Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

quiklee · Oct 26, 2006, 12:25 PM

Apple sneaks draft 802.11n card into MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

read this on tuaw and it mentioned iMacs . . . does anyone know anything about this?

C.A.T.S. CEO · Oct 26, 2006, 04:56 PM

Can 802.11g users get a upgrade?

(

)

jamil5454 · Oct 26, 2006, 09:37 PM

The hardware for a draft implementation is there, but I don't think it's yet supported in OS X.

Tuoder · Oct 26, 2006, 11:02 PM

The whole 802.11n situation irritates the $%^& out of me. Belkin was the first one to tick me off.

quiklee · Oct 27, 2006, 12:08 AM

dude, that sucks . . . they're probably gonna release it with Leopard . . . .

don't you guys love being the early adopters, we're all hella impatient with technology!

Peter · Oct 27, 2006, 07:44 AM

not when the technology isn't even fully spec'd, no, no i don't.

Goldfinger · Oct 27, 2006, 08:54 AM

I think it's a good thing. If the specs change in the future then too bad, no N support for the C2D iMac and MBP. But if the spec doesn't change anymore they'll have immediate support. Nothing to lose here.

SciFrog · Oct 27, 2006, 09:09 AM

I hope Apple is getting ready to enable draft n on the iMacs and new MPB when the iTV comes out, along a new Airport Base Station. I am first in line.

mduell · Oct 27, 2006, 03:40 PM

Yea, the new Intel wifi hardware supports draft-n... and IIRC the Windows driver supports it.

Tuoder · Oct 27, 2006, 08:07 PM

The IEEE needs to get this out of committee already. I know these things take time, but still. If all of these manufacturers come out with Draft-N hardware, it just dilutes the whole idea of standardization anyway. The Pre-N stuff just plain old ticked me off.

I only buy stuff with finalized standards. But then, wireless really isn't a mature technology anyway.

mduell · Oct 27, 2006, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

The IEEE needs to get this out of committee already. I know these things take time, but still. If all of these manufacturers come out with Draft-N hardware, it just dilutes the whole idea of standardization anyway. The Pre-N stuff just plain old ticked me off.

I only buy stuff with finalized standards. But then, wireless really isn't a mature technology anyway.

I was avoiding pre/draft .11n gear for a while, bu with all the shenanigans pushing the final standard schedule out until at least 2008, I'm no longer against the idea of buying non-final hardware. I've been using 108Mbps SuperG equipment for a while, and it's not as fast as I want.

5 years to go from .11g to .11n is ridiculous. The standards committee can't expect manufacturers and users not to go with the draft.

Tuoder · Oct 27, 2006, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

The standards committee can't expect manufacturers and users not to go with the draft.

This is true. I can afford to wait. I use wires for stationary computers, and .11g is more than enough for my laptop. I plug in alot of the time when i am home. At school, there is free .11g.

If the IEEE spends too much time with this in committee, the situation will completely fall apart. These warring factions in the IEEE are going to fragment the market, i think.

dale · Oct 30, 2006, 11:49 AM

Apple may be taking a it of a gamble here on the pre 11n "compatibility" cards, but in all fairness does it really matter?

If the internal card does conform with the final 11n standard - brilliant.

If it doesn't conform to the fial 11n standard - just buy a compatible 11n usb dongle like the rest of us. If they had fitted an 11g card that is fully compatible with todays G standard, you would still need to buy an 11n usb dongle anyway to get the increased speed.

No one has lost anything, here - but there is a good chance that people buying new stuff (with pre11n fitted) might benefit.

In ny opinion - Apple have done a good thing here.

I do hope I can convert my intel iMac (core duo) to use an internal 11n card once they are out. If not, i'll either use an rj45 lead or a usb device to get the extra speed.

Can't wait for iTV (or whatever they will call it).

ghporter · Oct 30, 2006, 06:25 PM

Actually, the standards committee, and the WiFi consortium specifically DO expect us all to hold off. There were a number of false starts in the G standard and they managed to come out with a decent compromise between the "we need more range" camp and the "we need faster links no matter what" group.

What the standards committee is supposed to do is get it RIGHT, not get it out fast. There is no overriding need right now for faster networking, no "killer app" that requires data rates significantly faster than what G provides.

Since the pictures the TUAW article links to don't work (for me) I can't say for certain, but the only way to determine if this "D-Link" card is actually a "pre-N" card is to perhaps see three antenna cables on it (one pretty certain feature to be included in N is "MIMO" operation, which requires at least three antennas). Do those pictures work for anyone?

Tuoder · Oct 31, 2006, 01:54 PM

I am just happy they got that whole IEEE 802.3 thing worked out, JEEZ!

I use ethernet alot right now. At home, i am going to use ICS with a cheap .11g adapter soon. You're right, there is no application for more power for me right now.

Simon · 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Since the pictures the TUAW article links to don't work (for me) I can't say for certain, but the only way to determine if this "D-Link" card is actually a "pre-N" card is to perhaps see three antenna cables on it (one pretty certain feature to be included in N is "MIMO" operation, which requires at least three antennas). Do those pictures work for anyone?

[click for more]

I see three antennas.

I can see something like "AR5BXB72" on the card.

There's an Atheros Type AR5BXB72 card which is a 802.11 card that transmits on 2.4, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 GHz bands. Those frequencies sound more like 802.11a to me. I thought 802.11n used 5.0 GHz.

Tuoder · Nov 1, 2006, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

[click for more]

I see three antennas.

I can see something like "AR5BXB72" on the card.

There's an Atheros Type AR5BXB72 card which is a 802.11 card that transmits on 2.4, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 GHz bands. Those frequencies sound more like 802.11a to me. I thought 802.11n used 5.0 GHz.

The whole idea of MIMO is that it operates in multiple frequency ranges at the same time. That means using whatever is legal to use. I can't remember which ones are legal in the US except for 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz.

mduell · Nov 4, 2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

I see three antennas.

I can see something like "AR5BXB72" on the card.

There's an Atheros Type AR5BXB72 card which is a 802.11 card that transmits on 2.4, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 GHz bands. Those frequencies sound more like 802.11a to me. I thought 802.11n used 5.0 GHz.

802.11n uses the 2.4 or 5.mumble Ghz bands.

ghporter · Nov 4, 2006, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

The whole idea of MIMO is that it operates in multiple frequency ranges at the same time. That means using whatever is legal to use. I can't remember which ones are legal in the US except for 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz.

It's basically multiple CHANNELS, not multiple "frequencies" as you suggest. One thing that's certain about the N standard is that it should be backward compatible with B and G, which work in the 2.4GHz range. 802.11A works at around 5GHz, and there ARE a number of dual G/A cards out there. Since an antenna for 5GHz won't work so well for 2.4GHZ and vice versa, and both B and G use dual antennas, that three antenna arrangement could be either a MIMO setup or a dual G/A connection.

However, the FCC ID number is a real key. You can look up any FCC ID and find out a lot of cool stuff. This card is DEFINITELY 802.11n compatible (at least as far as the N standard has been established). Take a look at the FCC page for this particular device, in particular the test report exhibit. The card is characterized as a 802.11a/b/g/n PCIExpress minicard. (Look on the cover page.)

Case closed? I need to point out that just because the card CAN do "N" doesn't mean that it WILL in a MacBook Pro. The software needs to be there too.

Tuoder · Nov 4, 2006, 09:42 PM

Channels are different frequencies that are close to each other. Channels are right next to each other in frequency.

Simon · Nov 5, 2006, 01:52 AM

So if I understand correctly this table is wrong.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Nov 5, 2006, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

So if I understand correctly this table is wrong.

What's coming after n?

kick52 · Nov 5, 2006, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

What's coming after n?

z? it seems pretty random to me.

Tuoder · Nov 5, 2006, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

So if I understand correctly this table is wrong.

You know, I couldn't find a source to back up my understanding. Perhaps MIMO was confused with channel bonding by ghporter?

mduell · Nov 5, 2006, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

So if I understand correctly this table is wrong.

Table looks right to me.

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

What's coming after n?

No higher speed standard has been proposed yet; various other proposals and reservations have used the letters through and including y, so the next higher speed standard may be z.

ghporter · Nov 5, 2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

You know, I couldn't find a source to back up my understanding. Perhaps MIMO was confused with channel bonding by ghporter?

In the post I responded to, it looked like you were saying that MIMO operates in a bunch of different frequency ranges. That's not my understanding of it-as far as I know it runs in EITHER the 2.4GHz band used by B and G (or near it) or in the 5GHz area used by A. And since N is supposed to be back compatible with B and G, it makes sense that it should stay in a range that they can handle, right?

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

What's coming after n?

We'll have to wait and see what the next big wireless networking application that challenges N's capabilities is before someone comes up with a new proposal.

Tuoder · Nov 5, 2006, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

In the post I responded to, it looked like you were saying that MIMO operates in a bunch of different frequency ranges. That's not my understanding of it-as far as I know it runs in EITHER the 2.4GHz band used by B and G (or near it) or in the 5GHz area used by A. And since N is supposed to be back compatible with B and G, it makes sense that it should stay in a range that they can handle, right?

We'll have to wait and see what the next big wireless networking application that challenges N's capabilities is before someone comes up with a new proposal.

That is what I was saying. It makes sense that n would run in the frequency ranges that are currently used (2.4Ghz for b/g and 5Ghz for a, therefore maintaining backward compatibility with both.). Also, channel bonding is illegal in Japan, so it doesn't make sense to me that a new standard would include practices that would leave Japan out, as it would presumably be a large market for such technology.

Originally Posted by wifiplanet.com, quoting Airgo Netowrks

two or more unique radio signals, in the same radio channel, where each signal carries different digital information.

Perhaps they have figured out how to put to signals into one channel? I really don't know how that would work.

ghporter · Nov 5, 2006, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

That is what I was saying. It makes sense that n would run in the frequency ranges that are currently used (2.4Ghz for b/g and 5Ghz for a, therefore maintaining backward compatibility with both.). Also, channel bonding is illegal in Japan, so it doesn't make sense to me that a new standard would include practices that would leave Japan out, as it would presumably be a large market for such technology.

Perhaps they have figured out how to put to signals into one channel? I really don't know how that would work.

I think it actually works more through different channels (probably in the same band) at the same time. I had missed exactly what you were saying (obviously) earlier, and saw it kind of sideways. Your earlier post did seem to suggest using a bunch of bands at the same time, and I can't figure a workable way to make that happen, so I piped up.