<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: hField Wi-Fire Long Range Antenna &#8212; Reviewed</title>
	<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5104</link>
	<description>Independent Tech News and Product Reviews from former VP and head of CNET.com and Longtime Computer Shopper Columnist, Alice Hill author of the popular "Hard Edge" column. Originally named AliceandBill.com.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5104#comment-386110</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5104#comment-386110</guid>
					<description>I purchased one of these units and was sorely disappointed.  First off the first unit kept losing its USB connection so 2nd one was sent.  Testing it out with a 6 year old Dell, IBM x41 and a T42 showed that the product does not do what it claims.  In comparison to the old dell and the current OLD and small usb wifi adapter the dell was using it was better but it anything would be.  In comparison to built in antennas it was at best equal but often 10% lower signal strength.  I am in IT and spent hours testing wanting this to work.  I tried it in three different locations and discussed with tech support.  in short it is as good as any current wifi adapter, but much more expensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I purchased one of these units and was sorely disappointed.  First off the first unit kept losing its USB connection so 2nd one was sent.  Testing it out with a 6 year old Dell, IBM x41 and a T42 showed that the product does not do what it claims.  In comparison to the old dell and the current OLD and small usb wifi adapter the dell was using it was better but it anything would be.  In comparison to built in antennas it was at best equal but often 10% lower signal strength.  I am in IT and spent hours testing wanting this to work.  I tried it in three different locations and discussed with tech support.  in short it is as good as any current wifi adapter, but much more expensive.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.326 seconds -->
