you'll be able to figure out which is more powerful.

We don't keep info like this memorized and would have to look at the spec's to answer you so how about you save us the trouble and go do the research and reading.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#2
October 17, 2010 at 10:54:56
? Because there is a huge G to N difference is what I am getting at not specific models. There is no DDWRT spec sheet that is something I need to obtain from someone who has actually tried it. Not to be rude but please show me a link to a WRT54G being sold with DDWRT firmware on it along with its spec sheet.

I know N travels farther through walls instead of bouncing around like G. But with a very powerful G radio it might make up for the difference. I also already know that N supports faster transfer speeds (which I do not know what the maximum bandwidth remote desktop connection can use including video streams, and whether G can handle the full feature of RDC without sacrificing any quality or functionality)

I really think you missed my point and maybe I did not make myself clear enough


Report •

#3
October 17, 2010 at 11:21:01
I really think you missed my point and maybe I did not make myself clear enough

No, I didn't. I understood fully and responded accordingly. My response has not changed. I will however say this:

The physical specifications won't change regardless of what 3'd party firmware you put on a linux based router. Firmware is basically software...........hardware is hardware and the firmware cannot affect, or change, the output and/or signal strength of the hardware. At least, it can't make it exceed it's specifications. I suspect it's possible to lower them, but never exceed them.

The last thing I will say is this. Whatever router you buy will be 100 or 1000 Mbps on the LAN. Your internet connection is going to be a lot slower (anywhere from 1 to 10 Mbps) so your concerns about RDC are moot. G can handle RDC quite well, I use it all the time with my G router.

All the rest of your concerns can be addressed by you reading the spec sheets for the products and making a choice based on that.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
October 17, 2010 at 16:23:04
For 1 YES I am changing it with firmware, it will no longer be a router it will be playing the roll of a network adapter completely changing the signal path, obviously you are clueless of what DDWRT does....

For 2 I am not using RDC over the internet so that has nothing to do with internet speed when it is used within a LAN, just never mind


Report •

#5
October 18, 2010 at 05:23:38
Actually, I probably know more about DD-WRT than you do. I prefer Tomato myself as it has more features. But that's beside the point.

Unless you're changing the circuitry on the board, you're not changing any "signal paths" on the device you stupid horses ass. You might change it's role and how it's used, but that's software, not hardware. The device specifications remain unchanged. It still operates on the same frequency with the same amount of power.

It's no wonder you're in here asking stupid questions, you haven't got the IQ of a dandelion.

Here's the very first sentence of your very first post:

Which would work better for remote desktop connection over a distance,

That sounds like a remote connection over the WAN. Even if it's not, it's not relevant to the real question about which equipment is more powerful.

If you had two ounces of brain, I swear the one would be out looking for the other.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#6
October 18, 2010 at 05:55:28
pinkfloydeffect

I would back off a little while you are still in one piece. To accuse Curt R of being clueless is really the sillies thing I have read on these forums for a long time.

A little bit of information for you. The power output of Wi-fi equipment is strictly regulated by each countries Radio Regulatory Authorities and International Agreements If you by some chance worked out how to increase the power output of a wireless router, something you cannot do with software as it is a hardware problem, then you would soon have someone knocking on your door in response to your neighbours complaining about being swamped by a powerful signal.

The difference in performance of different routers is more to do with how well the circuitry is designed, the quality of the components used and how efficient it is a making use of the power that is available. You cannot change that with software.

Wi-fi power power is deliberately kept low for a good reason. When you understand why that is so then perhaps you will understand the perfectly good answer that Curt R gave you.

Stuart


Report •

#7
October 18, 2010 at 18:28:41
Yeah Curt really geeked out on me there.

Isn't the radio in a router more powerful than a USB network adapter though? As in two routers could connect over a slightly longer distance than a router and a dinky network adapter could?


Report •

#8
October 19, 2010 at 03:04:09
Not necessarily. The power output is measured in mWatts so it wont make any difference. What will make the difference if that the antenna on a router will be more efficient than the antenna on a network adaptor due to space restrictions.

Stuart


Report •

#9
October 19, 2010 at 15:10:18
Cha ching! That was what I was wondering, thank you everything has clicked here now :)

Report •

Ask Question