To Ruben: The general rule of them is to expect no more than half the advertised speed. So, with 802.11a or g, don't expect more than 27Mbps of throughput . . . but likely, u won't even get that. I'm still on 802.11b, rated @ 11Mbps, so the "theortical" real world max is just over 5Mbps. In reality, where my notebook PC is about a foot from router, I started seeing loss in bandwidth from the maximum delivered speed by my cable operator, start to drop once advertised download speeds started to surpass 2Mbps. When my cable modem speeds were capped @ 3Mbps, I saw no more than 2.4-2.5Mbps via my wireless router. When the CM cap was lifted to 4.0Mbps, I barely saw more than 3.3Mbps over my Wi-Fi. Hope this real world info helps.
Bob: Most people measure speed, or more appropriately throughput, in terms of Mbps (bits). MB (bytes) are typically used to measure the size of a file for storage purposes, not transmission.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
To Ruben: The general rule of them is to expect no more than half the advertised speed. So, with 802.11a or g, don't expect more than 27Mbps of throughput . . . but likely, u won't even get that. I'm still on 802.11b, rated @ 11Mbps, so the "theortical" real world max is just over 5Mbps. In reality, where my notebook PC is about a foot from router, I started seeing loss in bandwidth from the maximum delivered speed by my cable operator, start to drop once advertised download speeds started to surpass 2Mbps. When my cable modem speeds were capped @ 3Mbps, I saw no more than 2.4-2.5Mbps via my wireless router. When the CM cap was lifted to 4.0Mbps, I barely saw more than 3.3Mbps over my Wi-Fi. Hope this real world info helps.
Bob: Most people measure speed, or more appropriately throughput, in terms of Mbps (bits). MB (bytes) are typically used to measure the size of a file for storage purposes, not transmission.