On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:09:07 -0800 Rick Stevens <ricks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Specs (open or not) often have little to do with it. It's more trying > to figure out how the bloody hardware works. If you don't know which > bits to fiddle on the chip, you may never get the speeds the thing > supposedly advertises. Most Windows drivers are produced with the > assistance of the manufacturer of the hardware because M$ funds it. > On the flip side, I'd bet the majority of Linux drivers are reversed > engineered and in some cases, the manufacturers actively try to > hinder development (Texas Instruments was notorious for this 8-10 > years ago). I interpret this as meaning that the wireless standard isn't really *standard*. That is, that there can be extras above and beyond the standard that allow a manufacturer to enhance their offering with their own driver, yet allow generic drivers to work with their device at reduced throughput. Would that be a correct interpretation? > Take any info that the Windows drivers report with a large grain of > salt (perhaps even an entire salt lick). They've been known to, uhm, > "fudge" the actual performance numbers. Even ignoring that, my > machine is hardwired to another machine over a 1Gbps wire. I know I > should get 1Gbps between the two, but in reality I get 850Mbps at > best. That's the nature of the beast...there's a certain amount of > overhead in TCP/IP you'll never, ever get past (on copper/glass > links, 10-15%, on wifi it's higher). Thus, the ~10 bits per byte of transferred data that fred mentioned as his ballpark conversion for TCP. True? _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
