[Ghostavo]

1. SATA is backwards compatible.

This isn't entirely true.  Some of the older stuff is not compatible.  For example the SATA HD in my P4 3.06ghz system will not work on any SATA2 or 3 controllers that I have tried.  Now granted that is a first gen SATA HD that even has both the SATA and standard power connectors and is 10+ years old. 

The concept of compatibility is directional, hence the terms forward and backward compatible. Regardless, SATA drives and hosts are supposed to automatically setup to the highest allowable speed. If it doesn't, that's a problem with the device not following the specs.

[Fury]

Also, you may want to consider 802.11ac wifi router such as Asus RT-AC66U, Buffalo AC1300 or Netgear R6300. Maybe some others too. 802.11n which is what most routers have today really blows when it comes to data transfer speeds, even the dual-band ones.

I have 4G LTE and it's faster than 802.11n, so I have to plug it to my main computer via USB. The rest of my devices in wifi network will have to deal with reduced internet speed compared to the one plugged via USB. It really is kinda ridiculous how far behind local wireless network speed is dragging. Now, 802.11ac helps but it's still in draft and not finalized even though devices with 802.11ac have already appeared in stores, but they're based on draft specs which may yet change. No question about them being faster than 802.11n though, as long as all devices use 802.11ac that is.

[Nuke]

i think im still on 802.11g.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

1. SATA is backwards compatible.

This isn't entirely true.  Some of the older stuff is not compatible.  For example the SATA HD in my P4 3.06ghz system will not work on any SATA2 or 3 controllers that I have tried.  Now granted that is a first gen SATA HD that even has both the SATA and standard power connectors and is 10+ years old. 

The concept of compatibility is directional, hence the terms forward and backward compatible. Regardless, SATA drives and hosts are supposed to automatically setup to the highest allowable speed. If it doesn't, that's a problem with the device not following the specs.

Or they changed the specs after the devices where released which with first gen devices such as the ones I'm referring to is not uncommon. 


As of the N vs G router argument I've noticed the biggest difference there is that N sucks if there are any obstructions.  Put the router and the wireless card in direct line of sight and N works well, have anything in the way and N falls off real fast were G does not.  This includes stupid things like the computer case.  I've had no problems with a good G router going through 4 walls.  Same model in an N version won't even go through 1.  The only good part is on at least that model you can force it to fall back to G in which case it works just fine.   

[Nuke]

g has worked for me, ive considered upping to n for years and really havent found a justification for doing so. what i have been doing is replacing old network cards for newer ones, such as all the old skool pci cards i have floating around with pcix cards. with ac coming into play i think il skip n all together (now what to do with all these n cards).

[Rodo]

Isn't it easier just using wpa2 + mac filtering rules? It's probably crackeable as well but that's what I use at home.

[Nuke]

i use mac filtering. use an allow list, only include macs from your devices. of course the filter really only keeps people form hacking in and stealing your bandwidth, they can still sniff out your packets.

[Kopachris]

i use mac filtering. use an allow list, only include macs from your devices. of course the filter really only keeps people form hacking in and stealing your bandwidth, they can still sniff out your packets.

Don't rely on mac filtering, though.  It's trivial to spoof a mac address.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Yep good old 3c90x series of cards or going back even older the Kingston KTC-40 and DC2110 series with mac addresses set via the driver.  The ability to change mac addresses was actually a requirement for setting up DECnet over lanmanager.  The mac address had to be in order of the DECnet addresses and scaled by a certain offset (been years can't remember the specifics).  Just remember it was a pain in the butt finding the card models that supported the remapping at times.  Ah the good old days of running IPX, TCP/IP, DECnet, LMdos, and at least 2 or 3 other protocols I can't remember while trying to still have enough memory of that 640k to actually run a program 

[Nuke]

i use mac filtering. use an allow list, only include macs from your devices. of course the filter really only keeps people form hacking in and stealing your bandwidth, they can still sniff out your packets.

Don't rely on mac filtering, though.  It's trivial to spoof a mac address.

theres that too. but when combined with other security measures and decent encryption scheme and a long enough key, you are pretty well protected. i would have better security than i do but considering where i live and the totally incompetent nature of the miniscule local population i dont think my network is at risk, especially with no fewer than 3 unsecured networks in the area. i also dont want to have the best security either, because that kinda makes you a target for those hackers looking for a challenge.

[Rodo]

yeah mac filtering is enough to keep my muggle neighbours at bay

and a question, increasing security messures impact in transfer performance in any way?, I know mac doesn't but maybe using 504bit does?

[Nuke]

i dont think it does by any relevant amount, unless the network gets bogged down by too much traffic (such as way too many clients). all the encryption would be done in hardware.

[est1895]

How the Hell did my Expressgate get enabled?   I'm using Windows Xp home.