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!

First 802.11n Products Breaking Out

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the new-protocols-sooo-exciting dept.

105

capt turnpike writes "If you're hooked up to a fat pipe, but want mobility, it looks like the new 802.11n standard might have some promise. eWEEK.com got their hands on some of the upcoming products and put the new devices through their paces." From the article: "The 802.11n task group is aware of the current draft's issues with legacy wireless LAN devices (specifically with how 802.11n shares bandwidth with attached legacy clients), and representatives from Cisco and Motorola broke off to look into the issues before the next meeting of the draft subcommittee, which is scheduled for May. Expectations vary widely, depending on whom you talk to. In previous conversations with Dave Borison, Airgo's director of product marketing, we leaned that Airgo is not making chip sets based on the draft standard because the company thinks the issue of legacy interoperability is significant enough to necessitate small modifications to the silicon."

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

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Viriatus (886319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197484)

First Post

Re:First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197544)

Why are the world's currencies tied to something capricious like gold {in the USA and the Orient} or silver {in the UK and Europe}, and not something stable such as energy? A kilo of gold could be worth any amount depending on how people are feeling one day. A kilowatt-hour is always a kilowatt-hour is always 3.6 megajoules. Establishing a currency backed by such a hard standard would be a great first step towards building a stable economy which is not susceptible to manipulation.

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198222)

Uhmm... the US currency is not tied to any material (gold, silver, etc) item. And it hasn't been for quite some time. Did you pay attention in your history classes?

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200977)

I paid plenty of attention in history classes; but something like what standard {if any} other countries' currencies were pegged to would have been more likely to have cropped up in geography than history, and I dropped that subject after the third year.

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197779)

Wow... you just burnt karma to FP a 802.11n story.

Re:First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197844)

Klick [chyoo.com]

Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n router? (5, Informative)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197490)

Will it let my friends come over with their motley of wireless devices (b & g & landline) and play a simple LAN game? If we can't all use it for one game and it's not backwards compatible... that's just wrong... WRONG! Seriously though, the article suggests to not purchase n devices with the hopes of upgrading to whatever standard is ratified later...

From the article:

We also found that Linksys' draft 802.11n router caused performance issues with legacy 802.11g networks.

AND:

The current draft of the 802.11n standard was approved for letter ballot in March; the full standard is expected to be ratified by the second quarter of 2007.

AND:

With this uncertainty in mind, it is not advisable to invest in these products lock, stock and barrel. Enterprise-grade WLAN manufacturers continue to wait for the standard to fully bake, and enterprise customers should do the same.

For the record, I think regardless if it's called pre-N or "draft 802.11n", it is still isn't the final product... so beware what you buy.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (4, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197561)

I realize I'll probably get modded down for suggesting this, but why don't you guys just set up a wired LAN? You all probably are plugging power cords in, so there's already a bit of a cable tangle. If you all plug into a wired network, you won't have nearly as many lag/interference problems.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (2, Interesting)

3-State Bit (225583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197945)

I realize I'll probably get modded down for suggesting this, but why don't you guys just set up a wired LAN?
Um, because a wired LAN is like a horsed carriage?

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (4, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197982)

Are you serious? Ok if we are talking laptops I'd agree. But for desktops (which the average gaming machine is). Wired is the way to go. Why sacrifice speed for a very small convience.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

3-State Bit (225583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198837)

"Are you serious? Ok if we are talking laptops I'd agree. But for desktops (which the average gaming machine is). Wired is the way to go. Why sacrifice speed for a very small convience."
Say, how does a computer with six ethernet lines, a keyboard and a mouse cable snaking out of it look compared to a case with power in, monitor cable out, and bluetooth and wireless for, respectively, peripherals and as many directed wireless signals going off in different directions as it takes to achieve the same bandwidth and connectivity of the six ethernet lines? (Radio signals also move at c so of course your latency issue is with the quality of the signal, and speed is just a matter of how many you multiplex.) Let's try an analogy:

From Distributing Music Over Telephone Lines [earlyradiohistory.us] (Telephony, December 18, 1909, pages 699-701):
Wilmington, Delaware, is enjoying a novel service through the telephone exchange. Phonograph music is supplied over the wires to those subscribers who sign up for the service. Attached to the wall near the telephone is a box containing a special receiver, adapted to throw out a large volume of sound into the room
Now let's try your argument in refutation: "Symphony over radio? Maybe for a portable (battery-powered) radio, but if your radio is going to be plugged in, symphony over telephone wires makes much more sense. No tuning, no interference, etc etc."

Granted, for historical reasons this analogy is of course weaker, since symphony over telephone wires did not vastly predate symphony over radio, it was not of much higher quality and lower latency in a typical reception scenario, etc. But you get the idea.

P.S. Your speed issue is just a matter of tuning to five, ten, fifteen, twenty radio stations, however many you need to get as much music as you want, in the analogy. Whereas adding another telephone line for each additional bandwidth multiplier (say you want to listen to ["download"] five different symphonies at a time) is a different proposition indeed! At the end of the day, any cable, be it power, USB, ethernet, a keyboard cable, whatever, is going to only carry signal between two points, which you must manually walk from source to destination (somebody needs to plug in both ends), it is going to be fixed length (even if you're close, in which case the lines just looks like a jumbly mess, and if you're a tad too far, too bad), and of course cost pretty much proportional to its length, which does not hold true for increasing wireless gain. Imagine how much a satellite dish costs compared with an equal distance in some kind of cable, nevermind how you connect it with its destination. A wireless solution does not require a human to manually set the exact point that is at each end, it is not of fixed length, it does not take up physical space, and, therefore, multiplying the number of these signals looks nothing like multiplying the number of ethernet lines. [google.com]

I realize we're not quite where we need to be on the wireless front, but that's what the article is about, and, after all, neither was the horseless carriage when introduced.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

L0rdJedi (65690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198964)

Why in the hell do you have six ethernet lines running out of a single computer? What are you doing that requires more than 1 line from the server and 1 line from each computer going directly to a 10/100/1000 switch? Get some velcro cable ties and the "jumble of wires" practically goes away.

I don't know any gamer in their right mind who would choose wireless over wired.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199055)

six ethernet lines means 6000 megabits, of course. :)

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

MissionAccomplished (951344) | more than 8 years ago | (#15201751)

A crude form of mesh networking?

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15198927)

I'm sorry but what is the point of having a 100mbs connection to your router via wired if your internet connection isn't actually that fast. My wireless at 54mbs is still faster than my broadband connection so having an uber 1337 wired connection wouldn't really benefit me, and I expect that alot of other people are in the same boat as me, I don't think in the UK at least you can even purchase broadband faster than 30mbs.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199285)

They were talking LAN party. Internet connection isn't the point. Within a LAN, be it a gaming LAN or office network LAN. I've never seen a reason to sacrifice overall network speed for desktop users for wireless. (Aside from the cost savings of not running hardlines to every office)

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (3, Funny)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200340)

The reson for having 100+mbit when the internet isn't that fast?

You serious? You know there are other reasons for routers besides linking one computer to the net through a DSL connection. Internet speed is but one of many concerns when purchasing a router. Some of us use multiple computers and move multi gigabyte files between the computers. Try doing that with an "11mb" 802.11b connection... Then try it with 54mb 802.11g, then try it with a 100mb wire or even 1gb wire... Instead of hours to move so mething from room to room, it takes a couple minutes. That's why it's so important for a 802.11n to be cross compatible.

If I'm sitting in my car outside of someone's house I want to be able to get all of their mp3's before they notice I'm sitting their with my laptop. As it is now, 54mb/s takes WAY TO LONG to download an mp3 collection from an unsecured network.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

Splintax (828933) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202418)

Apart from what others said (p2p between PCs on the network), I'm still using an old 11Mbit WAP (yes, quite old) and from my bedroom I get shitty signal quality. Even right next to the router, the best I can pull is ~5Mbit. My connection has been 8Mbit down for some time now, and more recently, it's gone up to 24Mbit. My internet speed is severely crippled by wireless. This pre-N stuff is also very expensive - I'll need to get a new router and a new wireless card for each computer. I'm just going to get my bedroom wired, should keep me up to speed for a while yet.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

GodsMadClown (180543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198060)

Yeah, a "horsed carriage" that's ~20x as fast (gigabit) as those new-fangled "horseless" whirligigs (802.11g). If that metaphor was valid, Henry Ford would be remembered only by his neighbors as that crazy anti-semite down the street with the slow contraption that never cought on.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198412)

When cars were first introduced, they were way slower and far less reliable than a horse carrage. Perhaps a better rebuttle would have been, that wired networks may be a "horse carrage", but we are in the "late 1800's" of networking

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198134)

Um, WLANs suck ass for gaming. Latency can spike easily if someone turns on the microwave. If you're going to play games, you'll be less frustrated using a wired LAN.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198241)

agreed, also a horseless is more expensive, breaks down, requires gas and repairs, and is way more dangerous. If you're going to try to actually get somewhere, you'd be better off using a horsed carriage.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198361)

agreed, also a horseless is more expensive,
That may or may have been true at the time of the first horseless carriages. It is definitely true today, but that is irrelevent.

breaks down,
So does the horse. Much more so.

requires gas and repairs,
The horse requires feed, water and medical attention.

and is way more dangerous.
Not so. Look up typhoid rates, and the cause in the 19th century urban world.

If you're going to try to actually get somewhere, you'd be better off using a horsed carriage.
I assume you meant "horseless" instead of "horsed," so yes. That is why your analogy is nonsense.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15198573)

Not so. Look up typhoid rates, and the cause in the 19th century urban world.

And it was because of bad disposal of waste from humans and created by human activities. Germ theory took a while to be accepted in the 19th centruy and people did not want to levy taxes for sanitary disposal of sewage and garbage. That is assuming they understood the meaning of sanitary. Mind you a lot of people in the modern world still do not understand the meaning of sanitary.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

apraetor (248989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198660)

Don't forget horseshoes and a yolk.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

bfischer (648685) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199049)

Don't leave out the albumen (if you want to bring egg parts into the mix). Maybe a yoke could be used to attached the horse and the egg to the buggy? :)

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

Jett (135113) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198959)

I have to use 802.11g on my desktop because it's upstairs and I don't feel like running cables through the walls - I play games on it regularly have never had a single issue with performance. There is always 1 and sometimes as many as 3 other 802.11 networks overlapping and on occasion the microwave gets used while I am gaming. The only thing that ever caused a noticeable degradation of signal strength was my 2.4ghz phone - even with the lowered signal strength though my latency was completely fine, my total bandwidth dropped a little (i.e. if I had a download going at 300k/s it would drop down to 200k/s until the phone was turned off) - actual pings in games were never noticeably effected. Comparing ping times from before and after I moved (i.e. wired and then wireless) there is absolutely no difference.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

L0rdJedi (65690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199067)

My sisters boyfriend has a setup similar to yours except that everytime someone picks up the phone, his signal is dropped completely. He use to be downstairs (the DSL line and switch are on the 2nd floor) and that would happen all the time. I offered to run a cable down to the room (there was already a cable in the room above him, which use to be my room), but my dad insisted that wireless would be fine and that he probably just needed a new wireless card (that part turned out to be true).

Fast forward a couple of years. He's now upstairs, in my old room, and my dad was still saying that he can just use the wireless. There's a cable, IN THE CLOSET, 15 feet from his computer, but "it won't look as good". Finally, last night, I took the cable and pushed it under the carpet and ran it to his computer. The only piece you can see is where it goes to his computer and where it comes out from the floor into the closet. I was going to run it down the wall and put in a real jack, but it gets hot in the attic (I won't run cable in the summer, that's how hot it gets).

Now he doesn't have to deal with anymore dropped connections since he has a wired connection now. The only place in the house that doesn't have those problems is the family room and kitchen. Of course, they're not in a direct line from the 2.4 GHz phone to the WAP, so that's probably why they work fine. The point is that a wireless connection doesn't work for everyone (I changed channels on the wireless card several times with no luck and it had to be set for "auto" wireless speed or it just wouldn't work). I recently bought a 5.8 GHz cordless phone for this exact reason.

Anywhere I can run cables, I do it, whether it's "convenient" or not.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

MissionAccomplished (951344) | more than 8 years ago | (#15201771)

Look as good? I think what your Dad meant was 'I know that cable is better but that might affect the resale value'.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15201669)

Yeah and what happens when someone thinks it's a good idea to microwave a snack while chatting on a 2.4GHz cordless phone during the middle of some intense 802.11g/n gaming? Say goodbye to your packets!

Nope (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198183)

Power goes from you to the local outlet. If you're having a bigger LAN party, then you could be connecting to somebody in a different room, or on a different floor. Every room will have power, but not every room is necessarily going to be wired to the master ethernet switch, and crossing floors is even more of a pain in the butt.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198546)

I realize I'll probably get modded down for asking this, but what exactly is wrong with an 802.11g LAN session? The latency has never been an issue for me.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199912)

There is shared bandwidth among associated stations, enourmous overhead in the sessions, and the possibility for easy interference. I've seen wireless keyboards that will screw up 802.11b/g links, in addition to microwaves, phones, handheld radios, other 802.11b/g networks, etc. Alos, performance degrades with link load.

As an example, at my house I can't reliably watch an xvid movie across 802.11g. I get excellent signal, a 54Mbps link, and low latency. That is, I get those until I try to watch a movie, and then the latency get quite unbearable.

So basically, 802.11g is fine for browsing, copying data, and similar, but it is nowhere near reliable enough for gaming, and it doesn't provide reliablity or bandwidth sufficient for new LAN games.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200276)

We play at a dozen different locations. Sometimes wire is the way. Sometimes it is simply impractical.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

TheJediGeek (903350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197607)

Yeah, if the n standard hasn't been finalized, then these aren't the n's you're looking for.
How is this different from the "Pre N" devices of a year or so ago?
OH! It's CLOSER to what the N standard will be.
Are Linksys and the like SO desperate for a new shiny to dangle that they'll make products that may or may not be compatible with the standard?

I'll stick with my 802.11g thank you. Let me know when I have a need to bother with upgrading.

Two questions (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197660)

1) is it of any use to folks like myself who just want to wirelessly hook up to the internet at home? As far as I understand, 802.11g with its 54Mb rate was exceeding 2Mb of cable most of us hooked up to. It probably played well at a physical distance compared to 802.11b, but 10 times more seems to be too much even for that.

Says [wikipedia.org] :
It is projected that 802.11n will also offer a better operating distance than current networks.


Is it true? Article seems to not have the word "distance" (yes, I am too busy to read it).

2) what was the outcome of the previous 802.11g competing candidates? I remember the times when there were plenty of "g" on the shelves, yet no standard. How screwed were people who bought "g" in pre-standard times?

Re:Two questions. oops it says about distance (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197702)

Distance graph comparison [ziffdavisinternet.com]

Re:Two questions. oops it says about distance (1)

commanderfoxtrot (115784) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200933)

Yes- but you also need a N/pre-N wireless card for your laptop. Some friends have these, and were very disappointed when performance with their old 802.11g cards was... the same.

And your govertment / cops / mother might ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197807)

... get really fcuked off if you use it within 15 miles of an airport.

Causes WAY too much intereference with planes, init.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197851)

I agree, with so many devices with built in wireless g adapters, it would be foolhardy to buy anything until after a standard is ratified and proven to be flawlessly backward compatible.

As much of a fan as I am of the new hotness, I don't think I'll be giving up old and busted anytime soon in this respect. At least not in my place of business.

It's already too easy for the IT guy to catch hell for stuff in the office without manufacturers delivering unpolished products. Problem is with this kind of thing, is when an order comes down from higher up to implement the new hotness without regards to it's standards compliance, your kinda screwed. I could give significantly less than one shit about the gaming considerations. In my opinion it's downright irresponsible to release products at this point. I Just hope that the devices that are being released can be brought into standards compliance once it has been ratified, by a firmware update.

"Let's beta test this product, but make people pay for it" is what this amounts to..

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

r00k123 (588214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199320)

Will it let my friends come over with their motley of wireless devices (b & g & landline) and play a simple LAN game?

Of course you can. The router supports n devices--have you taken ANY math?

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route (1)

GoldAnt (899329) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199981)

I have a wireless N router, and it ALSO does g and b, so don't have a cow :P

mobility (4, Funny)

MAPA3M (718897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197521)

If you're hooked up to a fat pipe, but want mobility I was under the impression that immobility was the desired effect of a fat pipe...

Re:mobility (3, Funny)

btmark (968861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197539)

Brokeback Router

Get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198173)

Grandparent is obviously a drug subculture post, not a homosexual subculture post...

Re:Get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15203890)

My boyfriend would disagree with you..

I don't want to throw cold water on this..... (4, Informative)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197536)

.... but maybe the prudent thing to do is wait and see how these new products behave in the real world. Early indications are that there are "issues" as described in the articles below:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0, 39020348,39265307,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=186700327 [eetimes.com]
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006507.html [wifinetnews.com]

Re:I don't want to throw cold water on this..... (1)

VaticDart (889055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197616)

As always, let those who need the very latest and greatest fund the next round of R&D so that the rest of us can buy Rev B or C that has most of the bugs worked out.

Re:I don't want to throw cold water on this..... (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197817)

Until they introduce more operating bugs in Rev D. In that case, wait for Rev E2. Oh, and make sure you flash the correct version of the updated firmware.

Aren't wirelss products fun?

Is there *any* reason for me to upgrade from B? (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198085)

I'm still using 802.11b at my house... we have Verizon DSL and it maxes out at about 400 kB/s down, 50 kB/s up. 802.11b seems to be more than enough for my needs. Obviously, I'd buy 802.11g if I were getting new stuff, but I don't know why it's something to get my panties in a twist over.

Why exactly are people so excited by faster wireless networking when very few of them actually HAVE the "fat pipes" to connect to. Is there ANY residential cable/DSL service that actually exceeds the capacity of 802.11g?

Re:Is there *any* reason for me to upgrade from B? (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198141)

Oh, and I serve files too... I run a small webserver off my computer, via my 802.11b connection. I don't play FPS games though I do enjoy a good networked game of FreeCiv. I also ssh into my home computer a lot from work etc., and the latency of a terminal window is almost imperceptible compared to a local login.

Lowest common denominator? (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197546)

When mixing & matching 802.11b devices on an 802.11a or g network, the faster a and g devices are often slowed to b speeds. One hopes this will not happen with n.

As for buying in advance, one also hopes that firmware upgrades will allow early adopters to conform to the final spec. when it's released. Does anyone know which manufacturers are better or worse at providing effective firmmware patches in this regard?

-Kurt

Re:Lowest common denominator? (1)

shawngarringer (906569) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197627)

You cant mix an 802.11a device with an 802.11g or 802.11b device. The "A" standard runs at 5.4GHz and the "B/G" standard runs at 2.4GHz. So you're statement makes no sence.


If you meant that connecting an 802.11b device to an 802.11g network slows down other g devices on that 802.11g network you're also wrong. Most wireless wireless routers are able to support mixed mode interface where it communicates with the B and G devices at their respective speeds. I'm only aware that ad-hoc networks need to perform at the speed of the lowest common device.


-Shawn

Re:Lowest common denominator? (2, Informative)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197776)

Actually the presence of 802.11b devices on a 802.11g network will slow the network down, just not all the way to b speed. See this table [wikibooks.org] for example. As stated there, you seem to drop about a third of the speed, and noting the source [PDF] [atheros.com] , I'd assume that data is reliable.

Re:Lowest common denominator? (1)

shawngarringer (906569) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198504)

Stand Corrected... I only had my own expierences. The data does look accurate.

Re:Lowest common denominator? (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199017)

It also stands to reason that with a network using CSMA/CD (like 802.11 a/b/g), of course having a slower device on the network is going to decrease the total available throughput. Only one station at once can be transmitting, so you can easily say that the scarce resource on the network is time. A slow node is using that time less efficiently, by taking more time to transfer each bit. Which of course leaves proportionally less time available to all of the other nodes on the network.

Re:Lowest common denominator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199095)

802.11 uses CSMA/CA, not CSMA/CD

Re:Lowest common denominator? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197744)

When mixing & matching 802.11b devices on an 802.11a or g network, the faster a and g devices are often slowed to b speeds.
Not so. 802.11a works at a completely different frequency and couldn't give a rat's backside about the presence of b or g. It's only g that's had performance issues when b got involved precisely because it is backward compatible.

Let the new 802.11n operate up at 5GHz with 802.11a so that b and g don't slow it down and can continue to operate as they are and I'd be a happy camper. I already use 802.11a where I have the choice precisely because it avoids the traffic snarls at in the 2.4GHz spectrum by b and g as well as microwave ovens and wireless phones.

Re:Lowest common denominator? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198093)

So you want a router that supports 802.11bang? :D

Grammar (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197573)

"... whom you talk to."

Either use "to whom you talk" or "who you talk to", but don't half-assed try to make yourself look English compliant when you just end up butchering the language.
 

Re:Grammar (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197637)

Given the subject matter about compliance with standards and syntax I'd say that the parent is surprisingly ontopic.

Re:Grammer, not grammar. (0, Offtopic)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197717)

"The ending of a sentence with a preposition is a practice up with which I will not put." - Guess who said it?

Re:Grammer, not grammar. (1)

querist (97166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197761)

Sir Winston Churchill.

Re:Grammer, not grammar. (1)

LMacG (118321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198112)

Guess who said it?

Ummmm, nobody? [wsu.edu] .

Re:Grammer, not grammar. (1)

Main Gauche (881147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198457)

"Guess who said it?"

You did.

Is it my turn now?

Re:Grammer, not grammar. (1)

Bendejo (894944) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200911)

Yoda

Re:Grammar (0, Offtopic)

feloneous cat (564318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198075)

Either use "to whom you talk" or "who you talk to", but don't half-assed try to make yourself look English compliant when you just end up butchering the language.

Next we'll get into how spelling is a key component of communication and whether Times-Roman is far more readable than Courier...

This is Slashdot, not "where to bitch about other people's use of the English language".

Sheesh!

Feloneous

Re:Grammar (0, Offtopic)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198305)

Courier is better, you twit!

Re:Grammar (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198733)

Next we'll get into how spelling is a key component of communication and whether Times-Roman is far more readable than Courier...

No, that subject would be off-topic. But because you brought it up, ;-), an equally important issue is whether one is reading for "readability" or comprehension. Print out a man page some time using a fixed-pitch font, read it aloud and see if you don't parse each word, sentence and punctuation mark in the way a lawyer would when reading or writing a contract. And then compare that experience with the routine skimming over of web-page content. I'll wager you'd do better on the man page pop quiz.

This is Slashdot, not "where to bitch about other people's use of the English language".

You're right, of course, but only to the extent that there exists no obligation for someone communicating in a text-only medium addressing an audience that may run into the tens of thousands to make an effort to be clear and understandable. IMHO, that involves Stuff You Should Have Learned in Grade School.

Re:Grammar (1)

TommyTech (970632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198249)

I agree, however, as long as we're getting 'liter-anal' about other users' grammar, I feel compelled to point out that you used the term "half-assed" as an ad-verb instead of an adjective. Either use: "but don't half-assedly try to..." or "but don't try half-assedly to..." or "but don't make a half-assed attempt at making yourself..."

Re:Grammar? Think different! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202333)

Perhaps you don't understand.

    He thinks different.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198357)

The location of the preposition ("to") doesn't have anything to do with the "whom" being used as an object in the sentence. "Who" is a predicate noun, correct only when "who" is the subject of a sentence, as in "Who did this?"

"Whom" on the other hand, is an object, appropriate whenever "whom" is the person being spoken about or acted on. The article is very much correct.

Next, the placement of "to" in front of "whom" is entirely unnecessary. The author is entirely at liberty to manipulate the syntax of the sentence, especially in this case...when writing "depending on to whom you talk" would sound pretty ridiculous.

Please don't half-assed try to make yourself look halfway intelligent by correcting others. It looks sad when you fail, and malicious even if you are right.

Re:Grammar (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198616)

Ahhh! Whom cares!!?

Re:Grammar (1)

TommyTech (970632) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198664)

hehehe, *exactly* my point ... incorrect, but really, it's just a forum, this will all be old news in 3 hours anyway!

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15198779)

lol this is english theres no grammer here!!11!!1

Why invest in an unfinished standard? (3, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197579)

Why in the world would you buy a "Pre-N" router? You need a compatible card and router, which is not cheap, and will probably be incompatible.

The title is also decieving;

"The current draft of the 802.11n standard was approved for letter ballot in March; the full standard is expected to be ratified by the second quarter of 2007."

So anything you buy will not work with what you buy when it's fully ratified. Pre-g, anyone?

"During eWEEK Labs' tests, Linksys products based on Version 1.0 of the 802.11n draft standard were indeed fast--faster than anything we've tested to date--but issues with range and interference with legacy wireless networks show room for improvement."

Speed may be important, but reliability is more important. Most internet connections aren't even close to that fast, and if it doesn't have range or reliability, why would you use it on a LAN?

Gamers, who would benifit from this, use wired mice for similar reasons; batteries don't die in wired mice, no lag, no problems. Same reasons that they wouldn't use 802.11n: If 802.11n can't deliver reliability, why use it?

And backwards compatibility? That's one of the most important points of all! Sheesh.

Re:Why invest in an unfinished standard? (1)

ccool (628215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197665)

the same thing goes for HDTV.. all the new stuff wont work with the early adopters. Even if everybody kindda knew it would happen, peaple bought it anyway

Re:Why invest in an unfinished standard? (2, Informative)

shelterpaw (959576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198011)

I wouldn't worry about it so much. Most SOHO manufactures D-Link, LinkSys, Netgear etc shipped products of 802.11G before it was ratified and they didn't run into any major hiccups as far as I know. It's pretty common for companies to push products before the standard has been ratified. No one is going to produce chips unless they are confident it will be safe when the standard is completely ratified. Often just a firmware update will complete the standard.

Re:Why invest in an unfinished standard? (1)

brix_zx2 (955395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198147)

I think the answer here is obvious.

With at least half of the people speaking and reading the postings being actual IT staff or something related, we've seen standards come and go. Your not-so-IT oriented people are seeing the speed increase and believe they can game online that much faster or with other people.

Re:Why invest in an unfinished standard? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198177)

Why use it? Well, MIMO-based wireless tends to do a better job with interference and range. In fact, coverage may be the big seller here as broadband internet speeds dont even come close to B let along N. People aren't complaining about speed (well most anyway) they complain about coverage.

The thoroughput is very nice in situations where you have a home network with all the same brand network gear. Say you download a 1+gig movie on your desktop but decide you want to watch it on your laptop downstairs. At pre-N speeds its not such a big deal. On B its stupid and G its a exercise in patience.

But of course, outside of your own little network the card may be useless, so early adopter/buyer beware as usual.

Ah poo (3, Funny)

whoop (194) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197652)

The ever obligatory...

Great, I just bought X type product and now they come out with something newer to screw us into spending more money. Someone wake me when they stop this nonsense so I can buy one last product and die in peace!

Re:Ah poo (1)

aurb (674003) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197730)

Ok, we'll wake you right before you die.

Re:Ah poo (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197747)

And that product was my 802.11g router with speedbooster. Rock stable and provides enough bandwidth to fill my needs. Pre-N? Naaahhh..

Re:Ah poo (1)

Zabu (589690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198349)

With the commotion of the 802.11n task force, you will probably die in peace before it is actually ratified.

IIRC they were supposed to have one draft in November of 2004. Instead they had two different camps of people yelling at each other and complaining alot. I doubt taking bits and pieces of each wwise and tgnsync is going to stop much of the commotion.

I know I am going to avoid .11n products until I can see interoperable products that use different chipsets and make good use of the .11e(QoS) standard.

Fat pipe (1)

Leon_Trotsky (702427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197675)

Please leave my fat pipe out of this...

yeah thats right, eat it you nerds (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197800)

1st post! that's right you filthy f'ers i am here

802.11n??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15197897)

Oh right, is this the Microsoft EU version of 802.11?

The numbers are NOT impressive... (5, Informative)

grc (52842) | more than 8 years ago | (#15197913)

Did anyone notice that the numbers are not very impressive? The Asus Wireless G had 85% of the throughput of the Linksys WRT300N, and much better range degradation. I think that Linksyss claim of 4X the range and 12X the speed of other G class hardware falls flat on its face!

One word description... (1)

ArchAbaddon (946568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198205)

Hideous. What is that, a radar dish on the middle? Do they seriously want me to put that in my house? Were do I find enough clearance for the radar dish to rotate?

Damn the speed (2, Interesting)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198559)

I am actually pretty satisfied with the speed of my 'G' system I would rather they would have focused their efforts on 'reliable speed at a DISTANCE' (without having to erect a GIANT antenna, boosters, etc...)

A.K.A I want 'G' speeds 5-15 miles out.

Re:Damn the speed (1)

TrueKonrads (580974) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200724)

There is always the question of power. You can have good signal quality on a military radar, but it also glows green in the night. All radiocomms are already thought out for some while now; The advances are algorithmic - you get better signal Signal-to-Noise ratio by more creative usage of bandwidth and frequency. But for signal penetration there are only two solutions: lower the frequency - longer waves penetrate better, or pump up the juice. I, for one, don't welcome my new green brain frying router overlords.

Re:Damn the speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15201115)

Meh. It's absolutely foolish to put anything else in the 2.4ghz range.

Wifi *should* be range-limited, without understanding and accountability for what you're sending out (i.e., being licensed) there should be very strict limiting on power allowed. Wifi needs a dedicated band, and the 802.11b/g DSS standard is garbage.. cellular technology is a thousand times better, something than can stand some interference and/or sharing of RF freq. is a must for viability.

40mhz is a massive chunk to take out of the 2.4ghz range. 802.11 needs to be dropped, all versions, all-together and a new class of wireless LAN developed in it's own, dedicated, band. With proper "sharing" of bandwidth, it need not even be the 355mhz or so of the 5ghz band.

gah. FYI, anyone running wireless for a LAN party is a slack abuser of the spectrum. Wires are so easy anyway if everyone brings their own.

When do we get 802.16? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15198569)

Frankly, 802.11 is more than good enough for me on the bandwidth front. The problems with 802.11 to me are the per-wap RANGE.

When does 802.16 / wimax actually hit market for real? I want a wireless protocol robust enough it can be realistically used for ISPs. I'm sick of being alternately gouged by cable and dsl companies for service which isn't as good as what I got 10 years ago as a dialup customer.

Wimax is here now.. (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203172)

It's just in the same state of flux that this N specifiction is..

You can buy wimax distribution systems now, alvarion has one, navini has one, but the problem is that they're based on a protocol that isn't finished. In the meantime, have a look at hiperLan gear, it's not half bad, for the meantime.

It's all Airgo FUD... (2, Interesting)

galimore (461274) | more than 7 years ago | (#15198748)

Uhhh...

The "Pre-N" stuff floating around is all Airgo manufactured. The Airgo design differs from the 802.11n draft, and I suspect that's what this is really all about.

Airgo has a *LOT* to lose by not getting the standard changed in their favor. They put all their eggs in one basket on this one... and the IEEE didn't go with their solution.

I'd take anything that comes out of an interview with somebody who works for Airgo with a healthy dose of salt...

It sounds like they're spreading FUD about the IEEE draft because they're upset that their gear isn't compatible with it... I doubt the real concern is of backwards compatibility with existing gear.

Re:It's all Airgo FUD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202115)

The 802.11N radio has a pretty sophisticated antena signal optimizer. Easy to write, but it takes a long time to get working. Airgo has valuable market experience here. Tweaking the VHDL code in the digital section to satisfy the standard is easy.

If the 802.11 hardware manufacturers want to make the multi antenna MIMO products consumer frendly, they should use the antena technology to optimize the range and reduce signal interference problems when users are running 802.11B. When you don't need the pipe, make the hose work twice as good.

LINKSYS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199689)

didnt boter to RTFA, but one thing I wonder: will linksys help with adoption of 802.11n and provide most people with free networking like before? brings a whole new definition to "First 802.11n Products Breaking Out" :)

buffers

plus 3, trolL) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200242)

EFNet servers. to place a paper You loved that under the GPL. this is consistent Posts. therefore clearly become Satan's Dick And

This just in: Dell claims credit for 802.11n (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200307)

In the year 2000: Dell: "Essentially, Dell was responsible for selecting, if not necessarily developing, many of the technologies in today's desktop computers and servers. Among standards for which he said Dell deserves credit are 802.11 wireless networking"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?