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!

Pre-802.11n Offers 4x the Speed

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the well-now-thats-something-isn't-it dept.

Wireless Networking 214

An anonymous reader writes "Belkin said on Monday that they'll be releasing a wireless network card and router that uses pre-802.11n multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology created by Airgo Networks. Belkin said the new pre-n products will provide four times faster speed and coverage area than 802.11b and g products. The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products."

cancel ×

214 comments

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

Great (3, Funny)

myz24 (256948) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951211)

I just upgraded to g!

Re:Great (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951226)

how the *$#% can the first post be redundant?

Re:Great (0, Redundant)

myz24 (256948) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951245)

How can I be redundant, I was the first!

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951286)

How can you be flambait when you're obviously trolling?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951421)

don't let the 12 years old get mod points

I want to make love yo ya woman (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951383)

I want to lay you down by the fire
and caress your womanly man butt!!!

Poasted on a 'bi' mac ....(we call them 'bi', you call them 'dual processor')

Re:I want to make love yo ya woman (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951435)

She's bi! [hotornot.com]

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951212)

fp

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951236)

try second shitface

That's nothing, BSD offers sexy girls! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951213)

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Please show your support [calcgames.org] for Ceren in this poll of Geek Babes!

Is it any wonder people think Linux [debian.org] users are a bunch of flaming homosexuals [lemonparty.org] when its fronted by obviously gay losers [nylug.org] like these?! BSD [dragonflybsd.org] has a mascot [freebsd.org] who leaves us in no doubt that this is the OS for real men! If Linux had more hot chicks [hope-2000.org] and gorgeous babes [hope-2000.org] then maybe it would be able to compete with BSD [openbsd.org] ! Hell this girl [electricrain.com] should be a model!

Linux [gentoo.org] is a joke as long as it continues to lack sexy girls like her [dis.org] ! I mean just look at this girl [dis.org] ! Doesn't she [dis.org] excite you? I know this little hottie [dis.org] puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox [spilth.org] . As you can see, no man can resist this sexy [spilth.org] little minx [dis.org] . Don't you wish the guy in this [wigen.net] pic was you? Are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass [dis.org] ?! Wouldn't this [electricrain.com] just make your Christmas?! Yes doctor, this uber babe [electricrain.com] definitely gets my pulse racing! Oh how I envy the lucky girl in this [electricrain.com] shot! Linux [suse.com] has nothing that can possibly compete. Come on, you must admit she [imagewhore.com] is better than an overweight penguin [tamu.edu] or a gay looking goat [gnu.org] ! Wouldn't this [electricrain.com] be more liklely to influence your choice of OS?

With sexy chicks [minions.com] like the lovely Ceren [dis.org] you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD [netbsd.org] if she [dis.org] told you to? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close [dis.org] to such a divine beauty [czarina.org] !

Don't be a fag [gay-sex-access.com] ! Join the campaign [slashdot.org] for more cute [wigen.net] open source babes [wigen.net] today!

$Id: ceren.html,v 9.0 2004/08/12 16:01:34 ceren_rocks Exp $

She's taken. By ESR, no less! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951498)

http://spinster.org/album/2000/als/20.html

Multiple signals? (5, Interesting)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951219)

Anybody know if the increase number of signals increases the amount of interference?

Re:Multiple signals? (2, Funny)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951337)

I don't know about the amount of interferance, but I'm sure the amount of cancer being caused by these things will increase expontentially ;)

Re:Multiple signals? (1, Interesting)

Klar (522420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951345)

I dunno. I've been having problems with my 802.11b network anytime someone is on a 2.4ghz phone in the area.. I'm debating buying a 5.8ghz phone to get rid of this problem, but the ones i've seen have been a lil pricy.

I'm supprised I can opperate the microwave while being online.

Re:Multiple signals? (2, Insightful)

rmayes100 (521535) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951468)

Buy a 900MHz phone if you can still find one, they're cheap and work fine.

Re:Multiple signals? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951503)

Every 900MHz phone I've used yet has been horribly prone to interference and has absolutely atrocious behavior when you start to go out of range. 2.4GHz and 5.whatever GHz phones seem to be much better. If the degradation of quality is "just fine" for you that's ok, but most people would like to be able to hear the people they're talking to.

Re:Multiple signals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951627)

but most people would like to be able to hear the people they're talking to.

Not the people talking to you.

Re:Multiple signals? (1)

Lord Jester (88423) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951674)

Yeah, but not everybody uses their cordless at distances signifigant enough from the base station to be affected in this manner.

I know I) plan on getting a 5.8GHz phone.

Also going to change some key links via dedicated bridges to 802.11a to avoid interferance by microwave ovens, neighbours' cordless phones and such.

Re:Multiple signals? (2, Informative)

ductormalef (260954) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951714)

You are buying the wrong phones then. There is nothing magical about the frequency that makes 2.4 and 5GHz phones better.

Get yourself a nice DSSS 900MHz phone and you'll get every bit of the audio *quality that the more expensive 2.4 and 5GHz phones have.

*Telephone signals can hardly be referred to as quality audio :)

Re:Multiple signals? (1, Funny)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951502)

I have a metal plate in my head. Every time I use the microwave, I piss my pants and forget my name.

Re:Multiple signals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951564)

Hey, cheaper than booze. When you go to a bar you can leave your wallet at home and just bring a (or sit next to their) microwawe!

Buy a 900MHz (1)

ductormalef (260954) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951647)

Forget 5.8GHz. The CPU MHz race does not translate directly to the wireless world. There are great digital cordless phones for 900MHz that will save you money.

Re:Multiple signals? (3, Informative)

shawn_f (620177) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951493)

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/tech/2004/072604techu pdate.html [nwfusion.com]

I think this may answer, not only your question, but a lot of others here on MIMO...seems to be pretty cool technology. More antennas, though, generally mean more power consumption...

1st (1)

Brie and gherkins (778845) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951221)

yay!!!

So? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951224)

What I'd prefer to see is a smaller boost in "speed" (I'm guessing that the speed "increase" is in bursts, not sustained) and increased security that doesn't cause a hit in terms of network performance.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951313)

No this is perfect. I can get 4-times the bandwidth from my neighbors AP : )

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951408)

I'd rather see "more coverage area". I can barely get my home-wireless-network from the coffee shop at the end of the block; and prettymuch everyone there (except those I'm sharing it with) is pretty jealous.

Security can be handled on the end-systems (install SP2 :), iptables, etc).

Range isn't so easy in real-world (obstructed) environments.

Re:So? (1)

baudilus (665036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951701)

You can buy a range expander [linksys.com] , or even a high-gain antenna [linksys.com] to suit that purpose. Put the antenna on your roof. Open your connection up to the whole neighborhood!

new pre-n products (5, Insightful)

router_ninja (584254) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951225)

Pre-standard? I'll wait thanks. Especially with the history of this company.

Re:new pre-n products (4, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951306)

Heck, I've got a virtually unusable Belkin 54g router sitting at home (well, at least until I flash its firmware with sveasoft or the like)

The damn thing won't hold a configuration for crap, reboots like a windows machine, and otherwise is about the most unpleasant networking product I've owned since the 3Com 503 (I think that was the model #, might have been 501). Fortunately I had a cheap netgear 54g router on the shelf, plugged it in and all was well, except for sustained connectivity. Seems there's lots of interference in my neighborhood (about 12 networks show up, maybe I should just use one of them? :)

Not to mention (1)

router_ninja (584254) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951336)

fiascos like this: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/07/17 40205&tid=153&tid=95

Maybe It Means Something (5, Funny)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951232)

OK, so we have 802.11b, 802.11n, and 802.11g. Is there an 802.11o? Because that would be interesting, seeing a wireless router advertise itself as being "802.11b/o/n/g Compatible!"

Oh, and I would have titled this "First Pot", but that would just be low-class.

Re:Maybe It Means Something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951291)

80211 bongs? That's just overkill don't ya think?

Re:Maybe It Means Something (3, Funny)

MarsDefenseMinister (738128) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951384)

Nah, this makes it easier to talk to your bong even when you aren't high.

Re:Maybe It Means Something (4, Funny)

GuidoZ (172008) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951317)

There really should be an 802.11o, seeing as once 802.11i comes out, we can finally finish 802.11bingo!

And move on to 802.11yahtzee

Re:Maybe It Means Something (1)

kewsh (655090) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951369)

and then 802.11getalifenoob

Re:Maybe It Means Something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951386)

I'm still looking forward to the first "802.11b/a/n/g Compatible" router, though I know I'll get "screwed" on it.

BINGO! (1, Redundant)

missing000 (602285) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951430)

There is an 802.11i, so I'd go for 802.11b/i/n/g/o.

Re:Maybe It Means Something (1)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951434)

It's not necessary, we can already have 802.11b/a/n/g compatible. =]

Re:Maybe It Means Something (-1, Redundant)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951456)

Just wait until the new 802.11i standard comes out. Then we'll see wireless routers advertised as "802.11b/i/n/g/o Compatible!"

"There was a HAXXOR had a router, and BINGO was its name-o."

--AC

Re:Maybe It Means Something (1, Funny)

MoOsEb0y (2177) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951652)

or if you added 802.11i to the mix you could have
802.11/b/i/n/g/o

Re:Maybe It Means Something (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951669)

802.11 bingo!

Re:Maybe It Means Something (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951769)

What about the 802.11xxx?

Download porn 50x faster!

First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951239)

GO ME

.a.b.c.d.e.f.g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951241)

Will these technologies ever stop coming out?

When is it "safe" to undertake a massive project to wire(less) a huge area?

Re:.a.b.c.d.e.f.g (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951397)

Huh? Welcome to Moore's Law. Thats like saying will Intel and AMD ever stop making faster processors so it will be safe to upgrade a company's computers.
Regards,
Steve

Re:.a.b.c.d.e.f.g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951750)

There's always a physical limit at some point.

wireless vs wire (5, Interesting)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951246)

Reliability rivaling that of wired connections and effortless connectivity at real-world distances is why Belkin's True MIMO products have ushered in a new era in wireless."

When I can wirelessly play my PS2 and download torrents at the same time, I'll be in heaven. As much as I love wireless, I think we are far from the reliability and connectivity of a hard wire.

Re:wireless vs wire (3, Informative)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951300)

yup, I agree. I live under a flight path in san diego.. 2 miles outside of downtown, and 8 miles from the airport. Every 15 mins or so, abotu every 5th airplane, they are either low enough, or a specific type of airplane broadcasting signals strong enough to interfer with my wireless network. It only take 20-45 secs to re-establish the connection.. but you must agree this is not acceptable for some routines online, and obviously does not happen with hard wire.

pm

Re:wireless vs wire (1)

JVert (578547) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951477)

eeek,
If you happen to get a better antenna could you be arrested for having WMD?

Re:wireless vs wire (1)

reinard (105934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951696)

That's actually not really a "signal" they are broadcasting. Your average radar is right around 2.4Ghz, same as the phones, microwaves and your wireless network. But with enough power/interference to make communication in the same spectrum nearly impossible. Very effective jamming... I'm pretty sure they use a completely different spectrum for communication with air traffic control - for much the same reason.

Wireless-G (4, Interesting)

Klar (522420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951266)

For me, 802.11G is by fast enough by far for my uses. B is good enough for web traffic. Hopefully this introduction of new A, and now N configerations will lower prices more for the G routers making it even easier to find access points. *crosses fingers for easier wardriving*

Re:Wireless-G (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951426)

For me, 802.11G is by fast enough by far for my uses. B is good enough for web traffic. Hopefully this introduction of new A, and now N configerations will lower prices more for the G routers making it even easier to find access points. *crosses fingers for easier wardriving*

Unless you are moving large files on a regular basis over the network B (and even lower) is fast enough for most people's needs (web traffic or internal).

I don't know too many people that have 10mbit connections to the net. Most people would do just fine w/B's 11mbs.

Re:Wireless-G (1)

baudilus (665036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951619)

FYI: Optimum Online is rated as having 10mb down and 1mb up. I personally have topped my connection out at around 8 mb/s down (hard wired ethernet) - it's pretty easy to saturate an 802.11b with internet downloads. My 11g is sufficient (mainly because I don't do large downloads wirelessly or play heavy network-oriented games from my laptop).

I found some people on DSL reports that report meeting and even exceeding these download speeds with Opto (our shortened term for Optimum Online). Heck, my brother's Opto connection beat mine. It's all relative.

Contradiction? (2, Funny)

balaam's ass (678743) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951272)

The article contains this statement:
"True MIMO is one of the underlying technologies being considered for 802.11n, a standard in the works for the next generation of Wi-Fi technology. " ...and then it has this quote from Greg Raleigh:
"The immediate performance benefits realized with True MIMO, especially over expanded coverage areas, are why this technology has been chosen to power the upcoming 802.11n high-performance wireless standard. "

Has "True MIMO" already "been chosen" to power 802.11n, or is merely "being considered"?

Re:Contradiction? (2, Informative)

Doug Dante (22218) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951597)

Has "True MIMO" already "been chosen" to power 802.11n, or is merely "being considered"?

According to this Intel Whitepaper [linuxdevices.com] both MIMO and an increase in channel widths from 20MHz to 40MHz will both be required to meet the 100Mbps performance goals of 802.11n. (See Figure 2)

So, it's merely being considered, but it's also pretty much a given for 802.11n.

Re:Contradiction? (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951662)

Greg Raleigh

Wow, what an apt last name for a MIMO CEO... I wonder if he's related to the guy who came up with the Raleigh fading model.

n>[bg] (3, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951273)


Belkin said the new pre-n products will provide four times faster speed and coverage area than 802.11b and g products.

Faster!?

More coverage area!?

Then, how much power does it typically take to run an 802.11n card compared to the established alternatives?

Communist Statement (0, Troll)

Shamanin (561998) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951557)

Sir (or madam), your statement is blatently unpatriotic. Don't you realize that the good of this country relies on continued revenue gained from such uselessly wasteful devices that CONSUME all resources for no real gain (to the average user that insists he must have this).

Don't make me sick the Patriotic Act on your a$$.

And why would I buy from Belkin? (4, Interesting)

Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951277)

This is the same company [slashdot.org] that lost my trust by screwing their customers. They've done nothing since to earn that trust back. (And no, removing their stupid adware, when it shouldn't have been there in the first place, doesn't count toward earning my trust back.)

It's not like they make good products (1)

sunilonline (609351) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951491)

Apart from trust, it's not like they make reliable products in the first place. The only things from Belkin that I have use without having to return them because they didn't work are: 1. USB hubs and PCI cards 2. Power strips 3. Cans of compressed air Most likely, they don't even make 2 and 3, and the only time I buy those from Belkin are because they're free after rebate. Even the USB stuff you can get a reliable alternative for cheaper most of the time.

Non line of sight? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951285)

Can anyone comment about the range where there is non line of sigh, maybe 3 townhouses in between?

Re:Non line of sight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951424)

Three townhouses? Not a chance.

Sweet! (1)

Tajas (785666) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951301)

Sweet! Dude! Sweet! Dude! Does this mean I can now use NetStumbler to detect 4x as many WAP's? WOOHOO!! One day in sanity is worth 2 in the bush. (Dunno, made it up on the fly, sleep deprivation ;-) )

Re:Sweet! (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951367)

``Sweet! Dude! Sweet! Dude! Does this mean I can now use NetStumbler to detect 4x as many WAP's?''

Not until you find out where your car is, dude.

upgrading powerbook (1)

dottedlinedesign (754366) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951307)

This is slightly offtopic but this article got me thinking again. I recently bought a powerbook (and spent a good bit of money), I'm loving it but I am curious about upgrading things like the airport card or processor in the future. I have no experience upgrading Apple computers. How would I go about upgrading to 802.11n if I decided to do so? Would it require an upgrade of the built in antennas?

Re:upgrading powerbook (1)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951560)

I assume you have to add funky antenas/card but correct me if I'm wrong.

If that is wrong, then this can't fail:

Brian: Okay, insert rod support A into slot B.
Peter: That's what...
Brian: If you say "that's what she said" one more time, I am gonna pop you

Math? (3, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951325)

4 times faster than b and g? How do they do that, given that g is 5 times faster than b? Hopefully they don't reduce the speeds of them all to 0...

ah, let the consumer trickery begin (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951326)

The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products

Yup, but the box will say "4X FASTER! Also speeds up 802.11b and g networks!" Consumers will think, "hey, it'll speed up my 802.11b network by 4x! Yeah!"

Corporations need to learn to write clear, concise blurbs for their packaging, so customers don't feel ripped off or mislead (and never buy their products again as a result).

Wow! (5, Funny)

dhoonlee (758528) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951329)

How many pringles cans does this come with?

dontreadme! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951347)

"die bot, die!"

The bot, The (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951651)


is it worth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951355)

It doens't matter if you have a wireless connection at home that performs at 200K/sec where the internet connection is 100K/sec, save you money for something else, 802.11g is more than enough and you can find good bargains these days.

Re:is it worth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951546)

until you find yourself having to transfer several gigs of "documents" between two computers on this wireless network... what takes 5 mins on a wired connection takes hours on slow wireless.

Re:is it worth? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951601)

Can you imagine a wireless network being used for something other than being able to browse internet porn while sitting in the bathroom?

If this works as advertised, it may actually be a real replacement for 100mbit wired lans.

question... (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951375)

what are they going to do when they run out of letters after 802.11z?

Re:question... (1)

maskedbishounen (772174) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951532)

I think I know what you're getting at, and no, there will not be a 802.11xxx. What you want is X-10. ;)

Re:question... (2, Funny)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951775)

"802.11z Jaguar"
"802.11z Panther"
"802.11z Tiger"
"802.11z ....."

Until there are no more cool cat names. After that they're pretty well buggered.

great (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951390)

Now wardriving to get kiddie porn will be faster and authorities won't catch up with the bad guys.

Article Text (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951392)

Wi-Fi Gets Speed Boost with Pre-802.11n Products
Posted: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:38:03 GMT
Author: Matt Cameron

Belkin said on Monday that they'll be releasing a wireless network card and router that uses pre-802.11n multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology created by Airgo Networks. Belkin said the new pre-n products will provide four times faster speed and coverage area than 802.11b and g products. The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products.

"Our research shows that, with current wireless technology, people are experiencing poor coverage and performance at farther distances in their homes due to interference from other wireless networks, cordless phones, and other appliances," explains Eric Tong, VP Marketing and Product Development. "Our Pre-N products with True MIMO will empower users by providing a wireless network that makes poor coverage issues a thing of the past."

Belkin utilizes True MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) from Airgo Networks in its Pre-N products. True MIMO is the first technology to address the issues of coverage, speed, and interference in larger homes and offices.

True MIMO is a smart-antenna technique that uses multiple antennas to transmit and receive wireless signals. It reaches a step further than other smart-antenna technologies by transmitting multiple signals on each antenna. As a result, Belkin's Pre-N products with True MIMO technology create a robust wireless connection while providing a larger coverage area with the bandwidth and quality of service needed to run advanced applications, such as streaming video or Voice over IP (VoIP).

True MIMO is one of the underlying technologies being considered for 802.11n, a standard in the works for the next generation of Wi-Fi technology.

"True MIMO is a breakthrough technology that fundamentally changes the way radio waves are sent and received. More importantly, True MIMO changes the way consumers are able to use wireless products," says Greg Raleigh, Chief Executive and President of Airgo Networks. "The immediate performance benefits realized with True MIMO, especially over expanded coverage areas, are why this technology has been chosen to power the upcoming 802.11n high-performance wireless standard. Reliability rivaling that of wired connections and effortless connectivity at real-world distances is why Belkin's True MIMO products have ushered in a new era in wireless."

sounds like marketing crap to me (1)

xutopia (469129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951394)

prove it.

must have more speed (5, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951398)

Unfortunately, I know way too many people who paid a lot extra to get 802.11g than 802.11b - but only use it to surf the Internet. The truth is that even the 802.11b connection is faster than high speed brodband to the home, so there is no real gain in using 802.11g. I even saw (in a previous /. forum) someone who was plannig on opening a "Internet cafe" and was thinking he should go for 802.11g, not understanding that no user would exceed the 802.11b speed and not even realizing that the entire network would downgrade to 802.11b anyway if even one user was connected through 802.11b equipment.

Now, it seems, people are going to be rushing to these new "standards". Sure, if you're going to be transfering a lot of large files around your internal network, perhaps while you stream real time video to your "entertainment center", then you might justify the extra cost and being on the bleeding edge; but most users just think in terms of "I want the newer faster stuff" or simply "I want the good stuff" and they will end up paying a lot more now for the technology they never use than they would if they just waited until the standrds were worked out, the products came down in price, and the connection to the rest of the Internet caught up in speed to justify the choice.

Re:must have more speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951443)

entire network would downgrade to 802.11b anyway if even one user was connected through 802.11b equipment.

That's implementation-dependant, isn't it?

Re:must have more speed (3, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951563)

Isn't Verizon doing FTTP with up to 30mbit speeds available? Some people have cable speeds of 6mbit downlink, which is a bit more than what "b" can provide in useable bitrate.

It isn't prohibitively costlier to go with "g". It is like, 4x faster for only 10$ per component? If you must scrape every dollar, then $10 savings is important, but I'd think for the long term, it is worth while.

Re:must have more speed (2, Informative)

bogie (31020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951589)

Just some quick points. While 802.11b is faster than most people's high speed connection that's not true for all. Cable Providers like Optimum Online( a decent size provider in the NJ/NY area) and others give about 10Mb and sometime higher connections. My Orinoco gold card tops out at like 440KB a sec which didn't come near my Internet top speed. So that's not really true in all cases. Secondly if you like many people do have a home network 802.11g makes a huge difference. Transferring large files via 802.11b is painful to say the least.

Should people preorder this from Belkin? I think not just yet. But for anyone on a home network or lucky enough to live where they give out fast net connection 802.11g is well worth the investment. You did specifially say "but only use it to surf the Internet." so in that case your are pretty much right on I just wanted to point out a few reasons why 802.11g isn't so bad an idea.

Re:must have more speed (1)

arudloff (564805) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951636)

Must people I know who made the jump (I'm still sporting b myself) didn't do so for speed reasons at all.. G gets better reception/distance and thus better coverage than 802.11b, doesn't it? I'd imagine the same would be true of n.

Re:must have more speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951676)

All i want to do is thank those people who upgrade to the latest stuff. Youre the reason I got my 802.11b router for $40. The g routers go for aobut $80 now.

what about security (1)

Yonkeltron (720465) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951441)

It just goes to show that people are going to need to learn more about security. 4 times the coverage area means less distance for war drivers to go before they can crack J. Random User's home network.

so they say... (1)

devhen (593554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951474)

..."will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products."

we'll see about that.

complex, doable, but who needs it? (2, Interesting)

puzzled (12525) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951475)



Who really needs 100 mbit in their home? I can see some corporation in a union bound town like St. Louis wanting to replace current wired LAN deploy costs with simple wireless gear, but the 802.11b device I've connected through to write this provides 5x the speed I need in a worst case scenario ... I guess I'm just a text interface BSD Luddite ...

Re:complex, doable, but who needs it? (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951534)

who needs it?

anyone who moves files larger than couple of ten megs(like moving a gig of raw pictures from computer to computer). doing that you'll start lusting after 1gbit real quick..

Re:complex, doable, but who needs it? (1)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951704)

100 Mbit = 12 MBytes, not very much more than MPEG 2 video.

OK, so I'm frugal (1)

hb253 (764272) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951507)

Hey, maybe sticking to my old 802.11b AP has paid off. I can now skip to the latest technology without spending money on interim products/upgrades. Yay!

Pre-n's not worth it. (0, Troll)

gekkotron (641131) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951512)

pre-n?

Thank you, but I'll wait for pr0-n wireless.

When will the 802.11i hardware come out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951561)

That's what I'm really waiting for. Until it fully supports 802.11i, I'm not touching wireless.

Wi-Fi hype (1)

leathered (780018) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951562)

Am I the only one who is sick of the hype surrounding WiFi?

I mean for fucks sake, one of my colleagues makes a point of sitting in Starbucks at lunchtime just to been seen browsing with his Powerbook. Conveniently forgets that he's got the best part of a 155Mbps pipe in his office if he could be arsed plugging a patch lead into the wall.

And now we're up to 54mbps and more with this new standard. Is your average Starbucks ponce going to notice all this extra speed?

Its the range, stupid (0, Flamebait)

TekZen (611640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951573)

802.11b is faster than most broadband, that is fast enough for my uses (and most other wireless uses).

However, extended range is huge. That means that when the DSL at the coffee shop is down I will be able to use my home connection!

-Jackson [jaxn.org]

Is this the one that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951629)

... makes WiFi secure?

If not, pass... wake me up when I don't have to layer three levels of security on top of the equipment just to prevent the WiFi shotgun wankers from having fun at my expense.

4x the coverage = 1/2 the wardriving! (5, Funny)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 10 years ago | (#9951644)

Woohoo! Finally, now I don't have to sit in my car in front of my neighbor's house, I can just leech their connexon from my living room!

Question for /.ers in the know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9951675)

Can anyone comment on the security aspects in the new standard? I know that there has been ongoing work to improve security features for wireless networks, but is any of that showing up in this new standard? Any relevant info would be helpful...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?