bit-tech.net

Wireless router group test

Comments 1 to 25 of 34

Reply
DarkLord7854 5th March 2007, 13:10 Quote
I'm surprised you guys didn't try the Linksys 54G router. I know a lot of people who have it (including me) and it performs pretty well and it's 50$. Fairly easy to configure and the support is good. Performs well on games, with a shared 3Mbs connection, my brother and I can play on different servres and maintain pings of less then 70 no problem. Has a fairly consistent signal too for wireless.
Hamish 5th March 2007, 13:19 Quote
your group test lacks draytek! :p

edit: there are issues with MP games and routers? :|
i havent had to alter port forwarding or anything like that to play MP games for a LONG time 99% of games just work out of the box :\
Lazlow 5th March 2007, 13:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
I'm surprised you guys didn't try the Linksys 54G router. I know a lot of people who have it (including me) and it performs pretty well and it's 50$. Fairly easy to configure and the support is good. Performs well on games, with a shared 3Mbs connection, my brother and I can play on different servres and maintain pings of less then 70 no problem. Has a fairly consistent signal too for wireless.
Read the first page - it mentions that cheaper routers are unreliable, so they tested 4 wireless routers around the £100 mark. I've had a Linksys 54G for 3 years now and it's had to be replaced once due to it dying after several months use. Their support is great though.
DarkLord7854 5th March 2007, 13:34 Quote
Ohh, I read that as "we tested routers in the £50-60 range"

Though I think it would have been nice to include those "cheaper and unreliable" routers just to show how much of a difference they make. Because it's nice to compare high priced items agaisnt each other, but sometimes cheaper items are just as good, if not better (because you just get the essentials and not extra things you don't need like a uber-coffee maker pro with dual water retainers as well as magnetic sticky clamps with the special heat-less cord thing :))
Warrior_Rocker 5th March 2007, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Although it’s not a combined router and modem, it was configured by default with an IP of 192.168.1.1, which is the IP most modems use. Since it was the only router on test not to use 192.168.0.1 out of the box, we had a very frustrating half hour trying to connect to the internet before we realised the problem.

I am really not sure what is meant by this. I would have to say most routers I come across either configure themsevles as 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1 with subnet of 255.255.255.0. Oddly enough most modems I have come across including every motorola cable modem I have owned configure themselves to 192.168.100.1 or some very close variation of that.

Unless your modem had a bulit in router that was conflicting? Maybe this is the way products come configured across the pond. However I would say products like Linksys which seem to dominate the consumer end router market which come configured as 192.168.1.1 would force the modem market to configure a different IP
IccleD 5th March 2007, 14:26 Quote
I've had a Linksys 54g(with Speedboost) Wireless Router, for almost 3 years. Cost £50ish brand new, and I never had any issues.

I've got 1 wired & 2 wireless PCs, a Wireless Print Server, Webcam & Range Extender all linksys also. Their support is 1st class, and they know their products.

I maintain very low Pings when playing games, even when all 3 PCs are connected, and can game with one or two & print at the same time with no problems or increased latency.

I don't see a need to pay extra for Pre-N, as at the time I bought mine it was unproven.

As for unreliabilty, I'd have to argue, most wireless problems originate from the user, not the product. as proven by your "Frustrating half hour".

Not being rude, but did you read the manual? If it's not in the manual, you've paid far too much for a product, that doesn't even provide correct instructions. In which case, I'd suggest a cheaper Router, where the company invested in writing a manual containing all the required details.
perplekks45 5th March 2007, 15:16 Quote
I actually own a this, a Trust 108 Mbit/s Router & Access Point for about 2 1/2 years now and I didn't have any problems until I switched to ADSL2+. There are times the router manages to give me full 54 Mbit/s but it sometimes slows down horribly to 2 Mbit/s. I thought about switching the router to a newer model but I just can't be bothered spending 100€ on a new one as long as this one works (and the one I got from Alternate.de for free... dunno why, but they sent me 2, paid 1 :D).
And about the gaming thing: I play CS:S regularly (read: daily) and have pings of about 15-20 so I don't think WLAN + Gaming doesn't work. I didn't have to configure a lot, some port forwardings for Battle.net a long time ago as it just wouldn't work but that's it. I'd never ever switch back to wired LAN as I think 12 MB/s are way enough for what me and my girl friend exchange on our home LAN. And for LAN parties I have my 1Gbit/s connection delivered by my P5B-E. :)
randosome 5th March 2007, 17:13 Quote
personally, before i changed i had the linksys WRT54GL - and although a great router, it dies when trying to use bittorrent (well when i used it)
So nowadays i use a WAP54G access point to get clients on my wireless network , and an IPCop firewall (Linux based firewall) which is totally awesome

Running bittorrent with 1500 connections, surfing, chatting and playing a game all with no problems whatsoever - also with plug ins it supports QoS (actually 2 different types of QoS depending on the plug in) as well as bandwidth monitoring features and so on and so forth

Plus IPCop is free and will run on any old 386 (you probably want a P2 though) which might set you back like £20 (if you don't have 1 lying around) Plus when they finally decide on a wireless spec then i can just change my access point for anything else and don't have to modify my router at all

I do wonder what these £100 routers provide over the £50/60 WRT54G though ... (except no dieing when using bittorrent, although that's fixed on newer models)
Kipman725 5th March 2007, 17:16 Quote
I have a zoom adsl x5 router, it just works and can have upto 25 port forwards added. For giving certian packets priority I would veiw it of more of a managed switch/computers job.

btw wireless sucks, far cheaper to wire everything up with some solid core cat5e.
DarkLord7854 5th March 2007, 17:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by randosome
personally, before i changed i had the linksys WRT54GL - and although a great router, it dies when trying to use bittorrent (well when i used it)
So nowadays i use a WAP54G access point to get clients on my wireless network , and an IPCop firewall (Linux based firewall) which is totally awesome

Running bittorrent with 1500 connections, surfing, chatting and playing a game all with no problems whatsoever - also with plug ins it supports QoS (actually 2 different types of QoS depending on the plug in) as well as bandwidth monitoring features and so on and so forth

I do wonder what these £100 routers provide over the £50/60 WRT54G though ... (except no dieing when using bittorrent, although that's fixed on newer models)

If you make sure your upload is capped at 30, the WRT54G(S/L) works fine
randosome 5th March 2007, 17:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
If you make sure your upload is capped at 30, the WRT54G(S/L) works fine
even with the speed limited and the connections very limited, after a week it would usually require a reset, and if it got up to any speed nothing would work (although BT would continue downloading )

Anyway, IPCop is a far better solution, i can be downloading at 150kb/s and not notice it - also it has unlimited port forwarding (when the WRT54GL by standard has like 10)

Also, wireless is only for laptops where using a wire is impractical and having the connection bug slightly isn't an issue at all - I HATE gaming on wireless
DarkLord7854 5th March 2007, 20:54 Quote
I've never let mine download for that long, so can't tell you :S

However, I was b*tching at Linksys a few weeks back about the lame amount of port forwards on the router config, and they said they're working on firmware upgrade that will enable their routers to hold a potential 50 forwardings.

I gotta agree with you on gaming on wireless though, I had my computer on wireless for 6 months.. I couldn't even play Starcraft without lagging to hell every 5mins
randosome 5th March 2007, 21:10 Quote
FYI you can use custom firmware like DD-WRT which gives you many more port forwards, so linksys are rather behind
bubsterboo 5th March 2007, 21:26 Quote
What about the Linksys wrt350n?
Yeah, DD-WRT is great.
Buzzons 5th March 2007, 21:59 Quote
The article is good, but flawed in one area however, and that is that NAT is security... that is like saying MAC filtering in a wireless device is security (and I would hope it a forum such as this you would not think it is)

NAT (not the state full firewall firewall that is usually included as well with the router) is not meant, nor does a good job, for securing the network. Ok, it stops "most" malware that was written a few months a go maybe, but there has been (and always has been known in security fields that NAT can be bypassed very easily by forging the packet headers of a packet) a few bits of malware produced recently, as well as some "autohaxers" that can scan through NAT and find your internal PCs and exploit them just as if there was no NAT in the "way". A state full firewall set up correctly will stop these from getting to your PCs however, everyone think that "enabling NAT" == "firewall" it is NOT, nor should it be associated with security.

Also, it would be better to see how the routers deal with multiple routes / vpns / many externally routable IPs within the LAN, as well as DMZs and the like.

so yea, if an editor feels like changing the second (i think) paragraph on the first page, that basically says NAT == Security, to be NAT + firewall = security, I would be much happier :D
TimB 6th March 2007, 04:18 Quote
Aww, you should'a tested the DIR-655 Xtreme N Gigabit Router from D-Link. By far the best consumer router on the market right now.
Wolfe 6th March 2007, 05:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teh Article
Although it’s not a combined router and modem, it was configured by default with an IP of 192.168.1.1, which is the IP most modems use. Since it was the only router on test not to use 192.168.0.1 out of the box, we had a very frustrating half hour trying to connect to the internet before we realised the problem.

If your modem has an IP with a prefix of 192.168, that means it has a router integrated into it, at which point you should be looking to connect it to a hub/switch and an access point, rather than an another router.

A pure modem actually has no IP address, as it's a device that modulates an analog carrier signal to encode digital information, and also demodulates such a carrier signal to decode the transmitted information (from Wikipedia). Essentially, it just translates from one type of physical network to another.


IOW, the article is incorrectly calling a router a modem.



On the other hand, some modern modems (such as some cablemodems) actually function as network bridges. Again, while it's similar to a router, it operates on OSI Model layer 2 (mac addressing), rather than 3 (IP addressing), which is the layer actual routers function on.
DarkLord7854 6th March 2007, 05:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfe
If your modem has an IP with a prefix of 192.168, that means it has a router integrated into it, at which point you should be looking to connect it to a hub/switch and an access point, rather than an another router.

Or you can switch it to IP passthrough, like mine.
DougEdey 6th March 2007, 07:19 Quote
I have a few routers which come with 10.0.0.x as their default setting, and you can then choose the subnet as you want.

Bloody conexant.
[cibyr] 6th March 2007, 10:08 Quote
No draytek, billion or even linksys. Disappointing. It would've also been nice to throw in a cisco for comparison to "enterprise" level routers.
SteveyG 6th March 2007, 11:46 Quote
This is about the first review on here that I've found really dissapointing. :(

There's some major routers missing from the test, all of the features of the routers are not outlined, and the tests are very basic to say the least! It also seems like the author doesn't have a full knowledge of networking in order to fully review these devices. :(
topher 6th March 2007, 14:17 Quote
They mentioned iso's and bittorrents in part of the review is that not piracy ? Half the routers on the market where not their it was a pretty pish review.
DougEdey 6th March 2007, 14:19 Quote
Bittorrents and ISOs are the best way to get FOSS software like Archos source code and Linux Distributions.
Lazlow 6th March 2007, 14:32 Quote
I thought it was as good as a router review can get. Many magazine publications barely touch on real-world performance. Surely it's a good thing to see bit-tech reviewing products that we'd otherwise overlook? It's impossible to review every router out there too.
airchie 6th March 2007, 15:02 Quote
Anyone here tried the RouterTech 3rd-party firmware?
Gives way more functionality than the original firmwares and seems very reliable.

I used it on a cheap £30 wireless DSL router modem from ebuyer and it rocks!
Bought one for my mrs for her new place and its been running solidly since I installed the RouterTech firmware.

I'd say its every bit as good as my Netgear DG834PN and is better than the DG834N we had at work for about a quarter of the price.

Can't fault it yet personally but would love to see it put through its paces in a test like this! :)
Hell, I'd likely be up for sending you my other-half's one to test if you wanted? :D
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums