[selowitch]

I'm confused about this, as I imagine many folks out there are. It's my understanding that my white iMac Intel 20" has an AirPort Extreme Card that is draft-802.11n compliant, as does the AppleTV I just ordered. Sadly, my iBook maxes out at 802.11g. My questions are:

1. When Plain-802.11n is ratified, will my iMac and AppleTV be able to upgrade to use it? or...
2. Is it likely to entail a performance boost? or...
3. Will I have to buy a new card for the iMac and be stuck at "draft" for AppleTV?

[Eug]

Over a year from now.

Status of Project IEEE 802.11n

Standard for Enhancements for Higher Throughput

July 2008, Denver, Colorado, US

TGn Draft 5.0 passed recirculation ballot #129 by an 90% majority (75% required) with 261 votes to approve, 29 not approve, 23 abstain.

All 1112 comments from this recirculation ballot were resolved during this meeting, and the working group approved a recirculation ballot on a TGn Draft 6.0, incorporating these comment resolutions.

The timeline was modified, and now anticipates publication in November 2009 instead of July 2009. The group is targeting September 3-5 for an ad hoc meeting to resolve comments from the recirculation ballot on Draft 6.0.

---

It is "expected" that your draft n equipment will just need a firmware update to be true 802.11n compliant. However, there are no guarantees.

For this reason, the fact I have no 802.11n clients anyway, and the fact that 802.11g hardware is often dirt cheap, I made my multi-access point network 802.11b/g only. I'll go 802.11n once the standard is ratified, the prices drop, and I actually own some n clients.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Over a year from now.

Sure takes them a while, doesn't it? Thanks for the info. Very much what I was hoping for (and couldn't Google my way there).

Now here's the other question on my mind: Does 802.11n, draft or full, carry the potential to exceed the speed of wired connections (other than gigabit)? Let's say, under good conditions, 802.11n gives you 150Mbps of throughput at a range of 30 feet. "Fast Ethernet" (100BT, not gigabit), gives you only 100Mbps. So unless one has a gigabit router and an all-wired, all gigabit network of clients, doesn't 802.11n surpass that?

[Eug]

Benchmarks apparently have 802.11n at about 85 Mbps... as long as the transmitters are next to each other, and it's pure 5 GHz 802.11n. At any significant distance, or if you're keeping 802.11g and/or 2.4 GHz support as well, the speed drops dramatically.

Just as importantly, wired network speeds are much more consistent/reliable.

For a desktop, I'd rather have 100 Mbps Ethernet than 802.11n.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Just as importantly, wired network speeds are much more consistent/reliable.

That's been my observation (and that of many others) as well.

[Big Mac]

A wired connection will always be more reliable, but you can't beat the convenience of wireless for mobile devices.

[Simon]

Obviously 100 Mbps Ethernet performs better. But that's totally irrelevant in situations where wired is not an option. Also, wireless offers additional comfort for situations where raw throughput is not the crucial issue.

At home I have managed to get a mixed 802.11g/n (g for the iPhone and few older Macs) network that works very well (IOW no reboots required, no dropped network, no baloney). I see sustained throughput of about 7.5 MB/s between n clients and/or n clients and other wired LAN clients. That's not stellar if you're transferring 100 GB of data (like I do at work over a Gigabit connection), but it is more than enough to stream DVDs, play multiplayer games (latency is fine), browse the web, etc.

There's no right or wrong here. It depends very much on your specific situation: your demands in terms of performance and convenience, your personal preferences, and obviously also your budget.

[Eug]

I find latency for my Xbox 360 is problematic over 802.11g. Plus the throughput on g was too slow for reliable video streaming. So, I went with powerline networking. Much more reliable (at least in my home with wiring less than a decade old), and lower latency, but it maxes out in my setup at about 30 Mbps. That's roughly half of what Simon is getting over 802.11n, but then again, it's 100% reliable, and the latency is quite low. Also, there is no such thing as a 802.11n adapter for the Xbox 360 unless you go third party, and my routers and access points aren't 802.11n capable anyway.

I also use powerline networking to extend my wireless network (for my iPhone and laptops). I just use multiple access points, but don't have to resort to WDS networking.

[thelowproguy]

Yeah I agree with the first guy, I saw that site too when I was looking it up.

[dimmer]

Eug: 802.11n uses both bandwidths (as used by 802.11b/g and 802.11a) and bonds multiple channels together to get the speed boost. Using only the 802.11a (5ghz) band will reduce performance significantly, as fewer channels are available overall.

In a "mixed" network, you may find it best to segregate 802.11b/g devices to one network, 802.11a/n networks to another, as the overhead for each turns to lowest common denominator (your 802.11b collision is still as slow as it ever was.)

[Tomchu]

I recently bought an Airport Extreme, and I have it set up in 5 GHz/wide channel mode. Transferring files over SMB to my FreeBSD server (which is on Gigabit along with the AE) yielded something around 17-18 MB/sec. Megabytes, not megabits. (136 - 144 Mbits/sec)

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

I recently bought an Airport Extreme, and I have it set up in 5 GHz/wide channel mode. Transferring files over SMB to my FreeBSD server (which is on Gigabit along with the AE) yielded something around 17-18 MB/sec. Megabytes, not megabits. (136 - 144 Mbits/sec)

Sustained or burst? I've been getting around 10MB sustained transferring media from my MBP over n to my Apple TV (wired to the APE).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by dimmer 

Eug: 802.11n uses both bandwidths (as used by 802.11b/g and 802.11a) and bonds multiple channels together to get the speed boost. Using only the 802.11a (5ghz) band will reduce performance significantly, as fewer channels are available overall.

In a "mixed" network, you may find it best to segregate 802.11b/g devices to one network, 802.11a/n networks to another, as the overhead for each turns to lowest common denominator (your 802.11b collision is still as slow as it ever was.)

Agreed.

However, in my case powerline networking has solved my problems. Ultra stable 30 Mbps speeds is enough to stream HD. As for wireless, I don't need higher speeds for my wireless devices. All my clients that require fast speeds are wired anyway.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I'm confused about this, as I imagine many folks out there are. It's my understanding that my white iMac Intel 20" has an AirPort Extreme Card that is draft-802.11n compliant, as does the AppleTV I just ordered. Sadly, my iBook maxes out at 802.11g. My questions are:

1. When Plain-802.11n is ratified, will my iMac and AppleTV be able to upgrade to use it? or...
2. Is it likely to entail a performance boost? or...
3. Will I have to buy a new card for the iMac and be stuck at "draft" for AppleTV?

1. Maybe at the end of next year, but it could slip into 2010.
2. Perhaps a bit, but nothing dramatic. The maturation of implementations is going to be more significant than spec changes at this point.
3. Maybe, but unlikely.