Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

Wireless Reviews

Closing Thoughts

On the plus side, Airgo's ACE technology really does deliver (just barely) over 100Mbps of real, usable throughput. And while it didn't connect in all of my test locations with its default settings, a simple setting change provided over 20Mbps of average throughput in my toughest test location. Truly impressive!

But this test of the RangeMax 240 has also provided a glimpse into the future of high speed wireless LANs and, at least in its present form, it doesn't look good for owners of existing 802.11b and g equipment. While Airgo's technology continues to impress for its abilty to connect with a range of legacy 11b and g adapters, once those adapters join an Airgo-based WLAN, all clients will take a throughput hit that will leave a lot of bandwidth unused.

And if that's not bad enough, the situation looks even worse for owners of legacy 2.4GHz gear when an ACE-based WLAN sets up shop within range. The current ACE interference-avoidance mechanisms appear to be broken in the RangeMax 240 products on the shelves today and I see no evidence that says the Linksys SRX400 gear is in any better shape.

The result is that with default settings, Airgo ACE-based gear hogs as much spectrum as gear with Atheros' Super G inside, and depending on how close the two WLANs are, legacy gear can be essentially knocked off the air. And even when the kinks are worked out, there is no way that an 802.11n WLAN will be able to avoid interfering with a neighboring 802.11b/g wireless LAN parked on Channel 6 without dropping back to using a 20MHz channel, which will also drop its throughput by about half.

Lest you think I'm laying all of this at Airgo's feet, you should remember back to a few years ago when Airgo strongly argued against the use of a 40MHz channel, citing the very interference issues that I've detailed. But the Intel-driven forces eventually got their way and the 40MHz channel is now a reality that all 11n technologists must deal with.

Regardless of the recent peace-making among the warring 802.11n factions that resulted the first 802.11n draft spec, 802.11n still has a long road to travel before it's fully-baked. I hope that some of the compatibility and interference issues that I've described will be addressed in the final spec. But if history serves, I suspect the focus will be more on maximizing 11n performance, leaving consumers with little choice but to upgrade when 11n gear moves into the neighborhood.

More Wireless

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

Hi all.Decided to do a M&M config on my 87U. Was on 384.11_2 and flashed the same firmware back on. Followed the M&M instructions to the letter. Also ...
Hi all,Thanks in advance for your help! I recently moved into a new home and signed up for Spectrum gig (about 970 down, 40 up), and I purchased an AX...
Hello,I recently got a MoCA 2.0 Bonded System, but for $120 and 'Gigabit' speeds advertised in a little disappointed. I had to run a new ethernet cabl...
Hello,I’m looking for capable WiFi access Points which could handle huge amount of concurrent connected clients without any problems. So imagine the f...
Have an 86U set up as my primary router and a 68U in the back of the house set up as an AP. I have roaming assistant turned on in both routers for bot...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3