our Linksys migration - BEFSX41 --> WRT160N

Have a question or want to start a discussion? Post it! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
I've had my Linksys BEFSX41 router for ages.  
Somewhere along the way, I added a separate Linksys WAP54G to our network.

Recently, came across an extra Linksys WRT160N that was not being used,  
and installed it to replace just the Wifi function of the WAP54G,  
but still kept the BEFSX41 as the main router for home.

OK - so, any comments on finally retiring the Linksys BEFSX41,  
and just let the Linksys WRT160N handle all the router and WiFi functions ?

Re: our Linksys migration - BEFSX41 --> WRT160N

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You might want to read some reviews on the WRT160N before taking the
plunge.  For example, 32% of the reviews on Newegg and Amazon call it
junk.  V1 is probably barely OK.  No clue on V1.1.  V2 is junk.
<(Amazon.com product link shortened)>


Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Re: our Linksys migration - BEFSX41 --> WRT160N
mine is label listed as V3 -  

Re: our Linksys migration - BEFSX41 --> WRT160N
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am not a computer pro, so I have only my own home  
experience to report, but my experience with a WRT160N has  
been very good.  It has been the remote router of a repeater  
bridge, serving five or six wireless devices for four years  
with almost no down time.  It is a factory-refurbished  
version 1 unit.  However, my positive experience is probably  
a result of installing DD-WRT version 12548M as soon as I  
got the unit.  I have not upgraded the firmware because I do  
not want any of the features of the later versions.  This  
version of DD-WRT has the reputation of being very stable,  
and my experience has been consistent with that.

Of course, YMMV, especially if you have a version 2, which  
does not even have the same chip or the same amount of  
memory and should really have been given a different model  


Site Timeline