Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tipstir]

One way >

[wiak]

meybe give us two firmwares,
One firmware for SPEED also only WPA/WPA2 and 11n/11g only etc
One standard firmware for Compatibility with WEP, WPA, WPA2, 11n/11g/11b only etc
that way people that has no 11b clients can get maximum speed and customers that still got 11b clients can use them to

i know silicon image does this, one firmware with RAID and one with no-RAID, and it can be distributed in the same .zip file

[Lycan]

I'll probably request that the 1.30 be left as a beta for those othat don't want the B and want the performance, however I doubt seriously if they'd let me post it in the same folder.

[Johnnyboy!]

Lycan,

What's the difference between firmware that has B code, but not enabled (G&N only) and firmware that has no B capability with G&N enabled? Is there a measurable difference?

I don't use any B devices, but I would love to have it there as a "just in case". I always thought that if I just don't enable it, it would not affect my performance.

[Lycan]

I'm not entirely sure, however I'm being told that radios that do not have the B signal are capable of greater speeds. I need to research this for myself.

[EddieZ]

I'm not entirely sure, however I'm being told that radios that do not have the B signal are capable of greater speeds. I need to research this for myself.

Yes. Without rolling out all kinds of techinaical details: the presence of wireless b, whether it is enabled or not, affects g & n capabilities. This is because g is designed to ensure interoperability with modulation schemes it shares with b. 802.11g uses an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) encoding scheme rather than FHSS or DSSS, which is used by wirless b.This is necessary since 802.11b also uses the same 2.4 band as 802.11g. When both 802.11b and 802.11g clients are connected to an 802.11g router, the performance of the 802.11g clients can suffer. In the worst case, all 802.11g clients will slow down to have the same network speed as the 802.11b clients.

Not having to deal with the b modulation requirements takes a load of. That's about as deep as I'm willing to go now 

[Lycan]

Thank you Eddie.

[Johnnyboy!]

Yes, thank you. I guess I figured that if wireless-B is *disabled* in the settings, then the router can completely ignore the wireless-B devices and thus no difference than if the code was simply not there.

I don't fully understand it, but hey, sounds good to me.

 

jB

[lotacus]

In theory. Taking from that, it would mean that the DIR just ignores B clients request but still silently advertises the capability or something. I don't care for B but I would like to see a couple more features added back. As well as I stated before, that breaks there WiFi logo certification that's advertised on all there boxes which is going to have reprocusions with the alliance and perhaps civil ones too. The latter being less likely but surely taken advantage of.

[Lycan]

To my knowledge the B is going to be re-added in the 1.31 for cert purposes.
As for moving forward, WiFi has a seperate logo for NON-B units.

[lotacus]

I had figured something was up with that Lycan, didn't entirely think DLINK would make such a bold move, maybe less than 20% haha. I had wondered if the alliance had revised requirments not yet published, being ready to abolish their current requirments in regards to B.

[EddieZ]

Yes, thank you. I guess I figured that if wireless-B is *disabled* in the settings, then the router can completely ignore the wireless-B devices and thus no difference than if the code was simply not there.

I don't fully understand it, but hey, sounds good to me.

 

jB

I'm not into this hardcore wireless coding, but having b + g  using the same radio means they remain interconnected. That's the only way the compatibility and shared modulation works according to the specs.

[bobbyl]

Lycan,

Sounds like you have some insight into 1.31 that is being worked.  Will that version allow you to go back...say to 1.21 (which is where I am now)?  I have avoided 1.30 because of not being able to go back, and the associated concern that if something gets hosed, then I am screwed.  1.30 sounds like a crap shoot to me and I am not that lucky.

[wiak]

why cant we downgrade 1.30 > 1.21 etc?, make no sense, even motherboard bioses can be downgraded, so its not hard to enable downgrade

having the ability to downgrade is critical, for 99.99% of people, if the 1.30 just messes up with their wireless clients, your out of luck as you cant downgrade to a older firmware that worked!

[EddieZ]

why cant we downgrade 1.30 > 1.21 etc?, make no sense, even motherboard bioses can be downgraded, so its not hard to enable downgrade

Not all BIOSses can be downgraded, there are plenty of examples of non-downgradeable BIOS version.
There are some additions to the 1.30 code that impose a code lock. I'm still not sure whether not using that feature will prevent this code lock in 1.30. Waiting for an answer on that