John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:30:07 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1howoea.1gqe1l41egfvhwN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:02:19 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> >> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hovbla.4zuktk10nztvkN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> >> >> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >> > So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
> >> >> > using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Depends what you meant by "connected directly to the router", which
> >> I took to be a _wired_ connection. With a single repeater:
> >>
> >> * Wireless G to wired network speed is a maximum of 27 Mbps.
> >>
> >> * Wireless G to wireless G network speed is a maximum of 13.5 Mbps.
> >
> > "two stations"
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > Why not use 802.11 no men cla ture?
> >>
> >> What nomenclature?
> >
> > QED
>
> Ahhh... hairsplitting. Sorry, I thought you had a meaningful comment.
> My mistake.

For a moment there, Eye thought you knew and was were having me on. My
mistake.