Downloading a 13.5GB file last night and seeing it would take 3 hours on my brand new computer with a built in wireless adapter, I decided to try running the ethernet straight into the back of it, thinking it would speed it up. It didn't. Same numbers came up that I got with the wireless adapter.

Is that normal??? I guess I thought the wireless would have to be slower, but it didn't appear to be the case. Should a straight ethernet connection to the router be faster than wireless??

Well wired is usually better ping-wise, but your download speed would probably only increase if it was more than your wireless connection throughput. So if you have an 11g access point, your download speed would have to be upwards of about 54 Mbit/s to see any noticeable improvement.

Ah, ok, thank you. Well, yeah, it should be strong, the PC is sitting right next to the router. lol I just thought for sure data sent wireless was slower than data sent over the ethernet.

Learn something new every day. THANK YOU.

I think that when it comes to really high transfer rates, it could make a difference. But at the "consumer level" it is hardly noticeable. Somebody else probably knows what is "the fastest".

Wireless is slower, but you would need to have a really fast connection to notice that. The 'n' spec that is standard on today's machines can do a maximum of 600 Mbps (more or less, depending on the configuration of router and various other factors).

I doubt you beat the previous spec anyways, the a / g that was able to do a max of 54 Mbps.

It is, most likely, but it doesn't make any difference as long as it is faster than your internet connection. It's like saying "What's better for carrying a gallon of water, a 4-gallon bucket or a 5-gallon bucket?" Both have more capacity than the amount of water you have, so it doesn't matter.

However, if you are moving files between two different computers on your home network, you should see a significant difference in transfer speed between WiFi and ethernet, because your internet connection is not involved.

3 hours! Thats amazing. It takes me 4 days to download that size :(

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. And in this case, your internet connection is that link.

Wired is faster from the comp, but these days wireless is damned fast, so if the the server streaming your download to you is capped below either rate then you won't see any improvement by switching back and forth.

Is that good? I thought it was pretty bad, but if I had to endure 4 days I would skip it I think. :P

When it was done it was actually a little under 3 hours, but not much IIRC. Something like 2 hours, 50 minutes or something. It seemed to be taking forever to me.

And I just downloaded a rather large file from here (Alan Wake) and that one took well over an hour. Just doesn't seem that good to me, but I guess I don't know what to compare it too. I'm assuming your "4 days" was a bit of hyperbole??

Since when did you use the internet?

13 gig in under three hours is a miracle compared to what has possible only a few years ago.

Edit:

I think I had slower DVD drives ... (at least after securom had its way with it)

That's really quite good, so no worries there, OFG. I've installed a ton of my digital games that I bought lately and that's generally in the ballpark as far as DL time goes.

Ah, ok, thanks man.

And to SiimonG above, I do understand it's way, way faster than it used to be. But I just wasn't sure if it was at least average for today's standards. It sure seemed like it took forever to me. lol I think it goes slower if you stare at the screen while it's downloading. lol

A watched pot never boils. Or how is it that saying goes?