So right now, I have a wireless B/G router, and all of my wireless equipment (almost 10 devices) uses wireless G only... It's slow and laggy and prone to interference (I just bought the cheapest wireless G router on the shelf a couple of years ago... SURPRISE! haha) ;-)

I'm wondering if upgrading to a wireless N router will improve the range/flakeyness that my wireless G devices are experiencing.

Even if it won't, obviously, I'm in the market for a new Wireless router that has good range, good encryption options, decent speed, and will work well with Windows XP*/Windows 7*/Windows Server*/XBox 360*/wii/iPhone/Windows Phone7/and Android devices. I also do a lot of bit torrenting (with the latest version of 2.x uTorrent -- so, lots of memory is better, yes?) (* indicates wired devices.)

I'm also open to the option of installing Linux on either the router, or an old desktop PC... and using that, but not sure what the latest and greatest routers are for linux, and I've never managed a linux box running as a router so would need like a for dummies guide or something... it might be worth it though if I could get it to work with more than one Wireless G card (I have several laying around, some are of the two antenna "rangeboost" variety... would more cards be better or worse in theory?)

Also theory of antenna placement is interesting to me also... do they make extension cords for the screw on antennas most wifi routers use? like if I put it up high on a central wall to my apartment, in theory that's better than if I had it crammed behind a desktop in a closet, right?

Any advice, comments, links, etc would be most appreciated.

I don't think that buying a wireless N router will have any affect on range/flakeyness/speed if the devices connecting to the network only support <=G. In order to benefit from N, I think the devices connecting need to support N. I could be wrong. I do have a wireness N router from a few years ago: a Linksys WRT300N. It's nothing fancy, but it gets the job done. I don't currently own any wireless devices that support N. I might eventually get a wireless N NIC for my PC though so that I don't have to run an Ethernet cable across my apartment floor.

I remember that my 2nd year networking instructor said to put wireless access points up high because it improves the signal. So I guess your "intuition?" there is correct.

Oh, it wasn't intuition... I've seen enterprise networks with access points/routers on the mounted to the ceilings, and I was wondering if it was more of a "It saves space" thing or a "It's better" thing. :-)

I know wireless N is supposed to have a longer range signal, but that's too bad if it's not backwards compatible with B/G devices.

If high up does make a difference, I'm wondering about extension cords on the antennas, and running a linux wifi server then I guess... unless there are good windows server options for wifi... that would be even cooler (could reuse my existing server)!

If it helps, the signal coming out from most common wifi antennas is shaped like a giant donut (aka: torus) circling around the antenna (the antenna pokes through the hole). Imagine that shape when you're pointing your antennas around.

So for instance if you wanted the signal to reach further upwards (or downwards), you want to lay the antenna down.

Other things that help are setting a different, less used channel (out of 1, 6 and 11 in north america, not usually worth it to select any of the other channels, they just overlap with and cause interference with the main non overlapping channels), and moving the router away from any sources of interference (2.4Ghz phone? wireless keyboard? baby monitor?), also don't have any wifi devices right close to the router, its just as bad as being too far away (its a bit like someone screaming in your ear, just as hard to make out what a person is saying as if they were whispering 100 meters away).

A better antenna may also help. You can get ones that improve the signal pattern.

Any recomendations?

I was just googling and I saw this: http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/15/how-to-build-a-wifi-biquad-dish-antenna/ and this: http://www.phaster.com/golden_hill_free_web/

I knew about the cantennas, but they focus the wifi signal, right? Not spread it out, and amplify it (which I think is what I want to do... no?) -- it looks like the biquad thing is similar to a cantenna, in that it focuses it over a long range... wondering if there is a build it yourself guide to making a good home wifi antenna for spreading the signal out more...
edit: wait... no. just found this... but the omnidirectional link is dead...
edit: AND THIS.

IIRC you can't amplify your wifi signal by changing your antenna (unless you have a crappy antenna), you can at best shape it (increase power in certain directions at the expense of other directions), and this is what is nice about the cantenna - you focus all of your power in one direction to get a very good signal very far away but in a very specific direction.

Easy to make, seems to help: http://www.freeantennas.com/projects/template2/index.html

Thanks Peter, this works? You've used it, I take it? From the pics I can't tell where the foil goes, the backside perhaps?

Thinking about this bad boy: http://www.radiolabs.com/products/wireless/waverv.php It's made for RV campers... and supposedly works with linux and windows... thinking it would be SUPER easy to just plug this into my windows server... providing there's a way to make it the wifi HOST/Server/AP and not just a node... I guess I need to look more into configuration.

I don't have any numbers, but yes, it works. At least, there were constant complaints about the signal dropping downstairs in the living room (the router is upstairs). Afterwards, no complaints.

The instruction is confusing, but the shiny foil faces towards the antenna.

What piece does the shiney foil go on then... the outside piece that wraps around it? Or the backing rectangular piece? In the pic I see no foil, so if it faces the antenna, I'm guessing the outside piece that wraps it. Is that correct?

Just search Google images or Youtube for 'windsurfer antenna'. I noticed some people put the foil on the other side of the parabola, so it probably doesn't matter. It just didn't occur to me

Neat! I'll give it a try tomorrow. Found this.

I might also try this: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/837885/wifi_antenna_hack/

Yes, they make extension cords for wifi antennas. I have one! I also have two, big nice antennas. I bought the whole shabang from NewEgg, so go search there. I just picked the stuff with the best reviews. Not hard, and it did help the situation I was trying to fix. My friend needed to get their landlord's wifi through several walls.

If you're buying a new router, make sure it supports open-source firmware like DD-WRT. DD-WRT will take your rinky-dink store-bought router, and turn it into a professional grade router (as long as it's supported)

Again, search NewEgg, even if you're not going to buy the router there. I've found the reviews on NewEgg to be wonderfully helpful and insightful.

And yes, put the router high up. If possible, don't use the extension cord, just velcro the puppy to the ceiling. As already stated, unless you're trying to reach upper or lower floors, keep the antenna vertical.

EDIT:
If you have an Android phone, Wifi Analyzer will tell you the best channel to use
Or just use this web-based analyzer to find the best channel.

Looks like channel 14 is the only one that's not in use... probably because it's "illegal" in the US. 4-8 have a lot, 9-13 have a lot... 1-3 have a few... will the FCC come knocking on my door if I use 14? Will any of my devices be able to recognize wifi on channel 14?

Hmm, looks like channel choosing doesn't matter for me right now, since 11 is the only mode available on my router... I think I better pony up and buy a new router... I've had DDWRT on another router before, it was great to work as a WIFI client -- I ended up giving it to my parents though... I thought most newer consumer routers didn't support DDWRT because they didn't have enough ram or something?

Ooooh, looks like my router is supported! Maybe I should install that.

** EDIT **

Actually it's starting to look less attractive. It doesn't strike me as very open source friendly. I mean, sure, the source code is available, but apparently they have tried to withhold parts of the project and encrypt other parts (i.e., the Web UI), which is just stupid and malicious.

The people doing most of the actual OpenSource work belong to a different project called OpenWRT. Might want to look into that instead.

I tried that Wind Surfer on my router, didn't seem to help the signal much I might just have too much interference in my area. Or the fact that I used plain paper makes it so the shape isn't formed correctly, I dunno. I'll try with something stiffer later.

OK, but their support for my router is WIP.

AFAIK dd-wrt just uses the kernel direct from OpenWRT.

I wish the wifi antenna hack was a video.

@Trezker -- I posted two videos, didn't I? One for the wind surfer, and one for the other hack -- Sorry, haven't been on a.cc much and haven't used the video tags... anyway, one of them is some crazy website's video that I doubt a.cc would recognize anyway.

Obligatory quote:

{"name":"moving.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/a\/6a94dcff36bf0500f97c65c95e0a55be.png","w":285,"h":432,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/a\/6a94dcff36bf0500f97c65c95e0a55be"}