Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Demos 7Gpbs Wireless Docking

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the gives-you-richer-more-vibrant-cancer dept.

Networking 52

Lucas123 writes "Intel for the first time demonstrated the Wireless Gigabit (WiGig) docking specification using an Ultrabook, which was able to achieve 7Gbps performance, ten times the fastest Wi-Fi networks based on the IEEE 802.11n standard. The WiGig medium access control (MAC) and physical (PHY) control specification operates in the unlicensed 60GHz frequency band, which has more spectrum available than the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by existing Wi-Fi products. According to Ali Sadri, chairman of the WiGig Alliance, the specification also supports wireless implementations of HDMI and DisplayPort interfaces, as well as the High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) scheme used to protect digital content transmitted over those interfaces. It scales to allow transmission of both compressed and uncompressed video."

cancel ×

52 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frost pist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344443)

plz die k thx

7 Gpbs (1, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344493)

WTF is a Gpbs ?

Giga Public Broadcasting Service ?
Global Positioning buzz saw?

Re:7 Gpbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344617)

And WTF is medium access control?

Re:7 Gpbs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344737)

That means the psychic has a bouncer.

Re:7 Gpbs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344727)

Giga Porns Per Second. It's how we measure Internet bandwidth.

Re:7 Gpbs (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344823)

Mod parent up!

Re:7 Gpbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41348401)

Finally someone telling it how it REALLY is!

Intel, wifi = disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344503)

they better fix their existing connectivity issues. The 802.11, the wireless N is a disaster for intel. Almost all distributions have to add 11n_disable=1 to get their wifi working more or less.

take a look here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805285
or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845543

and many more where their firmware doesn't quite cut it.

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344701)

How come it works just fine in Windows?

Sounds like a Linux problem to me.

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344775)

Maybe you just don't know any better?

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (3, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345897)

Maybe you just don't know any better?

I know better, and the AC you responded to is correct. 802.11n works just fine with Windows XP and 7. I would love it to work well with Linux too as I use several Linux machines including a laptop that would benefit from the higher bandwidth. They just haven't quite gotten the bugs out of the system yet.

It works great with OS X machines too. Are you still going to imply it isn't a Linux problem?

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346313)

" 802.11n works just fine with Windows XP and 7"

Which explains why all of my 802.11n devices have to be set to 802.11g, in order to even connect to the wireless-N router, under both XP and 7.....

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346687)

Wireless is a clusterf*ck in general. It's something that sounds like a cool idea but has a lot of technical hurdles. Its kind of fine if you have no other choice but sucks when compared to the alternatives.

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347585)

" 802.11n works just fine with Windows XP and 7"

Which explains why all of my 802.11n devices have to be set to 802.11g, in order to even connect to the wireless-N router, under both XP and 7.....

That sounds like a personal problem, and I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with the fact that my own 802.11n works just fine with my Windows machines at home as well as my Macs. My linux boxes are wired except for the laptop and that's a bit older so only supports G. I have no first hand experience with Linux not working with N but this thread is not the first time I've heard such complaints.

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347853)

You have no idea what you are talking about, for sure. Apple machines carry broadcom wireless chips, not intel. And former, on OSX, work just fine.

Now, intel wifi chips, when it comes to 5GHz, 40bit wide channels absolutely sucks, even on Windows ( I know because I have lenovo thinkpad which comes with msft os from factory which I don't run. The laptop comes with intel 5300 wireless chip with the 3 mimo antennae thingie ).

For instance : on high speed campus network @ Carnegie Mellon, with 5GHz 40 bit wide wireless N routers available, machines equipped with intel wireless chips running Windows get 33% of bandwidth of what couple generation old macbooks get at wireless N. I know because I was pissed buying the latest and greatest, brand new intel wifi chip at the time, yet getting miserable speeds. I switched to linux as my main os running on bare metal on a laptop ( which is not an easy fate on a new hw, especially if you are in a competitive program where you have hard deadlines and your wireless doesn't work properly ) to take a look at what is going on. There, to get the speeds that untweaked bone stock macbooks get I had to patch the wpa_supplicant because the later would prefer 2.4GHz instead of 5GHz because 2.4GHz network signal penetrates better, hence have better signal to noise ratio than 5GHz networks alas is much slower. It is stupid thing, because it would choose 2.4GHz even if you are physically located closer to 5GHz AP. Btw, CMU has a nifty network speed testing utility which you can use from here http://net.cmu.edu/myspeed/

So, after getting all the things prepared for 5GHz blazing wifi speeds, I found that the intel firmware ( sys-firmware/iwl5000-ucode ) would crash every so and often. ( You know, to run intel wifi chips you have to get binary blobs right ? ). What would usually would happen is : the tx queue get stuck, the infamous tx tid aggregation issues, etc etc etc. Long story short : It just doesn't do what it says on the tin. Intel's wifi bugzilla is full of bugs. Take a look around http://bugzilla.intellinuxwireless.org if you want to get a rough idea how they are doing there.

btw,
the same with intel's vaapi on linux on MHD 4500 graphics hw. It half works on windows and doesn't work on linux, yet they(intel) are announcing that their hw is capable of this and that.

Now, intel is announcing 7Gpbs(sic) speeds on 60GHz networks. Good luck with that. The only thing: you will get 33% of speed at best of what is advertised, yet you have to pay 100%. And, btw, if you run Windows, don't bother, you won't even know that because your tech karma is too low to even suspect that.

I am done.

Re:Intel, wifi = disaster (1)

chantal elie (2732259) | more than 2 years ago | (#41361237)

www.modashop.fr

HDCP... (4, Insightful)

runeghost (2509522) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344537)

Making pirated media superior to purchased media since 1999!

Re:HDCP... (2)

freman (843586) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344839)

yeh now imagine how much more awsome it'd be if it didn't have to waste time and power encrypting, signing and verifying that you can do what you paid to do (be it play games, or watch movies)

All pirated content just works all the time, sure some times you get a dodgy release but for $0 down, it's still not a bad investment for a night in - I'm not a piracy advocate but on more than one occasion I just have. (Recent purchase of the STNG bluray that I can't watch for example... I should have just downloaded when it was online days before it was released)

Re:HDCP... (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344999)

You know, HDCP could actually have a use here if the display data are not otherwise encrypted. I don't know how well it would actually protect against eavesdroppers. At the very least it would remove any repeating patterns which eavesdroppers could use for statistical analysis.

It would be silly if it wasn't encrypted, but there are often some flaws in new standards like this one. (I assume it's easier to eavesdrop on a 60 GHz signal than on actual wires, but there may not be that huge a difference.)

Re:HDCP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347851)

The problem with that idea is that HDCP verifies that the device on the other end is an HDCP licensee, not that it's the device you meant to connect to. There's nothing to stop a man-in-the-middle attack.

Re:HDCP... (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348873)

There are two things stopping a man-in-the-middle attack: Range and bandwidth.

worried about health effects (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344551)

There are still no studies about the long-term effects of Wi-Fi, because of that i'm not too thrilled about the increased wireless bandwith. 1gbps is too fast for consumers and for the rest you can use cables.

Re:worried about health effects (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344605)

That's because no reasonable person expects there to be any effects. Wifi signal power is ridiculously low compared to many other applications of electromagnetic waves. Your microwave oven is allowed to leak more power than your wifi router is allowed to emit.

Scales? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344609)

Why in the world would bandwidth need to "scale"? It's either fast enough for the highest required bit-rate or it isn't, slowing it down for lower amounts of traffic is pointless.

Re:Scales? (1)

sensationull (889870) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344643)

Powersaving

Re:Scales? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349263)

Bullock. If you have 100MB to transfer, you are going to use MORE power transferring for 160 seconds at 5Mb/s than for 80 seconds at 10Mb/s

Re:Scales? (2)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344657)

"it scales" refers to the specification, not the bandwidth.

Some basic background (5, Informative)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344663)

For those wondering who are too lazy to Google, 60 GHz is right in the middle of the resonance range of the oxygen molecule (O2), so it's attenuated by nothing but air. That limits its range to just a few kilometers at reasonable (read, unlicensed) power levels.

Of more practical interest, 60 GHz won't go through anything more solid than cloth. In particular interior walls block it. So this a in-the-same-room technology, and without some very fancy processing of multi-path bounce signals, it's basically a line of sight technology. In other words, a 60 GHz transmitter attached to your tower under your desk is going to have a hard time driving a monitor sitting on top of your desk. That's why the article waxes lyrical about laptops, which are usually set on top of the desk. Sadly, we're likely to be stuck with video cable for many years to come.

Of course silicon is dirt cheap (sand cheap?) these days, so possibly chips can be designed that can do that processing. I don't know what the latencies might be like though. It might be intolerable for controlling a mouse. You'd have to ask a radio guy.

Re:Some basic background (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344699)

Put a little receiver/transmitter on top of the table and connect it with a cable to the computer. Or make it go around the edge of the table and connect using this technology in both directions. Yes, latency could be a problem, but I suspect that this link wouldn't have to add much latency compared to the latency that could be removed from optimizing other parts of the chain from input to screen output for lower latency.

Re:Some basic background (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344897)

Yes, solving a problem with wireless technology using wires is always an option.

Re:Some basic background (2)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344973)

If 30cm wire means that I don't need 5 meters of ethernet to stream a movie, that is a small price to pay. And it is not that uncommen. You have wifi sticks with a wired antenne you can place anywhere for better reception.

Re:Some basic background (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344975)

Wireless is always wired. Until power can be sent wirelessly as well, you'll need to at least plug it in to something.

Re:Some basic background (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346325)

"Until power can be sent wirelessly as well, you'll need to at least plug it in to something."

It's called inductive charging, it exists.

Re:Some basic background (2)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346563)

"Until power can be sent wirelessly as well, you'll need to at least plug it in to something."

It's called inductive charging, it exists.

Is it inductive charging mats all the way down?

Re:Some basic background (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347677)

That's just silly, the last one is sitting on a turtle.

Re:Some basic background (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41344971)

People rarely use mice more than a few feet from the computer, unless you were thinking about putting your computer downstairs and having wireless up to the screen and mouse and keyboard.

Re:Some basic background (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345567)

I wasn't referring to mouse movement data being transmitted at 60 GHz. I was referring to the cursor showing up on the screen over a wireless connection. Latency of the 60 GHz connection matters there. Exceed some minimum threshold and your cursor will appear to lag behind the mouse, an intolerable circumstance.

Re:Some basic background (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346481)

So you think its slower than the milliseconds people deal with for remote x or remote windows sessions? yeah dont think so.

Re:Some basic background (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347663)

I wasn't referring to mouse movement data being transmitted at 60 GHz. I was referring to the cursor showing up on the screen over a wireless connection.

I don't understand the distinction. You seem to be talking about transmission latency (including error correction), which is transmission latency, regardless of whether it's distance created, or horribly designed power savings.

Wireless works fine for me for the crowded and interference-prone 2.4 GHz. If you've ever use wireless mice extensively, you'd have noticed that power savings on optical mice kills performance (delay, lag, etc.) any more than any wireless delay could.

Re:Some basic background (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349181)

Wireless doesn't work fine for me in the crowded and interference-prone 2.4 GHz band. That was one of my points. My laptop, with its rather poor radio, can see as many as 14 different access points, and the number of timeouts and connection drops it experiences with my own access point in consequence is astronomical. Streaming video is completely out of the question and even Windows filesharing is intolerably bad. Simply receiving a directory list can take upwards of 30 seconds, with all of the timeouts and retries.

I have used wireless mice extensively. I've been using this Logitech Cordless Desktop for 11 years now. It was the very first Logitech Cordless model that featured a USB connection for its transceiver, which is a brick so large as to be laughable by modern standards. It is a ball mouse. Not optical. That's how old it is. It power saves exceedingly well. And it both interferes with and experiences interference from any other cordless desktop in the same room with it, as my ex-gf and I found out to our sorrow. That's part of my same point as above. In any case, I'm not equipped to measure its own latency, though I'm sure it's significant.

The point I was trying to make about the cursor is there is some measurable time between input occurring and graphics changing on the screen, even with a wired mouse and a wired connection to the screen. This delay has been growing progressively worse over the years, due in large part to the on-board processing that has been implemented in modern LCD panels. People who are equipped to measure it have come up with latencies that now run into double handfuls of milliseconds. My point was, adding wireless video can only make this problem worse. Potentially much worse, if my other point about interference is born out.

Re:Some basic background (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349799)

I've never had any such trouble. I've never heard of any widespread problem. I think that there are some problems some people see. I did some troubleshooting at a friend's house where a wireless printer would knock the whole block off their wireless networks. But this is the first time I've ever heard a person complain about latency from a wired mouse. I think you talk to too many professional FPS gamers. My current wireless mouse appears to me to have zero latency. And I've never had a mouse with any latency, other than one optical wireless with obscene power savings that would have horrible lag between movement and response, but wasn't bad, so long as you were constantly moving it.

Re:Some basic background (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345033)

Sadly, we're likely to be stuck with video cable for many years to come.

I really see no benefit at all of wireless displays in desktops. There may be some aesthetic benefit in living room setups, but it's not that hard to hide wires. And the screen would need a power cable anyway. For mice and stuff like that, we've had wireless for ages

Re:Some basic background (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345431)

Say a projector setup in a meeting room. Wiring a 20+' heavy gauge VGA cable in say an existing meeting room isn't just plug and play (unless you're going half pass and running it on the floor or taped to a wall rather than in the wall and ceiling).
That'd be a perfect setup for this (and yes, these rooms are used for more just power point slides)

Re:Some basic background (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346699)

Any commercial wiring installation should be a little more flexible and more robust than your average cut-rate tract home. Plus you have the likelihood that a corporation isn't quite as cheap as a consumer. That's why companies have wired interfaces already.

Sometimes you just have to pony up.

Re:Some basic background (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41355031)

Epson makes great wifi projectors. My office has ~20 rooms set up this way and it's awesome. No cables, no adaptors. Just works.

I think they use a custom VNC setup to mirror the display from the laptop.

Re:Some basic background (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345647)

I don't either, but this mania for portable devices and the proliferation of walled garden software distribution meaning vendors are pushing for more appliance-like behavior rather than desktop behavior means the specter of a display with no physical connectors at all becomes an actual possibility in the next decade. In truth, that's exactly the sort of thing Apple is even likely to do, purely in the interest of aesthetics (plus they care damn all about backwards compatibility and product lifespans).

Have you seen the upcoming OLED TV products? Especially that ridiculous 55" one that's about as thick as an iPad. I could EASILY see Apple deciding they want to sell such a thing, and simultaneously deciding to get rid of a physical display connector in their ongoing pursuit of minimization. (<snark>And then patenting that.</snark>) If they could figure out how to power it wirelessly with resonant antennas, they'd eliminate every physical connector entirely. Nor do I see that quest as entirely bad, if, and I say IF, this WiGig thing actually pans out. Of course, if WiFi is any indication, putting 4 WiGig devices in the same room and attempting to run them as 2 pairs will be a disaster of interference and nonfunction, so we'll be glad for cables and connectors.

Re:Some basic background (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346907)

It could of use in universities and such. Depending on how small an access point is, it could be attached on the ceiling and then users in that classroom would have access. Though I don't think it will be much more than a spectacal anyways. We already have a standards group with a gb/s wireless coming in the next standard (a/c? or something like that) But It did raise my curiosity and interest in that the frequency range is unlicensed and could have other potential uses....

Re:Some basic background (1)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347565)

I doubt 60 GHz multipath is much different from 2.4GHz multipath conceptually. If they can build a 60 GHz front-end (and they can) they can build whatever processing they need.

ooo - 7Gbps (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41344691)

7Gbps WIFI but to the internet is still a slow pathetic 1.5Mbps....

Re:ooo - 7Gbps (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346717)

...so it still makes much more sense to have a "home cloud" rather than depending on some stranger's server that sits some place on the other side of that network bottleneck.

That doesn't make 10x or 100x transfer rates any less useful.

dont want wireless its not secure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345095)

its not secure and they know it....

Re:dont want wireless its not secure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346683)

Your tinfoil is blinding me dammit! Go away! Technology will deal with you sooner or later. Get a grip and try to move on, carefully as you must.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?