Another CF-29 Mod

Looking for something more to do to my CF-29s, I realized I would really like to have Wireless-N. A little research found that Intel has abandoned the Mini-PCI format when it comes to Wireless-N. Looking around some more, I came across the TP-Link TL-WN861N card. The best price shipped I could find was from Buy.com. Well, I received it today and chomping at the bit, I tore my system apart and installed the card. The card is slightly larger but that does not cause any problems. It still fits quite well. It actually takes much longer to remove and reinstall the bottom cover than it takes to swap out the card. Next, booting into BIOS I found that the card does not show up there. DONT let that put you off. I booted into Windows 7 and the OS picked up on the card right away. No driver though. The card does come with a small CD with drivers on it. I installed the driver and connected to my wireless router at get this, 300 Mbs! This is not white wash, the throughput is there. I don't have specific numbers but the range is pretty good.

 

I might be wrong or maybe my observation is skewed but... I find that while N-coverage in close proximity is pretty good, it fairs poorly in signal strength and range once the router is not in line of sight (worse in apartments with concrete walls).

Also, what shows up as being 'connected at 300Mbps' may be a lot less than actual transfer speed and personally prefer an Atheros-based mini-pci card; G or Super G (108Mbps).

I'm currently testing some TP-Link N routers, WR941N & WR-901N, and can say (at least for now), it works as good as my D-Link DIR-855 Xtreme N Duo... without the price tag.

FWIW, even though the manufacturer is based in mainland China, TP-Link's products are slowly picking up in popularity amongst the locals. Do test your signal reception with Netstumber. It works with XP Pro SP3 but haven't tried it with W7 yet. I'd like to know what numbers you're getting.

Cheers,
Ron in SG

 

FYI
You need (3) antenna's to achieve 300 Mb/s
I have N in a couple of my newer laptops
As Ron says signal strength is not up to the Intel 3945G that I have in my newer Toughbooks
I don't feel the need to upgrade at this point

That being said if you share a AP with others and they are running on N ,
using an old laptop on G slows down the throughput of everyone sharing the connection so N is the way to go when others with new laptops are sharing

 

Alex,
Yeah, I noted that Rusty's card has 2 u.fl connectors, not 3...


For apartment dwellers, the Intel 3945ABG is a decent performer. In mini-pci E format, plus it has dual band; 2.4 & 5 GHz (my just-acquired Asus G2P has the same card and still toying with it ).

Regards,
Ron in SG

 

I use this card in a few laptops but agree with the above it's not all
that great. My cards also have only 2 connectors.

I wouldn't open up any laptop I have to upgrade to the N card at this point.

 

It's something to do with MIMO as I remember
Need (3) antenna's for max througput
There are lot's of N gear on the market before the standards were finalized
Not impressed with my Intel 6200 AGN ,but my ISP througput is crap and it looks like G will not limit me for quite a while

 

If I understand what I have read, N cards can have 2 or 3 antennae. The 3 ant ones are dual band 2ghz and 5ghz. The 2 ant versions are single band. 2ghz.
The 3 ant. versions are said to work better, but the 2 ant. versions are supposed to work better than G. Things may be different in the real world.
I put a 2 ant Intel 5100 in my CF 51. I am waiting to receive my new DGN2000 N router/gateway. I am curious to see if I get any improvements. I think I have the same problem as Alex, with crap throughput. The DGN2000 was $40.00 shipped, brand new, so I figure I would try it for that price.
TP Link markets both 2 and 3 ant versions of that card. I have the 3 ant. version that I had in my CF 29 for a while instead of the Engenius. For a 3rd ant., I used a patch ant slightly folded and stuck inside the WWAN cover.
When I had the N card in my CF 29, it seemed to pick up more signals. I was just using the Atheros package and I did not connect to the other routers, so I do not know about transfer rates.

 

What card did you replace in the cf-29 ?

Given the choice I would upgrade the 2100 and 2200 , the 2915 was fine but in my opinion not as good as the atheros 8602 or the pci-e 3945
Signal strengh is quite important as it can limit throughput
In my current setup I am 200 ft away from the AP ,a Senao 500mw using a 13.5db yagi antenna
The cf-30 using the stock Intel 3945ABG has 3 times the throughput on downloads that my Thinkpad does using the Intel 6200N

 

I was playing Wifi card roulette. The n card has AR5416 on the chip. I pulled the Engenius 8602 600mw version. I have since put in the Engenius 8602 400mw version. I have not had a chance to mess with the 400mw card yet.
In my cf 29 the n card was more sensitive than the 600mw card. I was trying a cantenna pointed at the mobile home park, maybe 150yards away. The n had a lot more signals. Since they are not free access, I did not want to mess around testing signal strength and transfer rates.
I pulled the n back out because I did not have a n access point at that time.
Once I get the DGN2000 setup, I will do some detailed comparisons.

I agree on replacing a 2100 or 2200. The 2915 seems fine unless your like me and just gotta try.
I would advise, unless someone needs long distance or has great throughput, leave the 2915 in.
Now my 5100 in my cf 51 gets really great signal strength on g.

 

I think the antenna's on the cf-30 are better than the thinkpad ,so that is a factor but one day I will pull the 6200N out and put in the 3945 so I have a true comparison
For the time being I download large files using the cf-30 ,or hook up direct using a network cable to my wireless bridge that has a 9db antenna and has even better throughput

 

I think the benefits of the 5xxx or 6xxx series cards over the 3xxx or 4xxx is far more than just signal strength and sensitivity. From Intel's site the newer cards are better designs and use less power. They are more stable also. I sort of consider it like a 1.7ghz pentium 4 vs 1.7ghz pentium m Same speed but the m does a lot of things better. That's not the best analogy, but I think you get my point. There is a lot more to good wireless than just the signal strength.