High Powered Wireless Network for Audio



I have frustratingly low signal strength and erratic performance with the wireless network in my house.

The culprit may be a combination of 1) ordinary Verizon DSL service and 2)a wireless G router? and/or 3) brick chimneys and concrete block within the walls of the house?

To hopefully improve, I am switching to a faster cablem modem service from Cablevision which I will install by my desk for at least a robust connection there.

Could anyone please recommend a wireless router for maximum range and signal strength? Has anyone used any wireless boosting devices? In Stereophile, I have just noticed Gigabit Powerline HD - could this be a better solution?

What is the best way to ensure a robust connection and trouble free streaming on multiple devices?
cwlondon
I have a netbook and it's very slow compared to any other current vintage computer. I like it for what it is, but wouldn't suggest using it for an audio application. The only computer that I use that is slower is my govermnet provided unit at work. I think it's the governments way of enforcing minimal production to create more jobs.
CW -- I would guess that Kaspersky is not responsible, as my (somewhat vague) impression is that it is not as resource hogging as some of the more popular anti-virus programs. In any event, you should be able to tell for sure by entering its settings panel and temporarily turning off its real-time (background) protection.

What operating system does the netbook run? XP? Windows 7? Other?

Have you defragmented the hard drive on a regular basis (say
once every month or two)? If not, that would be one of the first things I would do. Also, how much used and unused space is there on the hard drive?

Also, with no programs open, open up Task Manager, go to the Processes tab, and let us know how many processes are running (the total number is indicated at the bottom of the Task Manager window). And if it is not too inconvenient, list the names of any processes that are listed as consuming large amounts of memory (say 50K or more).

Also, indicate the total cpu utilization %, as indicated at the bottom of the Task Manager window, and the names of any processes that are listed as consuming more than a few percent cpu utilization (while all programs are closed).

In Windows XP, Task Manager can be called up by pressing the Cntrl, Alt, and Delete keys simultaneously. I'm not sure how to do it in Windows 7.

Finally, check the color quality setting of the display on the netbook. If you are running XP, right click on any part of the desktop screen that does not have an icon on it, select "properties," and then the "settings" tab. If "color quality" is listed as "32 bit," change it to "16 bit," or even less if a lower setting is available.

Best regards,
-- Al
Al

You are the man on this topic.

I am running XP and no, have not defragged the drive. So probably a lot of housekeeping I could do and thanks for tips. The color setting is a new one for me.....

When I look at the task master, I can see 49 processes running, with my Thunderbird application the biggest at 70K.

Nonetheless, only 3% CPU usage.

But one thing seems clear: Kaspersky was indeed hogging resources or doing something because shutting it down speeded things up considerably.

This is curious, however, because it seems surfing around the web is when virus and malware protection is most necessary?

It has kept my PC pretty clean, but had no idea it might be the culprit.

I am now on a wireless DSL connection but will test again hard wired to the new cable modem later.
Cwlondon,

Switch to MAC - no need for anti-virus anymore. After two years of usage no single hang-up or need to defragment of my MAC-Mini. Zero problems. Unfortunately I still have to use PC/Windows at work.
CW -- That's interesting about Kaspersky. Perhaps the reason my suspicions were otherwise is that pretty much all of the anecdotal indications I've seen were based on experience with laptops and desktops, not netbooks.

If you end up deciding to go to a different av program, I would suggest obtaining a free 30-day trial of ESET's NOD32. JUST the anti-virus program, not the complete "Suite." I don't recommend any complete protection "Suites" by any manufacturer -- they are in most cases replete with resource hogging bloatware.

I use NOD32 on all of my laptops and (homebuilt) desktops, and as far as I am aware it provides the best overall combination of effectiveness and low resource utilization of any av program. The main reason for that is it is programmed in "assembly language," which is much more cumbersome to program in than the "high level languages" that are more commonly used, but has the advantage of running much faster. Despite that, it is no more expensive than most competitive programs, other than the free ones, especially with respect to renewal pricing.

Several years ago I set up an XP system on Optonline for a relative, using NOD32 and XP's built-in software firewall, without even a router, and there were never any infiltrations. Presumably your router provides NAT (network address translation), which provides an added layer of protection. As I indicated in my earlier post, my own preference is to have a business class SonicWall hardware firewall/router, for the added security and performance it provides, but that is probably overkill for most home users (unless they have kids who visit file-sharing and other unknown or questionable sites, in which case there is no limit to how much protection may be necessary!!!).

The 49 processes sounds within reason, if not ideal. And 1gB of RAM should be fine for XP, as long as you don't run several memory intensive applications at once.

If by any chance you are using the Firefox browser, make sure you are using the latest version (currently 3.6.10), or at least 3.6.something. Some early versions were known to have "memory leaks," which would gradually build up their memory usage as long as they were left open. If you are using 3.6.x, you are ok in that respect, but anything less than the latest 3.6.10 may have unpatched bugs or security flaws.

If you are using Internet Explorer in a version earlier than 8, I'd suggest updating. And perhaps trying Firefox as well.

Re being "the man" on this kind of stuff, thanks. It happens that I build my own high-powered desktop computers, and I serve as a moderator (under a different screen-name) at an internet forum for computer enthusiasts and builders, abxzone.com.

Good luck!

-- Al