hi all, sorry for my english
my laptop wifi performance is bad. compaq v2000 turion. i've got a big
flat but a small bank money. i'm not interested in upgrading my card -
it's very good- am not interested in reflectors or dishes or whatever i
see on internet. what i want to know and can't to find is
inter-computer hack to increase the range of signal. in other worlds,
is there some way to configure my card - or laptop - to pickup my weak
signal?? there must be "hack" to pickup my "distant" signal but i
haven't been able to find it in system data. the presario aren't
helping nor neither are the d-link peoples. so the question is, does
there exist any advice for changing the settings of a computer with
wifi card to pick up larger distance?
thank you much
G <ghelias@cc.owu.edu> wrote:
> hi all, sorry for my english
> my laptop wifi performance is bad. compaq v2000 turion. i've got a big
> flat but a small bank money. i'm not interested in upgrading my card -
> it's very good- am not interested in reflectors or dishes or whatever i
On 1 Nov 2005 11:17:28 -0800, "G" <ghelias@cc.owu.edu> wrote:
>hi all, sorry for my english
Your English is better than most in this newsgroup.
>my laptop wifi performance is bad. compaq v2000 turion. i've got a big
>flat but a small bank money. i'm not interested in upgrading my card -
>it's very good- am not interested in reflectors or dishes or whatever i
>see on internet. what i want to know and can't to find is
>inter-computer hack to increase the range of signal. in other worlds,
>is there some way to configure my card - or laptop - to pickup my weak
>signal?? there must be "hack" to pickup my "distant" signal but i
>haven't been able to find it in system data.
A reflector or different antenna is the right answer.
However, there are a few tricks. You can always trade speed for
range. Normally, the 802.11g access points are setup for "automatic"
which means go as fast as possible. This is a good thing under most
circumstances, but it doesn't do much for the range. The access point
will constantly be trying faster and faster speeds, resulting in
constantly varying connection speed with weak signal.
The trick is to use a fixed speed at the access point or router. I
suggest you start with 6Mbits/sec OFDM. The client radio will
automagically adjust its speed accordingly. Because it's a fixed
speed, it will not spend its time trying other speeds.
If 6MBits/sec doesn't work, try 2Mbits/sec. The sensitivity is
slightly better at this slow speed. Don't bother with 1Mbit/sec as
the sensitivity roughly the same as 2Mbits/sec.
>the presario aren't
>helping nor neither are the d-link peoples. so the question is, does
>there exist any advice for changing the settings of a computer with
>wifi card to pick up larger distance?
>thank you much
>
>gideon
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.usjeffl@cruzio.com
G wrote:
> hi all, sorry for my english
> my laptop wifi performance is bad. compaq v2000 turion. i've got a big
> flat but a small bank money. i'm not interested in upgrading my card -
> it's very good- am not interested in reflectors or dishes or whatever i
> see on internet. what i want to know and can't to find is
> inter-computer hack to increase the range of signal. in other worlds,
> is there some way to configure my card - or laptop - to pickup my weak
> signal?? there must be "hack" to pickup my "distant" signal but i
> haven't been able to find it in system data. the presario aren't
> helping nor neither are the d-link peoples. so the question is, does
> there exist any advice for changing the settings of a computer with
> wifi card to pick up larger distance?
> thank you much
>
> gideon
>
Without changing the antenna or moving the unit closer to the source
there isn't alot you are going to be able to do. The problem here is
the receiver sensetivity. This is something that you are not going to be
able to change. You could replace your card with a unit that has a
better receiver sensetivity, that is if you can even find one. The best
and cheapest fix would be change the antenna to a higher gain, but this
may not be possible depending on the card you have. Without being able
to be flexable there maybe NOTHING anyone can do that help you.
thank u sir. u r right that i am not interested in such solution not
b/c i am cheapskate. but everyperson is not rich. i have the computer
but going out an buying an antenna is too much ok. that's why i had
posted. but thnks for the advice. if i get the chance i WILL explore
the other options. i want internet now thow.
thank u for the info. i will try yoga classes. ok really thanks.
basically i am getting here that there is no boost to enhance the card
unlike freakin everything with XP and hardware running on XP. my
country thanks you.
If you have a WRT54G you can download non offical firmware DD-WRT gives
you a ton of feature and Hyper-WRT just adds a few, but they both let
you increase the power output of the radios in the router.
G wrote:
> thank u for the info. i will try yoga classes. ok really thanks.
> basically i am getting here that there is no boost to enhance the card
> unlike freakin everything with XP and hardware running on XP. my
> country thanks you.
>
It doesn't matter if this equipment was on windows, (this is not a linux
or windows issue) because the problem lies with the receivers ability to
pickup a poor (weak) signal. I do beleive Jeff made a suggestion that
may help without any modifications to the wifi card or antenna. That was
to limit the xmit rate to 2Mbps. It is truely amazing how one ask for
solutions and when they get them they get mad because they are not the
solution the one asking beleives he or she should get. The problem lies
with you wifi card and how weak of a signal that it can receive and
work. You options whether or not you should like them or not.
1. move the computer closer to the wireless transmitting source.
2. change antennas.
3. do nothing at all.
4. complain about the suggestions others have made.
5. try KungFu and kick that wifi card into submission.
6. Blame the problem because you don't have money to correct it.
mmanning wrote:
> If you have a WRT54G you can download non offical firmware DD-WRT gives
> you a ton of feature and Hyper-WRT just adds a few, but they both let
> you increase the power output of the radios in the router.
>
> Hyper-WRT
> http://www.hyperwrt.org/
> DD-WRT
> http://www.dd-wrt.com
>
> Marcel
>
Increasing the output power does nothing for it receiving a poor signal.
Transmit power is not going to increase the receivers sensetivity.
Please don't confuse the two.
Oh by the way he doesn't have the WRT54G and these mods will NOT work on
the model Linksys that he has.
G <ghelias@cc.owu.edu> wrote:
> thank u sir. u r right that i am not interested in such solution not
> b/c i am cheapskate. but everyperson is not rich. i have the computer
On 2 Nov 2005 13:48:03 -0800, "G" <ghelias@cc.owu.edu> wrote:
>salesman (school project)
He's not selling those antennas. They're free and very easy to build. http://www.freeantennas.com
If you have a limited budget, building one of these cardboard and
aluminium foil reflectors will probably give you the best range
improvment for the small amount of money spent.
> helpful. not so much of a ********. (this is for a school project)
And you think calling anybody a ******** will _help_ you get somebody to do
your school project for you?
1) Learn to quote (I can't see what you're asking, having missed the
original post)
2) Be polite.
3) When somebody else is _not_ polite, bet on it being because you asked a
stupid question, and see #2. Yes, there are some ********s on any
newsgroup, but drawing their attention to it won't help you.
--
derek
>> this tinfoil. where do u get it? best buy men dont have tinfoil - they
>> say alnimum??
>
> Actually it's called aluminium :)
Actually, even though I grew up calling it aluminium, by international
agreement chemists call it aluminum. (yeah, I saw the smiley, but it's
time to realize that the sun has set on the Empire ;-) )
--
derek
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <ndip33-qqe.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca> on Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:11:35 -0400,
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>G wrote:
>
>> helpful. not so much of a ********. (this is for a school project)
>
>And you think calling anybody a ******** will _help_ you get somebody to do
>your school project for you?
>
>1) Learn to quote (I can't see what you're asking, having missed the
>original post)
>
>2) Be polite.
>
>3) When somebody else is _not_ polite, bet on it being because you asked a
>stupid question, and see #2. Yes, there are some ********s on any
>newsgroup, but drawing their attention to it won't help you.
4) Don't use Usenet for homework assignments (as noted in Usenet guidelines).
Those are for you to do, not us.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:04:19 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>> Actually, even though I grew up calling it aluminium, by international
>> agreement chemists call it aluminum. (yeah, I saw the smiley, but it's
>Care to cite the source of that name change? :)
>I'm happy with Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
>I found it on the internet, so it must be true ;)
>David.
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:04:19 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, even though I grew up calling it aluminium, by international
>>> agreement chemists call it aluminum. (yeah, I saw the smiley, but it's
>
>>Care to cite the source of that name change? :)
>>I'm happy with Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
>>I found it on the internet, so it must be true ;)
>>David.
>
> Would you believe alumine or alumium?
> http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
> For oxide, is it alumina, alumine, or aluminia?
Yeah, I already apologized to David. My HS chemistry teacher insisted the
international society had standardized on the American spelling. He lied
to us :-( Who'd have thought that teachers could get things wrong? I'm
devastated.
--
derek
In article <h12nm1tp9tmda9l4uphm6era104u6ibfar@4ax.com>, jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us says...
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:04:19 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, even though I grew up calling it aluminium, by international
> >> agreement chemists call it aluminum. (yeah, I saw the smiley, but it's
>
> >Care to cite the source of that name change? :)
> >I'm happy with Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
> >I found it on the internet, so it must be true ;)
> >David.
>
> Would you believe alumine or alumium?
> http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
> For oxide, is it alumina, alumine, or aluminia?
That link works for me Jeff, particularly the bit:-
"the word ALUMINIUM was adopted by the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemists"
> international society had standardized on the American spelling. He lied
> to us :-( Who'd have thought that teachers could get things wrong? I'm
> devastated.
Sucks eh? Ask a politician next time for a factual answer! <yeah right>
I'm figuring that at least in Canada, you can spell colour correctly and
centre too.
im sorry guys. it's was the neurontin. made me psychotic. just visiting
anyway. ill go back to the schizo group. but thanks for the helpful
response chaver jeff.
hell at least i added some excitement to your major geek forum. aside i
will put anything metal on my head. right now i am sporting a
fashionable cranial barbell weight. it does the body good. well that's
it. bye bye. back to crazyland
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:15:17 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>In article <h12nm1tp9tmda9l4uphm6era104u6ibfar@4ax.com>,
>jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us says...
>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:04:19 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, even though I grew up calling it aluminium, by international
>> >> agreement chemists call it aluminum. (yeah, I saw the smiley, but it's
>>
>> >Care to cite the source of that name change? :)
>> >I'm happy with Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
>> >I found it on the internet, so it must be true ;)
>> >David.
>>
>> Would you believe alumine or alumium?
>> http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html
>> For oxide, is it alumina, alumine, or aluminia?
>That link works for me Jeff, particularly the bit:-
>
>"the word ALUMINIUM was adopted by the International Union of Pure and
>Applied Chemists"
Some standards organization. Go to their search page at: http://www.iupac.org/general/search.php
and punch in aluminum or aluminium. It get 220 for aluminum and 243
for aluminium. 37 page show both. They don't even follow their own
standards. Mailing address in Triangle Research Park in North
Carolina. Methinks they're traitors to the American way of
mis-spelling.
wifi range 
Linear Mode
