2200bg vs atheros abg internal miniPCI

[gattler]

Hi! Anyone knows whats better for Linux, the intel 2200bg or the atheros abg miniPCI chip?

Better means

a) higher reception distance
b) lesser net losses
c) easier to configure

did i miss something?

[benplaut]

the atheros works fine, but most wireless applets don't support madwifi, 'cause it can't scan and connect and connect at the same time (autoscanning loses your connection, too)

dunno about the 2200, but i'd assume it would work better... half the laptops on the market have it, and i've heard the support is pretty good

[gattler]

somebody knows if the 2200bg can search while connected at the same time?

[iminj]

I have the IBM (atheros) 11a/b/g mini-PCI card on my ThinkPad R40.

With most of the LINUX LivedCDs that I have used, the wireless connection was a simple matter of 3 or 4 lines of "iwconfig" and "dhcpcd" code. No ndiswrapper or other 3rd party drivers was necessary.

So far, wireless worked for all of the following live distro's:

slax (slackware based)
ubuntu (debian)
knoppix
mepis

I've never used the intel 2100/2200 - so I have no basis
for comparison.

[gattler]

Thank you for answer. I took the Atheros Card for now (dunno if I or II). I'm planning on using Suse10 and later Gentoo when there's time.

I think its good to have also the a-band (5ghz) since i read a test, that walls do better shield the rays if you are a fanatic. Search REFLEX Studie which was made in Swiss by order of the EU-concil. Cellular Phones, etc.. can cause cancer according to that study, which is only 2 years old.