Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:18:40 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <lists@wm-access.no> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> Cc: Sunnz <sunnzy@gmail.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is the best supported Wireless card? Message-ID: <45A2A720.3020905@wm-access.no> In-Reply-To: <200701040541.WAA15207@lariat.net> References: <b35fa3120701032109u695c7395u678626a7378f3ba7@mail.gmail.com> <200701040541.WAA15207@lariat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > At 10:09 PM 1/3/2007, Sunnz wrote: > =20 >> I am looking to build a new desktop which is going to have wireless >> access through my router. >> >> I have been using Atheros's chipset with the ath drivers, yes it works= =2E.. >> >> But after read this article: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content= /view/293 >> >> I begin to think if there are better vendors out there? >> >> From the article it seems that Ralink and Atmel are the most >> co-operative vendors to open source communities... >> >> So how good do you think they are? >=20 > The best for 802.11b (not g, alas) is undoubtedly the Intersil=20 > Prism 2.5 and kin. This is in large measure because the chipset > contains a lot of embedded intelligence. The load on the host > CPU is therefore very light and there's less opportunity for > coding mistakes in the host driver. And the embedded firmware=20 > is now as about error-free as any wireless code is going to get. > Atmel's 802.11b chipsets use the Intersil Prism, by the way. >=20 Doesn't Intersil Prism chipsets require alot of PIO (non-DMA) operations to communicate and therefore tax the host CPU considerably? I was to understand the reason the Prism chipsets are considered so inefficient in comparison to Atheros was the time wasteful interaction. Perhaps i was under the wrong impression? --=20 Sten Daniel S=F8rsdal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45A2A720.3020905>