On 2021-06-07 10:48 a.m., John Doe wrote:
> I'm calling what is obviously a troll, a troll.
>
> This isn't the mainstream media, the cancel culture isn't welcome here.
>

> Don't like it, go fuck yourself...

Another of your impossibilities for me, Maybe Works for You.

Rene

Paul wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>> A directional antenna is best since this is a desktop PC, and
>> apparently the antenna does what it's supposed to do. But... The
>> connection drops immediately, or it doesn't connect at all. After two
>> clean installations, one with all the motherboard drivers, no joy. That
>> eliminates all sorts of stuff. I have a spare motherboard, but no
>> built-in WiFi there. The extender could be attached to the directional
>> antenna, but it's currently my only connection and doing that without
>> the proper connectors might require some soldering finesse. Probably
>> need a WiFi card and some connectors. Kinda sucks that the motherboard
>> WiFi doesn't work, if so. Seems to be a dearth of information on the
>> subject, usually that indicates it's a local problem...
>
> Did any of the recommended utilities show signal level anomalies ?

I acquired one before it was even suggested, but haven't yet used any.

The signal is weak. That's obvious by looking at the Windows' WiFi pop up
and by smartphone WiFi displays.

Using the directional antenna increases the connection signal strength,
probably over 50%. A utility might tell what the connection quality is,
but every signal strength indicator should imply usability in its results.

> Some single-chip-CMOS Wifi gadgets on 2.4GHz, the output isn't stable
> with time, and after three months there is less RF signal than when they
> were brand new.

I might try legacy Intel "Proset" drivers for the MSI motherboard built-in
WiFi. But like most onboard devices, maybe the built-in WiFi is doo-doo
anyway.

If the WiFi card fails, I might switch motherboards and/or try a quick
Linux installation (a modern installation, especially an OS, is dying
to connect to the Internet).

nospam wrote:
> In article <s9lf46$e31$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Some single-chip-CMOS Wifi gadgets on 2.4GHz, the output
>> isn't stable with time, and after three months there is
>> less RF signal than when they were brand new.
>
> nonsense.

While the data collected is anecdotal (Newegg reviews in
the past, where customers noted a theme), it's backed up here.
CMOS is not unconditionally stable. It takes work to ensure
you're running it within proper bounds.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4252452_Degradation_Mechanisms_in_CMOS_Power_Amplifiers_Subject_to_Radio-Frequency_Stress_and_Comparison_to_the_DC_Case

Who knew you could make bad silicon ???

Making silicon is like soufflé. How do I know that ?
By looking at process files for three lots of silicon
my chip was going to be manufactured in, while I had
office space over in the fab. Every lot is unique, as
they tune the process.

So what wouldn't they be looking for ? CMOS stress mechanisms.
They showed me some of their standard test cases for tech,
and that wasn't one of them. This is the place I learned
that 135C is a rough figure for 100K hour process shift.
if you operate their CMOS at over 135C, then by the end
of a hundred thousand hours, there could be significant
parametric shift. And that's a process shift that causes
timing failures on CMOS chips. The technology at the time,
wasn't being pushed aggressively enough, to find all the
nuances. I got an invite over to a lab space for example,
to see a demo of the first 2GHz DFFs they'd done in the
process, which was about 10-20X higher than any previous
library cells. Yes, they knew about electromigration
and design rules for it. But they hadn't switched to
copper at that point, or anything more exotic.

Some of the processors you use, were pushed too far. Did
you observe and collect the anecdotal evidence for it ?
What devices were affected ? You can see patterns in the
things people report. And this is important when selecting
things for people to buy.

Paul

In article <s9lj8d$g2h$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

> >> Some single-chip-CMOS Wifi gadgets on 2.4GHz, the output
> >> isn't stable with time, and after three months there is
> >> less RF signal than when they were brand new.
> >
> > nonsense.
>
> While the data collected is anecdotal (Newegg reviews in
> the past, where customers noted a theme), it's backed up here.
> CMOS is not unconditionally stable. It takes work to ensure
> you're running it within proper bounds.

no it doesn't. the bounds are clearly listed on the spec sheet.

sometimes people get defective products, but that's not due to wearing
out.

Rene Lamontagne used his or her keyboard to write :
> Another of your impossibilities for me, Maybe Works for You.

I will second that Paul has helped me in the past and is NOT a troll.
This John Doe revels in calling everyone else a troll (like all trolls do).
I'm learning good things from this thread but not from that John Doe troll.

On 07.06.2021 16:30, John Doe wrote:
> Using the directional antenna increases the connection signal strength,
> probably over 50%. A utility might tell what the connection quality is,
> but every signal strength indicator should imply usability in its results.

How many decibels difference did your app report before & after the antenna?

Who needs to know?

--
wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!s+Ui1sUtrFeNha6o44/2FQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:41:46 +0200
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 6
> Message-ID: <s9lloo$bir$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s9eckd$h0s$1@dont-email.me> <s9lf46$e31$1@dont-email.me> <s9lhk0$40g$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: s+Ui1sUtrFeNha6o44/2FQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/86.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146325
>
> On 07.06.2021 16:30, John Doe wrote:
>> Using the directional antenna increases the connection signal strength,
>> probably over 50%. A utility might tell what the connection quality is,
>> but every signal strength indicator should imply usability in its results.
>
> How many decibels difference did your app report before & after the antenna?
>
>

On 07.06.2021 17:53, John Doe wrote:
> Who needs to know?

You do.

nospam wrote:
> In article <s9lj8d$g2h$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Some single-chip-CMOS Wifi gadgets on 2.4GHz, the output
>>>> isn't stable with time, and after three months there is
>>>> less RF signal than when they were brand new.
>>> nonsense.
>> While the data collected is anecdotal (Newegg reviews in
>> the past, where customers noted a theme), it's backed up here.
>> CMOS is not unconditionally stable. It takes work to ensure
>> you're running it within proper bounds.
>
> no it doesn't. the bounds are clearly listed on the spec sheet.
>
> sometimes people get defective products, but that's not due to wearing
> out.

nonsense.

On 07/06/2021 18:35, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>
> This John Doe revels in calling everyone else a troll (like all trolls
> do).
> I'm learning good things from this thread but not from that John Doe
> troll.

I concur.� All trolls call everyone a troll like you have done in your poooooost.

SIMON used his or her keyboard to write :
> All trolls call everyone a troll like you have done in your poooooost.

I've posted to this newsgroup many times previously as has Paul and Rene.

You haven't.

Find one person who agrees with you who has previously posted here.

My search for extending a weak modem/router signal appears to be over.

Netgear EX8000... ZOOM!!!

Not their newest, but beating the pants off of all my other old extenders, by
lots. All of a sudden, I'm getting the max that is supplied to the main house.
Jumped from the mid-30s at best (with regular disconnects) to 210. BOOM. The
disconnects should be gone, will see. It better be... Another recent model
extender is on the way... :D

DIE, BAD CONNECTION, DIE!!!

The extender setup is still dumb, not like the hype suggests. I guess the
reason they don't just broadcast a signal outright is to help avoid somebody
else grabbing the signal first. But that would make setup easier, otherwise.

--

YMMV

Setup is easy, just no easier than it used to be.

That Netgear EX8000 extender comes through an older model TP Link Archer T4E
PCIe WiFi card. Ping 250 miles and back is 22 ms. No need for ethernet.

I would try the onboard WiFi to help validate/invalidate the prior assessment,
but one of its antenna jacks came loose.

At least for the moment...

I now reach 375 Mbps down AND up (AT&T fiber, available up to at least 1
Gbps).

I really appreciate all your thoughts and prayers...

What's an ordinary user do with 375 Mbps up???

Now I can really post to USENET!

Intel Core i5-10600KF CPU, at about 30%/4.50GHz when downloading at the
maximum 380 Mbps.

I wrote:

> At least for the moment...
>
> I now reach 375 Mbps down AND up (AT&T fiber, available up to at least 1
> Gbps).
>
> I really appreciate all your thoughts and prayers...
>
> What's an ordinary user do with 375 Mbps up???
>
> Now I can really post to USENET!