[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <di9tna$g8a$1@blue.rahul.net> on Sun, 9 Oct 2005 02:02:18 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXNetge.usenet.us.com wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> The original Netgear WG511 (v1) PC Card is one of the best 802.11g products
>> I've ever used or tested. It has remarkably good range (better than most
>
>I've had a couple of the WG511, I presume they are V1, since they don't say
>v2.

From my first post to this thread:
<<http://kbserver.netgear.com/products/WG511.asp>>

>These are very good cards, and are often very cheap on Amazon. I
>bought the first because it was only $19 after rebates. I bought the
>second after I found out how good the first was. I think it is a bit
>better than an Orinoco Silver Classic.
>
>> * The original WG511 (v1) has a silver antenna bulge.
>> * The WG511v2 has a black antenna bulge.
>
>Netgear uses their own FCC-ID range, so it's difficult to pinpoint the
>original manufacturer, but could you post the new FCCID?
>
>Mine is FCC ID PY3WG511-F. I identified it as an Intersil chipset.

From one of my later posts to this thread:

The cards I currently have:
v1: PY3WG511-F
v2: PY3WG511V2H1

Google suggests that there are at least 5 versions of this card:
PY3WG511 Intersil
PY3WG511-F Intersil
PY3WG511V2H1 Marvell
PY3WG511V3 Atheros
PY3WG511TV1H3 Atheros
That last is probably the WG511T, a distinctly different Netgear product, and
I'm thinking the prior one may be as well, leaving the first three as members
of the base WG511 family, with two chip vendors. My guess is that the Marvell
implementation is cheaper but not as good as the Intersil implementation.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>