Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

flatcatch · May 22, 2003, 07:06 PM

Is computerworld known for smoking crack? This is crazy. Beware future firmware updates!

I've heard of overhead, but 54Mbits down to real-world 10/20MBits is quite a change.

http://www.computerworld.com/mobilet...l?nas=PM-81450

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE) has approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs that will have a true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec., far lower than 54Mbit/sec. raw data rate initially billed for the standard.

[snip...]

exa · May 22, 2003, 07:12 PM

Well, 802.11g never was 54Mbps (actual throughput) in the first place, they're just labelling it with the speed it is really at.

Angus_D · May 23, 2003, 10:02 AM

I never understood why Apple went with 802.11g. It would have been better to go with a combined a/b system, which wouldn't suffer from the interference problems.

Ken_F2 · May 23, 2003, 03:37 PM

flat,

That has always been the case. The 54mbps was just marketing speak; it was a theoretical number that didn't bear any relation to what you could actually get. When actually taking into account overhead, 802.11a/802.11g are ~20mbps at very short distances, and typically much less at >20 feet. See this page at 802.11 Planet and this page at Cnet for usable bit rates from different distances for a number of 802.11a and 802.11g products, including the Airport Extreme.

Ken_F2 · May 23, 2003, 03:43 PM

Angus,

I don't know if it's still the case, but I read at one point that wireless products weren't permissable in the 5-GHz band in some European countries. Thus, if Apple wanted a single product for all markets, they had to use 2.4GHz WiFi.

ghporter · May 24, 2003, 11:31 AM

Actually, 10-20Mbps throughput for "Internet-type connections" isn't too bad. It is higher than just about any available broadband connection (my 1.5Mbps DSL gives me an actual throughput, after overhead, of around 900kbps), and probably also takes into account the capabilities of the broadband infrastructure, as well.

My big question is whether the "Internet-type connections" will be as mobile as 802.11b connections; this "54Mbps" wireless stuff seems to be far more distance-sensitive.

Angus_D · May 25, 2003, 05:50 AM

Indeed, you'd need to have something in the order of a T3 for you to saturate 802.11g

Powaqqatsi · May 25, 2003, 06:13 AM

How much is T3 actually ?

Angus_D · May 25, 2003, 06:16 AM

43.2Mbit/s, I think.

Powaqqatsi · May 26, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
43.2Mbit/s, I think.

*drool*