Linksys WET610N Gaming and Video Adapter 802.11a/b/g/n 2.4/5GHz Dual Band up to 300Mbps $30 FS @ Newegg

Quote from DavNeil : Anyone who is using it, could you please confirm that when you have switch connected to this and individual devices, are they getting individual IPs and can you see them active and in-active in your router.

Yes. You'll get individual IPs on each device connected to the switch.

Quote from phedoblue : same boat here, should i jump to this from e2000 that running tomato

If your current setup is working fine for you then there is no advantage to switch.

Quote from Tensoneu : I'm sure the DD-WRT scene has improved alot since I last messed around with it (4-5 years ago) but I personally think this is a perfect and easy solution for many out there. Last time I messed with it there were incompatibility issues with different routers (One trying to use as a Bridge (DD-WRT) connected to a regular router (non-DD-WRT). For those who have time to troubleshoot when a problem arise the cheap router with DD-WRT may be an option. Out of curiosity though, do you know what router has dual band and have DD-WRT support for around $40?

There are a few around for that price. The Belkin N600 was $30 about a month ago. It's gone up since then, but we all know that the reason they're doing that is so that when they put it "on sale" for $30-$35, people will think that's a great deal. It's a much better option than this, if you ask me. Not only does it have so many more options for functionality going forward, but it has more than 1 port, which is great in case you have more than 1 device that uses ethernet, or your devices use a slower version of ethernet than your home network is capable of sustaining.

Quote from drsketch : Seems like the negative reviews on this product are from people that really have no idea what they are doing. If you want to bridge wireless video from far away in your house, then you absolutely need to be on the 5ghz frequency.

sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about... 5ghz has much worse range than 2.4ghz due to the physics of the wavelength.

5ghz = less interference but less range
2.4ghz = more interference but more range

ideally you would use 5ghz for clients that are near the AP and 2.4ghz for those that are far

Quote from norazi : sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about... 5ghz has much worse range than 2.4ghz due to the physics of the wavelength. 5ghz = less interference but less range 2.4ghz = more interference but more range ideally you would use 5ghz for clients that are near the AP and 2.4ghz for those that are far

No it sounds like I have more real world experience. The slightly less range is often mitigated through sufficient antennas in the devices, couple this with less interference and in most real world scenarios you will get better range and twice the speed.

Quote from ctsinc : There are a few around for that price. The Belkin N600 was $30 about a month ago. It's gone up since then, but we all know that the reason they're doing that is so that when they put it "on sale" for $30-$35, people will think that's a great deal. It's a much better option than this, if you ask me. Not only does it have so many more options for functionality going forward, but it has more than 1 port, which is great in case you have more than 1 device that uses ethernet, or your devices use a slower version of ethernet than your home network is capable of sustaining.

Thanks I will have to keep an eye out for it when it drops to that price. May use it for some wireless IP cameras that is close in proximity. Wish these cameras had 5GHz as an option instead of using this workaround.

Quote from drsketch : No it sounds like I have more real world experience. The slightly less range is often mitigated through sufficient antennas in the devices, couple this with less interference and in most real world scenarios you will get better range and twice the speed.

Um, my real world experience (and physics) tends to disagree with you as well.

5GHz does not penetrate walls very well at all - especially more than two.

Quote from bakerzdosen : Um, my real world experience (and physics) tends to disagree with you as well. 5GHz does not penetrate walls very well at all - especially more than two.

Better antenna (more antenna, high db output)= better penetration. (obviously 2.4 ghz will still have slightly better range, but at 1/2 - 1/4 the speed)

I have a high db antenna that I get full signal on the 5ghz frequency where I only get 2/5 signal on 2.4gz and this is on an addition of our house that used to be an exterior wall. This is due to less interference.

take a device that is dual band, say the device at 50ft on 2,4ghz is picking up 3/5 of its signal at a total bandwidth of 120mbps

same device picking up 2/5 of its 4ghz signal that has a total bandwidth of 240 mbps

which one of you physics experts can do the math here and tell me which signal would provide this device more bandwidth.?

-------
Also for the record, it's getting very annoying running into google search copy and paste experts on this site. Hopefully my luck turns for the better and I stop running into you.

Quote from drsketch : No it sounds like I have more real world experience. The slightly less range is often mitigated through sufficient antennas in the devices, couple this with less interference and in most real world scenarios you will get better range and twice the speed.

Well, your "real world experience" clearly is based on perhaps 1 apples to oranges comparison of a shlitty 2.4GHz router and a much better 5GHz router, and absolutely zero knowledge of radio waves beyond knowing they are what your radio picks up allowing you to listen to Young Jizzy and Shady BlaBla. Higher frequency rates require molecular vibration of items they are penetrating to move at a speed to match (under perfect circumstances). Due to the simple knowledge that items in a resting state tend to stay at a resting state, it's harder to get molecules moving fast enough to transmit signals through them efficiently. Lower frequencies, however, require less movement of the molecules they are passing through, so it's easier for them to penetrate.

To help you understand the effects of this, compare radio waves to sound waves. Pretend you are standing outside and you spot your typical moron driving a $500 hoopty with $5000 wheels on it, and a $5000 stereo in the trunk. You will hear the loud bass long before you can hear the actual lyrics and percussion instruments. This is because 1. the wavelengths of bass are much longer than those of treble, and 2. The lower frequencies of bass penetrate the confines of the car much more efficiently than those of the treble. Don't feel bad -- the flucktard driving that car doesn't understand how it works, either. He's just as smart as you... or you're just as dumb as him... whichever you prefer.

Quote from drsketch : Better antenna (more antenna, high db output)= better penetration. (obviously 2.4 ghz will still have slightly better range, but at 1/2 - 1/4 the speed) I have a high db antenna that I get full signal on the 5ghz frequency where I only get 2/5 signal on 2.4gz and this is on an addition of our house that used to be an exterior wall. This is due to less interference. take a device that is dual band, say the device at 50ft on 2,4ghz is picking up 3/5 of its signal at a total bandwidth of 120mbps same device picking up 2/5 of its 4ghz signal that has a total bandwidth of 240 mbps which one of you physics experts can do the math here and tell me which signal would provide this device more bandwidth.? ------- Also for the record, it's getting very annoying running into google search copy and paste experts on this site. Hopefully my luck turns for the better and I stop running into you.

If you have a great deal of interference on 2.4GHz, then it's the interference NOT the distance that is your limiting factor. You should try changing the channel your router is on. 2.4GHz is a broad statement, and blanket covers a range of many different frequencies.

Quote from ctsinc : Or you could buy ANY DDT/Tomato-compatible wireless router and do the same thing -- including using just 1 router for more than 1 device. Case in point, I gave a Belkin N300 router (that I bought from here for $20) to my friend's family. Now, their DVD player, TVPad, and XBOX360 are all wirelessly connected to the main router upstairs. If I went with this solution, it would have cost $100 more.

So with "this solution" (the WET610N) you would have spent $120 to get a DVD player(!), TVPad and 360 on Wi-Fi. The WET610N is $30, so you would have spent $90 on what?

Can anyone tell me if this would be worth it to connect my PS3 to my home network? Would it up my current wireless speed (my router is N but the PS3 I believe is B/G) for gaming and streaming to my PS3 or am I still limited by the PS3's hardware?

Quote from drsketch : No it sounds like I have more real world experience. The slightly less range is often mitigated through sufficient antennas in the devices, couple this with less interference and in most real world scenarios you will get better range and twice the speed.

sorry you are totally wrong... ill take the "real world experience" of myself, devs at ddwrt (brainslayer), and the vast majority of the users at smallnetbuilder over yours

you cannot dispute simple physics, you can claim that gravity goes up from your "real world experience" but its still wrong

yes, there is the possibility that in your specific location there is an extreme amount of 2.4ghz interference and thus for YOU, you get better range with 5ghz but for 99% of the population, your personal and biased "experience" is more harmful than helpful

Quote from dealstorm : So with "this solution" (the WET610N) you would have spent $120 to get a DVD player(!), TVPad and 360 on Wi-Fi. The WET610N is $30, so you would have spent $90 on what?

Each device would need one, moron. Oh herp derp next is your "switch" comment, I assume. This plus a switch is indeed less than $120, but it's still more than $30 for a router with Tomato.

Quote from ctsinc : Each device would need one, moron. Oh herp derp next is your "switch" comment, I assume. This plus a switch is indeed less than $120, but it's still more than $30 for a router with Tomato.

Translation: it would have cost $20-30 more, but I said $100 more because 1) I am bad at math, or 2) I have such low self-esteem that I need to augment it by exaggerating the strength of my points in a futile attempt to impress strangers on the Internet, or 3) I'm just a sociopathic troll.

Yeah, I chose #3, too. Although full credit given for "all of the above."