>Buffalo has a new device WHR-G125 that is DD-WRT compatible with a better
>receiver that is cheaper than the WHR-HP-G54
>
>http://www.buffalotech.com/products/...-speed-router/
>
>Anyone have any experience, pro or con with this yet?
>I ask as I'm ready to buy several WHR-HP-G54s
The lack of an external antenna really bugs me. I got to play with
one for a few minutes, but not long enough to run any measurements.
The owner also didn't want me to tear it apart. So, all I can say is
that it functioned as expected with the stock firmware.
FCCID FDI-09101584-0. Same FCCID for the WHR-G125 and the
WHR-HP-G125, which is rather suprising. However, the WHR-HP-G125 has
an external antenna connector. Both have 4MB of flash and 16MB of
ram, which is the same as the previous models.
I'm not sure about Buffalo's firmware versions. The clueless nitwit
that designed the firmware download site decided to designate the
downloads by the product name instead of model number. I guess(tm) is
that it's a "Wireless-G MIMO Performance* Ethernet Converter".
<http://www.buffalotech.com/support/downloads/>
Since both the old and new models have the same name, there's no way
to tell if the same version firmware is used, or if there's been a
change. Maybe asking Buffalo for a decoder chart that related the
names contrived by marketing to confuse us, against the model numbers
contrived by engineering to undo the confusion. Also note that the
FCC ID number is non-sensical and does not contain the product number,
which everyone else does. With little imagination, I could contrive a
conspiracy theory that suggests that Buffalo marketing is seriously
afraid of numbers and accurate product identification. I wonder what
would happen if I call support and ask questions without ever
revealing the product number.
I would post the exact FCC ID URL, but the FCC ID site seems to be
having a bad day (again):
Error Executing Database Query.
weblogic.common.resourcepool.ResourceDisabledExcep tion:
Pool OETDataSource is disabled, cannot allocate resources
to applications..
The error occurred on line 26.
Oh well.
When (and if) it comes back, go unto to:
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm>
and punch in "FDI" for the grantee code, and "-09101584-0" for the
mudel number. Don't forget the leading dash.
"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182025469.287382.185210@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
|
| It works with DD-WRT. Non-removable antenna is 2dbi vs 4 of the HP.
Buffalo support maintains the antenna is removable.
Oops. My mistake then. And Jeff said: The lack of an external
antenna really bugs me. I can see the external antenna in the
photos. I remembered somebody said it was fixed. Or misremembered,
it seems.
But yes, DD-WRT says the new WHR-G125 IS supported, I saw that for
sure. They are focused on Buffalo over Linksys these days, it
seems. They sell them in their shop with DD-WRT already installed.
>Oops. My mistake then. And Jeff said: The lack of an external
>antenna really bugs me. I can see the external antenna in the
>photos. I remembered somebody said it was fixed. Or misremembered,
>it seems.
I was going to reply when the FCC web pile came back. It's still
dead. Good to know that government services only work during business
hours. The photos on the FCC ID docs should show it one way or other.
I could swear it wasn't removeable, but I didn't bother trying to
remove or pay much attention to the antenna. In other words, I might
be wrong. I might be able to call the customer with the radio and
ask.
>But yes, DD-WRT says the new WHR-G125 IS supported, I saw that for
>sure. They are focused on Buffalo over Linksys these days, it
>seems. They sell them in their shop with DD-WRT already installed.
For good reason. Buffalo hasn't released any products with
incompatible chipsets while Linksys has.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:fl2b73dkhcj47s7gqljr6d1r8trpldaik4@4ax.com...
| seaweedsteve <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> hath wroth:
|
| >Oops. My mistake then. And Jeff said: The lack of an external
| >antenna really bugs me. I can see the external antenna in the
| >photos. I remembered somebody said it was fixed. Or misremembered,
| >it seems.
|
| I was going to reply when the FCC web pile came back. It's still
| dead. Good to know that government services only work during business
| hours. The photos on the FCC ID docs should show it one way or other.
| I could swear it wasn't removable, but I didn't bother trying to
| remove or pay much attention to the antenna. In other words, I might
| be wrong. I might be able to call the customer with the radio and
| ask.
|
| >But yes, DD-WRT says the new WHR-G125 IS supported, I saw that for
| >sure. They are focused on Buffalo over Linksys these days, it
| >seems. They sell them in their shop with DD-WRT already installed.
|
| For good reason. Buffalo hasn't released any products with
| incompatible chipsets while Linksys has.
Jeff,
I'm going to buy several of the WHR-HP-G54 on Monday or Tuesday as I have a
right now need.
I'm willing to purchase a WHR-G125 of whatever flavor you recommend and send
it to you to play with if you'd like as I'd like your opinion against future
needs.
And yes I'm well aware of smoke-therefore-you-learn. FWIW I've toasted my
share long ago I just don't have access to the necessarey equipment anymore.
>I'm going to buy several of the WHR-HP-G54 on Monday or Tuesday as I have a
>right now need.
Well, the FCC ID web pile should be back on Monday morning when the
FCC comes back to work. Look at the web page to see if the external
antenna is removeable. FCCID FDI-09101584-0
>I'm willing to purchase a WHR-G125 of whatever flavor you recommend and send
>it to you to play with if you'd like as I'd like your opinion against future
>needs.
Thanks, but I don't have the time. I'm headed for surgery in a month.
Meanwhile, I prefer to goof off, loaf, procrastinate, and avoid
anything that looks like work until perhaps late August. I also have
a full load of projects sitting on the bench that have to be finished
first.
>And yes I'm well aware of smoke-therefore-you-learn. FWIW I've toasted my
>share long ago I just don't have access to the necessarey equipment anymore.
The personal mantra and web site is "Learn By Destroying". If you
haven't destroyed and repaired it, you don't know how it works. Good
luck. I'm fairly sure you'll be fine as I haven't seen any complaints
or obvious problems about the WHR-G125, yet.
On Jun 16, 3:53 pm, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Buffalo support maintains the antenna is removable.
I just saw this on DD-WRT forum:
"I picked up a couple of the 125 units based on the features table in
the wiki.. unfortunately the antenna is not removable but other than
that, it seems to be a great performer. "
>Well, the FCC ID web pile should be back on Monday morning when the
>FCC comes back to work. Look at the web page to see if the external
>antenna is removeable. FCCID FDI-09101584-0
It's Monday morning and the FCC ID search engine is back after the
traditional weekend and holiday server crash and database corruption.
Our tax dollars inaction.
The photos here sure look like a non-removable antenna to me:
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=772668&native_or_pdf=pd f>
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=772670&native_or_pdf=pd f>
However, there was a "Class II Permissive Change" issued for a new
package which does have a removable antenna:
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779730&native_or_pdf=pd f>
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779731&native_or_pdf=pd f>
Interestingly, the cover letter does NOT itemize the change of antenna
or connector, and ignores the increase in TX power.
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779728&native_or_pdf=pd f>
Permissive change? I don't think so. I guess the FCC was asleep,
didn't look at the photos, or perhaps was experiencing weekend
computer problems.
The problem is that both the WHR-G125 and the WHR-HP-G125 both have
the same FCC ID FDI-09101584-0. There's also no easy way to
distinguish between them in the documents. It's very unusual for two
different products to share the same FCC ID number. That's probably
why the model number is not imbedded in the FCC ID number, as with all
the other manufacturers.
My guess(tm) is that since the WHR-G125 is advertised and photographed
with a 2dBi antenna, while the WHR-HP-G125 is advertised with a 4dBi
antenna, only the WHR-HP-G125 comes with a detachable antenna. My
guess(tm) is that if you buy the WHR-G125, you'll get a permanently
affixed antenna.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> hath wroth:
>
>> Well, the FCC ID web pile should be back on Monday morning when the
>> FCC comes back to work. Look at the web page to see if the external
>> antenna is removeable. FCCID FDI-09101584-0
>
> It's Monday morning and the FCC ID search engine is back after the
> traditional weekend and holiday server crash and database corruption.
> Our tax dollars inaction.
>
> The photos here sure look like a non-removable antenna to me:
> <https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=772668&native_or_pdf=pd f>
> <https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=772670&native_or_pdf=pd f>
>
> However, there was a "Class II Permissive Change" issued for a new
> package which does have a removable antenna:
> <https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779730&native_or_pdf=pd f>
> <https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779731&native_or_pdf=pd f>
>
> Interestingly, the cover letter does NOT itemize the change of antenna
> or connector, and ignores the increase in TX power.
> <https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779728&native_or_pdf=pd f>
> Permissive change? I don't think so. I guess the FCC was asleep,
> didn't look at the photos, or perhaps was experiencing weekend
> computer problems.
>
> The problem is that both the WHR-G125 and the WHR-HP-G125 both have
> the same FCC ID FDI-09101584-0. There's also no easy way to
> distinguish between them in the documents. It's very unusual for two
> different products to share the same FCC ID number. That's probably
> why the model number is not imbedded in the FCC ID number, as with all
> the other manufacturers.
According to the test report the only difference's are the Antenna and
the colour. The HP version was the one that was tested.
Section 2.1 remark 3
<https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779734&native_or_pdf=pd f>
>
> My guess(tm) is that since the WHR-G125 is advertised and photographed
> with a 2dBi antenna, while the WHR-HP-G125 is advertised with a 4dBi
> antenna, only the WHR-HP-G125 comes with a detachable antenna. My
> guess(tm) is that if you buy the WHR-G125, you'll get a permanently
> affixed antenna.
>
>According to the test report the only difference's are the Antenna and
>the colour. The HP version was the one that was tested.
>Section 2.1 remark 3
><https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779734&native_or_pdf=pd f>
Well, I'm confused. I'm assuming that the WHR-HP-G125 is a higher tx
power version of the WHR-G125. That usually requires seperate type
certification. Yet, the report indicates that the tests apply to
both. The rated tx power on the FCC test reports is about 20dB tx
output. No clue if the WHR-G125 is the same.
Meanwhile, the 125Mbit/sec page on the Buffalo web pile only shows
models WHR-G125 and WHR-G54S. No WHR-HP-G125 anywhere in sight. No
specifications at all except for the "Tx Power: Adjustable" which is
totally useless. So, is the WHR-HP-G125 and WHR-G125 the same product
in two different packages?
<http://www.buffalotech.com/products/wireless/wireless-g-125-high-speed/>
What is the WHR-G54S 54Mbit/sec device doing on a page full of
125Mbit/sec devices? The real device exists as on:
<http://www.retailaccess.com/buffalo/index.asp>
No tx power output data on any of the evasive marketing-speak that
they call a data sheet.
On Jun 18, 4:54 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>So, is the WHR-HP-G125 and WHR-G125 the same product
> in two different packages?
Makes sense, marketing wise. The new chip sounds to be a bit more
sensitive, it allows them to cut the extra electronics and just
differentiate entry and power user models by antenna package.
They stay friendly with the linux firmware crowd and get 2db antenna
performance on Linksys and they've got the HP as the preferred product
selling for same price as the 54GL. That's enough. And they make
an extra $10 simply by adding the antenna connector. Doing more with
less!
But, hey, they may be re-thinking the connector.
If so, I'd go with it the entry one and put my own antenna. Or not.
2dbi is ideal someplaces.
>On Jun 18, 4:54 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>So, is the WHR-HP-G125 and WHR-G125 the same product
>> in two different packages?
>Makes sense, marketing wise. The new chip sounds to be a bit more
>sensitive, it allows them to cut the extra electronics and just
>differentiate entry and power user models by antenna package.
Exactly. However, if that were the case, and the two products are
electrically different (i.e. power amplifier, antenna, connector,
package, etc), then they require seperate FCC type certification and
seperate numbers. Methinks something is fishy here.
>They stay friendly with the linux firmware crowd and get 2db antenna
>performance on Linksys and they've got the HP as the preferred product
>selling for same price as the 54GL. That's enough. And they make
>an extra $10 simply by adding the antenna connector. Doing more with
>less!
>
>But, hey, they may be re-thinking the connector.
Sure. So you order one or the other without a clue which box or
antenna you get. No thanks.
> If so, I'd go with it the entry one and put my own antenna. Or not.
>2dbi is ideal someplaces.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> kev <invalid@invalid.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>> According to the test report the only difference's are the Antenna and
>> the colour. The HP version was the one that was tested.
>> Section 2.1 remark 3
>> <https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=779734&native_or_pdf=pd f>
>
> Well, I'm confused. I'm assuming that the WHR-HP-G125 is a higher tx
> power version of the WHR-G125. That usually requires seperate type
> certification. Yet, the report indicates that the tests apply to
> both. The rated tx power on the FCC test reports is about 20dB tx
> output. No clue if the WHR-G125 is the same.
>
> Meanwhile, the 125Mbit/sec page on the Buffalo web pile only shows
> models WHR-G125 and WHR-G54S. No WHR-HP-G125 anywhere in sight. No
> specifications at all except for the "Tx Power: Adjustable" which is
> totally useless. So, is the WHR-HP-G125 and WHR-G125 the same product
> in two different packages?
> <http://www.buffalotech.com/products/wireless/wireless-g-125-high-speed/>
>
> What is the WHR-G54S 54Mbit/sec device doing on a page full of
> 125Mbit/sec devices? The real device exists as on:
> <http://www.retailaccess.com/buffalo/index.asp>
> No tx power output data on any of the evasive marketing-speak that
> they call a data sheet.
>
Any idea how thorough the Wi-Fi Org checks are? They have given them
different certificates but I think you need to be a member to access
details.
WHR-G125 WFA5043
WHR-HP-G125 WFA5044
No, not really. I have a fair idea of what it was like in about 1999,
but things have changed substantially since then. I've heard some 3rd
hand rumors and unsubstantiated claims, which I'll keep to myself.
<http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products.php>
<http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products.php?search=1&advanced=1&la ng=en&filter_company_id=44&filter_category_id=&fil ter_subcategory=&filter_cid=&x=37&y=14>
Is I recall, the wi-fi.org certification is really random about what
constitutes a model number. For example, all the various mutations of
the WRT54G are each listed seperately. However, that doesn't seem
apply for Netgear WGR614, which only shows certifications for v1 and
v6, with nothing in between. I guess(tm) Buffalo got away with
certifying two routers for the price of one with the FCC, but not with
the wi-fi certification.
>They have given them
>different certificates but I think you need to be a member to access
>details.
>WHR-G125 WFA5043
>WHR-HP-G125 WFA5044
I'm not a member, so I can't snoop. The test data and reports are
confidential anyway so I couldn't leak them even if were a member.
On Jun 17, 12:08 pm, seaweedsteve <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops. My mistake then. And Jeff said: The lack of anexternalantennareally bugs me.
It is removable. In a way. You need a soldering iron. But the thing is
that there is also an on-board ext antenna connector that you can plug
into with a pigtail.
I followed these instructions to remove the antenna and add an
external antenna connector to WHR-G125. It's pretty easy to do. It
took me 45 minutes or less. They also have other top notch tutorials
for a newbie like me. Mostly Lynksys stuff though and external antenna
DIY projects.
"poster_boy" <igor@kappastudios.com> wrote in message
news:1183508892.283606.270190@m37g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
| On Jun 17, 12:08 pm, seaweedsteve <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > Oops. My mistake then. And Jeff said: The lack of
anexternalantennareally bugs me.
|
| It is removable. In a way. You need a soldering iron. But the thing is
| that there is also an on-board ext antenna connector that you can plug
| into with a pigtail.
|
| I followed these instructions to remove the antenna and add an
| external antenna connector to WHR-G125. It's pretty easy to do. It
| took me 45 minutes or less. They also have other top notch tutorials
| for a newbie like me. Mostly Lynksys stuff though and external antenna
| DIY projects.
|
| http://www.skifactz.com/wifi/whr-g125_antenna.htm
|
| Oh, by the way, I'm also running DD-WRT on my Bufallo and it works
| well. I'm testing the repeater mode.
No personal knowledge (yet) but Buffalo tech support says the WHR-HP-G125
dose have a detatcheable external antenna.
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:28:12 -0700, poster_boy <igor@kappastudios.com>
wrote:
>It is removable. In a way. You need a soldering iron. But the thing is
>that there is also an on-board ext antenna connector that you can plug
>into with a pigtail.
If the antenna connector on the circuit board really is a U-FL
connector (it looks like one), then you can buy a commercial pigtail
with whatever connector is handy. I bought a pile of U-FL to RP-BNC
8" pigtails from:
<http://www.pacwireless.com/products/cable_assemblies.shtml>
Argh. $15/ea. They were on closeout when I bought them for something
like $3/ea. There are other vendors that U-FL pigtails:
<http://www.fab-corp.com/product.php?productid=2680>
<http://www.wlanparts.com/c=dk9ip8wRyf3homBFAR8Cc5jG9/category/cables/>
No need for any soldering with a proper pigtail.
>I followed these instructions to remove the antenna and add an
>external antenna connector to WHR-G125. It's pretty easy to do. It
>took me 45 minutes or less. They also have other top notch tutorials
>for a newbie like me. Mostly Lynksys stuff though and external antenna
>DIY projects.
>
>http://www.skifactz.com/wifi/whr-g125_antenna.htm
Oh shit. That's awful. They were doing fine until they got to page
4.
<http://www.skifactz.com/wifi/whr-g125_antenna4.htm>
There's no way that a 1" long exposed center conductor is going to
work well at 2.4GHz. I don't see any measurements so I assume that
the author didn't measure the power output. 1" of exposed center
conductor will radiate quite a bit of RF (that doesn't make it to the
coax connector). The basic idea is great, but the implimentation
sucks. He should have used a U-FL pigtail and no soldering. Sigh.
>Oh, by the way, I'm also running DD-WRT on my Bufallo and it works
>well. I'm testing the repeater mode.
See if you can get WPA-PSK encryption to work through the repeater. I
couldn't with v23 SP2, but haven't tried it with v23 SP3.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:48:32 -0400, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>No personal knowledge (yet) but Buffalo tech support says the WHR-HP-G125
>dose have a detatcheable external antenna.
True. See:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/39e9beafd935c265>
for the general confusion over two different model numbers on one FCC
ID.
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:10:58 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>I bought a pile of U-FL to RP-BNC
Argh. I meant U-FL to RP-TNC, not BNC. Sorry.
>8" pigtails from:
><http://www.pacwireless.com/products/cable_assemblies.shtml>
>Argh. $15/ea. They were on closeout when I bought them for something
>like $3/ea. There are other vendors that U-FL pigtails:
><http://www.fab-corp.com/product.php?productid=2680>
><http://www.wlanparts.com/c=dk9ip8wRyf3homBFAR8Cc5jG9/category/cables/>
>No need for any soldering with a proper pigtail.
Lots on eBay:
<http://search.stores.ebay.com/u-fl_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40QQsatitleZuQ2eflQQsbre xpZWD1SQQsifZ1QQsofpZ4QQssPageNameZWD1S>
Article on pigtails with lots of sources:
<http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/PigTail>
More vendors:
<http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/cable_radio_pigtails_switchcase.php?connection=UFL &pgType=ufl>
Buffalo WHR-G125 
Linear Mode
