Wireless SRX technology

[mark at buttery.org (Mark J. Dulcey)]

Jerry Feldman wrote:
> I was checking the prices online for a Wireless-G router for a friend
> of mine and I noticed the Linksys Wireless-G Broadband Router with SRX.
> Linksys advertises that this has a wider range than the standard
> Wireless-G. 
> My friend lives in a condo in Somerville, and he wants to use wireless
> for a new laptop in another room.  The standard Wireless-G can be
> obtained for under $60 where the SRX is about $180.  My feeling is that
> the SRX is a total waste of money unless he has a very big house or
> wants to use the wireless outside, which I'm sure he will not. 

If you really want range, look at the pre-N products from Belkin and 
Netgear. You get amazing coverage if you use it at both ends, and a 
significant enhancement even if you only use it at the router/AP. And 
they're cheaper than the overly expensive SRX products.

> In any case, this leads to another related question. I have an older
> wireless-B router that I use only when my daughter visits or on
> occasion with my laptop. The router is downstairs and the signal is a
> bit weak upstairs. I don't need the extra speed of the G router.  Is
> the signal strength of the G routers stronger than the older B routers?

The signal strength is likely no higher; most routers put out the legal 
maximum. Some older ones don't, though. The newer hardware probably also 
has better receive sensitivity; the technology has improved over the years.

Now, if somebody would combine the ParkerVision receiver technology 
(they only make 801.11b hardware, but seem have to achieved receiver 
sensitity at least 5dBm better than anyone else -- but at a price tag 
higher than I care to pay for B) with MIMO (like the pre-N hardware is 
using)... then we would REALLY have something. We can expect wireless 
range and speed to continue to improve over time; the RF and DSP guys 
haven't yet wrung all the potential out of wireless.