[Eug Wanker]

It seems like Apple will skip 802.11a entirely and go with 802.11n. I look forward to those 802.11n-ized MacBook Pros in 2007.

112 Mbps wireless real-world sounds sweet:





Even when speeds drop because of distance (100 feet), the better units were still getting nearly 40 Mbps real-world:

[Dark Helmet]

Damn I read 2 or 3 conflicting reports today.

Anyway, this router is pretty sexy:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/periphera...ter-169649.php

[mduell]

I could have told you Apple was going to skip 802.11a when they chose 802.11g.

Now the damn comittee needs to finish the 802.11n standard and get backwards compatibility to stop sucking.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by mduell

I could have told you Apple was going to skip 802.11a when they chose 802.11g.

Now the damn comittee needs to finish the 802.11n standard and get backwards compatibility to stop sucking.

I also hear the speeds drops drastically after short distances.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

I could have told you Apple was going to skip 802.11a when they chose 802.11g.

Now the damn comittee needs to finish the 802.11n standard and get backwards compatibility to stop sucking.

Yeah, I figured they'd skip 802.11a too.

Strangely enough, current iMacs and MacBook Pros have 802.11a. The hardware is there but there are no OS X drivers. You can get 802.11a support in Windows though on a Mac.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I also hear the speeds drops drastically after short distances.

Which, 802.11a or 802.11n?

[rickey939]

802.11z is killer-fast.®

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

802.11n?

N routers

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by rickey939

802.11z is killer-fast.®

802.11z+1 is faster.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I also hear the speeds drops drastically after short distances.

The last plot above shows that.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Strangely enough, current iMacs and MacBook Pros have 802.11a. The hardware is there but there are no OS X drivers. You can get 802.11a support in Windows though on a Mac.

If Apple is buying Intel's 3945ABG as part of the Centrino platform, then a is more-or-less free. I'm surprised they haven't added support for it in the driver.

[qnxde]

802.11a is 100% functional and working on OS X from what I've heard.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mduell

The last plot above shows that.



If Apple is buying Intel's 3945ABG as part of the Centrino platform, then a is more-or-less free. I'm surprised they haven't added support for it in the driver.

I don't think they are. Last I heard the Intel Macs were still using Broadcoms.

[hickey]

whats the difference between a, g, and n?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hickey

whats the difference between a, g, and n?

802.11 standards at the Wikipedia.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by qnxde

802.11a is 100% functional and working on OS X from what I've heard.

Hmmm.... You may be right.

I had read before it only worked in Windows, but this article suggests it may be working in OS X as well.

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't think they are. Last I heard the Intel Macs were still using Broadcoms.

This article claims Intel for the MacBook Pro, but this article claims both Atheros and Broadcom chips which support 802.11a.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I also hear the speeds drops drastically after short distances.

Microsoft claims that 802.11a doesn't suffer from the same interference from microwave ovens that 802.11g does. I dunno if that's true or not for 802.11a, but I do know that turning on the microwave did severely degrade my iBook's 802.11g wireless transfer speeds. Degrade as in it sometimes wouldn't work at all, or it would be excruciatingly slow, when I was reheating leftovers.

[JoshuaZ]

Wow, those are some nice speeds. Though honestly, for the average person, 802.11b was more than enough. It would be nice to move files around via 802.11n, but honestly, who needs that much speed? Clearly even with a super fine internet connection you won't be needing n for your surfing and downloads.

Anyways, its a cool product but doesn't have much consumer applications thus far. At least in my opinion.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Wow, those are some nice speeds. Though honestly, for the average person, 802.11b was more than enough. It would be nice to move files around via 802.11n, but honestly, who needs that much speed? Clearly even with a super fine internet connection you won't be needing n for your surfing and downloads.

Anyways, its a cool product but doesn't have much consumer applications thus far. At least in my opinion.

For large file transfers, real-world speeds of 3-4+ Mbps sometimes are simply too slow for a home network IMO. If I had to transfer a very large file (eg. video), I sometimes found myself running upstairs with my laptop and plugging it into the network via Ethernet. Easy solution, but irritating.

Hell, I even get faster speeds on my internet connection than a home 802.11b network ever gave me.

However, on 802.11g with its real-world speeds that are up to 5X as fast as 802.11b real-world, I find that many large transfers are now manageable via wireless. The largest files like DVD images still aren't though. Granted, I don't often transfer DVD images from one computer to the next, but I do want to do it from time to time. 802.11n would pretty much remove any speed limitations of wireless for me. My wired network is 100 Mbps (70 Mbps real-world), and it'd be nice if my wireless network were just as fast.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Wow, those are some nice speeds. Though honestly, for the average person, 802.11b was more than enough. It would be nice to move files around via 802.11n, but honestly, who needs that much speed? Clearly even with a super fine internet connection you won't be needing n for your surfing and downloads.

Well, if you're in a company, university setting, public wi-fi access point, etc., you're going to have a bunch of people using the wireless at once, not just one user. The more people are sharing the bandwidth, the more bandwidth you have to have in the first place in order to keep things from getting clogged.

Plus, it's just freaking cool to have a wireless connection whose real world performance is better than 100BaseT's theoretical performance. There'll almost be no point to connecting anything through wires anymore...

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, if you're in a company, university setting, public wi-fi access point, etc., you're going to have a bunch of people using the wireless at once, not just one user. The more people are sharing the bandwidth, the more bandwidth you have to have in the first place in order to keep things from getting clogged.

Plus, it's just freaking cool to have a wireless connection whose real world performance is better than 100BaseT's theoretical performance. There'll almost be no point to connecting anything through wires anymore...

Except for power. That would be nice to have.

Most people are not moving large files, and in places where you would be moving large files all the time (business and research) you'd probably be tethered down anyhow. BUt yes, it is very cool, but also overkill for most everyone. Heck, even on a college network with lots of people getting wireless, the majority of people will be doing surfing or e-mail. (Just thinking back to my college days, like a year ago)

Anyways, yes, it will be necessary one day. But a tad bit of an overkill in places like the US where the majority of people still use dial up.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Except for power. That would be nice to have.

Heh, I was of course referring to networking applications. Obviously, you need a cable to charge your laptop battery.

Most people are not moving large files, and in places where you would be moving large files all the time (business and research) you'd probably be tethered down anyhow. BUt yes, it is very cool, but also overkill for most everyone. Heck, even on a college network with lots of people getting wireless, the majority of people will be doing surfing or e-mail. (Just thinking back to my college days, like a year ago)

I dunno... college networks can get really clogged at peak hours.

...places like the US where the majority of people still use dial up.

Ye gods, is that still true?

I personally don't know anyone that still has dial-up anymore.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Heh, I was of course referring to networking applications. Obviously, you need a cable to charge your laptop battery.


I dunno... college networks can get really clogged at peak hours.


Ye gods, is that still true?

I personally don't know anyone that still has dial-up anymore.

But would people really be moving large files over public college networks? Most people I knew in college had desktops, which would be wired. Not too many people would be moving video files while sitting in the quad on wireless.

Yeah, its true. Think of the large amount of rural space in america that can't get DSL or cable? Most older people, non-techies, don't need high speed internet all the time. Heck, the only reason my family ever upgraded to Cable was for video chatting with me.

Anyways... long story short, yes, n is super cool. No, it is not that useful for non-super-cool-techie-big-file-moving-people.

[PurpleGiant]

I would like a higher speed wireless for my Airport Video Express thank you

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by PurpleGiant

I would like a higher speed wireless for my Airport Video Express thank you

Yup.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Wow, those are some nice speeds. Though honestly, for the average person, 802.11b was more than enough. It would be nice to move files around via 802.11n, but honestly, who needs that much speed? Clearly even with a super fine internet connection you won't be needing n for your surfing and downloads.

Anyways, its a cool product but doesn't have much consumer applications thus far. At least in my opinion.

Well my 4.6mbps ADSL is faster through my 100mbit Ethernet Linksys router than through my AirPort (54mbit version) router using 802.11b on my TiBook. While it should be fast enough in theory. Reception is always 100% according to airport.

It's not MUCH faster but it's noticeable. Needless to say, I'm using my cat5 cables again since I don't walk around with my computer anyway.

I must add that one of the reasons that I switched back to ethernet is that it ALWAYS works, as opposed to that damn AirPort. And I'm probably upgrading to 17mbps VDSL soon so my airport will be useless anyway.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by mduell

The last plot above shows that.

That is quite a dive after only 25 feet, and that isn't taking into account walls.

if I am within 25 feet of a computer it is usually smarter just to send a cable.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

That is quite a dive after only 25 feet, and that isn't taking into account walls.

if I am within 25 feet of a computer it is usually smarter just to send a cable.

The drop off was after 50 feet with the Netgear.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Microsoft claims that 802.11a doesn't suffer from the same interference from microwave ovens that 802.11g does. I dunno if that's true or not for 802.11a, but I do know that turning on the microwave did severely degrade my iBook's 802.11g wireless transfer speeds. Degrade as in it sometimes wouldn't work at all, or it would be excruciatingly slow, when I was reheating leftovers.

802.11b and 802.11g are in the 2.4Ghz band, which is the same band used by Bluetooth and some cordless phones. The radiation produced by microwave ovens is mostly around 2.4Ghz. 802.11a uses the 5.8Ghz band, so a 2.4Ghz microwave doesn't affect it.

[Cansaspillar]

Greetings,
I would greatly appreciate any help in setting up a netgear router for a Mac Ibook. The router comes with PC software to set it up, which the Mac can’t read or use. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jim

[wataru]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Well my 4.6mbps ADSL is faster through my 100mbit Ethernet Linksys router than through my AirPort (54mbit version) router using 802.11b on my TiBook. While it should be fast enough in theory. Reception is always 100% according to airport.

That's probably latency, not throughput. Do a bandwidth tester thingy.

Originally Posted by Jim308

Greetings,
I would greatly appreciate any help in setting up a netgear router for a Mac Ibook. The router comes with PC software to set it up, which the Mac can’t read or use. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jim

Try posting in the right forum.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by wataru

That's probably latency, not throughput. Do a bandwidth tester thingy.
Try posting in the right forum.

Perhaps we could be nicer to our guest?

Try here: http://forums.macnn.com/forumdisplay...une=5&f=92 Jim308

[badtz]

with 802.11n, if there's an 802.11g node on your network, will it drop the overall speed down to 54Mbps? Even with the MIMO, will this help ensure better connection stability with 802.11g devices?

For the 802.11g MIMO devices, do those still work [in terms of connection stability] with 802.11g cards that are not from the same vendor?