 | |
StandardsI highly doubt that there is a real need for it anyways. If new standards keep being ratified, its absurd to believe that they will be adopted with open arms. This is especially true now that most laptops come with b/g WIFI, but what about when n comes? | |
|
 |  ScilicetSpaced Out
Premium Member
join:2005-04-11
Aurora, CO
kudos:1 |
Scilicet
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 11:49 am
Re: StandardsI can see it happening. 802.11g is fast enough for me, but 802.11n at 100Mbps? 1Gbps within 3 years? Do we really need such speeds and for what? I suppose we will all have to take it as it comes. | |
|
|  Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA |
to navalpatel
So true.. they keep changing stuff.. Well, until they make up their minds i will stick with B at a very fast 11mbps that i hardly ever use and won't spend any money on the new equipment.
Let the morons buy them en masse then sell for pennies when they become obsolete in 2 weeks.
N, H, U, Z, Y, W... right. What i want to see is a normal security + encryption not some useless speed and price hike. Can anyone do that? Nope? Well then, i will not upgrade. | |
|
| |
1 edit |
Re: StandardsYou mean B at a "very fast" 5.5 Mbps. Show me a NetPerSec screenshot for your wireless adapter that shows a transfer rate of 11 Mbps. If you really do have a sustained rate of 11 Mbps wirelessly, I need to know what gear you're using because you'll be the first person in history, to my knowledge, that actually get anywhere near the advertised speeds. | |
|
| | | Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA |
Re: Standardssaid by LinuxJunkie:You mean B at a "very fast" 5.5 Mbps. Show me a NetPerSec screenshot for your wireless adapter that shows a transfer rate of 11 Mbps. If you really do have a sustained rate of 11 Mbps wirelessly, I need to know what gear you're using because you'll be the first person in history, to my knowledge, that actually get anywhere near the advertised speeds. even your classic lan is half duplex so 5.5 sounds about right. seriously you know what i was saying and you nitpicking about actual bytes is useless. if you do want to buy new equipment that you will never use every month.. do so. netpersec is old, it is payware so you don't think i will bother with it do you? besides i am stating the advertised connection speed not actual throughput which already rendered your entire post irrelevant but i am typing this because i have the time while waiting on the delivery man... | |
|
| | | |
4 edits |
Re: StandardsWell, from what you just said, your reply is ALSO irrelevant since wireless doesn't even have "half-duplex" or "full-duplex" modes. I was simply pointing out that you saying "11 Mbps is fast enough" is wrong because it is NOT 11 Mbps. Maybe it's you that should that should quit the BS nitpicking. To say that "11 Mbps is fast enough" for something that you yourself have stated you hardly use ("buy new equipment that you will never use every month") ALSO makes your entire original post and sarcastic, juvenile response also irrelevant.
P.S. - You still use a half-duplex 10 Mbps LAN? Time to join the 21st century. See? I can be a sarcastic prick too. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: StandardsIt looks to me like you started the "sarcastic prick" theme to this thread. Perhaps you should cut back on being so defensive, eh?
5.5mbps? I use 3360/864 DSL. 3360+864 = less than 5.5mbps, and I'm assuming that most people's bottlenecks are not their wireless connections.
When he said "11mbps is fast enough" he was obviously referring to whatever speeds he's getting with 802.11b.
I use wireless b, and I'm just fine with it.
All you get by buying all the newest and "best" technology is a bunch of corporate theives with well padded pockets.
Calm down, eh? | |
|
bhorow
join:2004-05-17
Forest Hills, NY |
bhorow
Member
2005-Jun-9 10:35 am
I never even believed in GMost people don't even need G. Remember Broadband by in large is 5 Meg or 6 Meg / Sec. So what's the benefit in having wireless G let alone N. The N standard is really for intrahome use. People need to remember what there needs are. Most people with B are very happy.
Thank You
Brent | |
|
| | |
wildcards2000
Anon
2005-Jun-9 10:54 am
Re: I never even believed in GI use wireless in some of my locations and G is TOO SLOW. Even N is not fast enough. Wireless is not just for the snot nose kid on daddy's computer. It's used in the real world as well. | |
|
| | |
NopeBSucks to bhorow
Anon
2005-Jun-9 11:36 am
to bhorow
B is not fast enough for a 5 or 6 Mbit connection.
You won't see above 3Mbps sustained in almost any situation. | |
|
| | | |
Re: I never even believed in GI whole heartedly agree. I can't get more than 3 - 4 Mbps sustained on average... even with 100% signal strength and I'm literally five feet from the WAP with direct line of sight... in fact, my wireless connections can't even max out the 4.3 Mbps connection provided by Comcast. My wired computers will all hit around 515 KB/s download while the wireless will only hit around 360 KB/s (at most). It usually starts there and then gradually gets slower. | |
|
|  ssj4androidRedefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI |
to bhorow
B might be already for 1.5 Mbps service. Do you have a home network with more than one computer? Higher speeds are useful for in network file transfers. Higher speeds are useful for streaming video (although G is fast enough for non HD stuff). | |
|
lgkahn
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Londonderry, NH |
lgkahn
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 10:38 am
idiotyou are an idiot.. some people do real work over wireless like backing up laptops (everyone should) and transferrring movies between tivos and we DO need good bandwidth. | |
|
|  wolfoxGentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL |
wolfox
Member
2005-Jun-9 10:43 am
Re: idiotIndeed, try back-hauling a Ghost disk image on 802.11b network infrastructure, or a CD-ROM ISO at some point on the same. Tedious to say the least. I got together a 1Gb ethernet LAN to cart those large files through, even makes wired 100mb Ethernet look pokey and slow. It's hard to go back when one's tasted that kind of sweetness. Anyone that cannot see the benefit of smarter, faster and less expensive hardware probably flogs their horse drawn carriage into town to pick up groceries.  --
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! | |
|
| | | |
Re: idiotNot to get off-topic, but have you been able to Ghost over wi-fi? I mean, don't you need a DOS driver to boot to for Ghost, and I haven't been able to find a DOS driver for a WLAN card... Seriously, if you know of one, please let me know. I posted previously asking for a DOS driver for a WLAN NIC and all I got back were sarcastic replies telling me "DOS IS DEAD"... Like I'm an idiot..  | |
|
| AEKDB
join:2004-03-07
Towson, MD |
to lgkahn
said by lgkahn:you are an idiot.. some people do real work over wireless like backing up laptops (everyone should) and transferrring movies between tivos and we DO need good bandwidth. lgkahn - what are you trying to say? do you disagree with bhorow? | |
|
|  Zeb
Premium Member
join:2000-07-10
Richardson, TX |
Zeb to lgkahn
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 3:46 pm
to lgkahn
Yeah, it's pretty annoying. All of these posts I see about "we don't even have internet speeds that fast" blah blah blah. WIFI DOES NOT = INTERNET  | |
|
| | | |
Re: idiotExactly.
Saying "who needs anything faster wirelessly"...
If that's an argument, "who needs anything faster for your LAN..."
Speed and security will always rule and maybe one day we will see ACTUAL throughput of 1gig on a WLAN..
we can dream | |
|
nike303
join:2003-08-28
Franklin Square, NY |
Performance differeceI can see it as being very useful for businesses.
Personally, I can notice a performance differece between being wired and wireless. May be the wireless AP, but I noticed about a 30 kb/sec difference in favor of wired.
It was so much of a scientific study, just sending my project (3 mb) to a friend via AIM. | |
|
| | |
Re: Performance differeceUm... wired is way faster than wireless than just 30 KB/s... then again, you never said what kind if wired or wireless. 802.11b? 100 Mbps ethernet or gig ethernet? | |
|
| |
With speeds greater than 100MbpsWith ADVERTISED speeds greater than 100Mbps, they are still full of it. Just once I'd like to see a wifi product that lives up to the numbers on the box. For that matter, I'd settle for one that gets close.
We are going to get into Terrabit adapters and routers, before we see 100Mbps speeds.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ Gainward GF4 4600/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
 ONiallYum, Citizen
Premium Member
join:2002-11-18
Portland, OR |
ONiall
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 12:03 pm
where will we see the increase?are these changes to just the send/receive between the ap and the wireless nic, or does it also improve the overall send/receive of the ap to all wireless clients in its range? if the second, then there is a great need to improve capacity of aps, especially with the increase in built in wireless in personal and business computers...not so much a need for a small two or three computer home network, even with filesharing and print networking, the bandwidth is not performance inhibiting at 100Mbps...exceptions for some of us, of course.
--
yum, citizen! | |
|
| lgkahn
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Londonderry, NH |
lgkahn
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 12:21 pm
Re: where will we see the increase? quote:
With ADVERTISED speeds greater than 100Mbps, they are still full of it. Just once I'd like to see a wifi product that lives up to the numbers on the box. For that matter, I'd settle for one that gets close
agreed they are full of sh*t with a 54mbs connection and 90 is signal strenght and quality I only get 10-13mbs sustained transfers... and I have tried buffalo, linksys usr... all their 54mbs advertising is a bunch of crap... you can put the laptop right next to router and even though the signal says 54mbs you never achive that in transfer rate that would be 6.75 megabytes/sec transfers wheras I get between 1 and 2 | |
|
| |  vdiv
Premium Member
join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA |
vdiv
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 1:38 pm
Re: where will we see the increase?Hmm, with the crappy D-Link DI-624M (MIMO pre-N) and a Centrino Intel 2200 built-in plain G adapter in my Thinkpad, at 85% signal strength and 54 Mbps rate I consistently get downloads in the order of 350 Kbytes/sec (so multiply by 10 (+overhead), 3.5 Mbps) ...
I always wonder if one can force the rate down to say 22 Mbps wether the actual throughput would improve (fewer retransmits). | |
|
| | |  koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK |
koolman2
Premium Member
2005-Jun-10 2:02 am
Re: where will we see the increase?He was talking about MegaBYTES per second, while you calculated MegaBITS per second- there is a difference. Oh, and I can get a sustained 20-23mbps while my card is connected at 54. I use WPA-PSK AES 256-bit, on an Intel 2200bg card. I'm talking about a 700MB file, 20mbps the whole way. --
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station. | |
|
| | | | vdiv
Premium Member
join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA |
vdiv
Premium Member
2005-Jun-10 7:47 pm
Re: where will we see the increase?Cool proggie! I should find something like it and do some testing as well. Well, I use bps for bits per second and B/sec for Bytes per second (Byte is a TM of IBM, hence capital B, others in the industry use octets Also, mbps would be milibits per second, hence the M gets capitalized to indicate 1024 x 1024 bits per second (sometimes incorrectly 1000 x 1000 bits per second, usually by storage companies) | |
|
| | | | | koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK |
koolman2
Premium Member
2005-Jun-11 12:51 am
Re: where will we see the increase?Since you can't make anything lower than a bit, then I bet it's safe to say that the "m" and "M" are synonymous in this situation.
I've been trying to get people to understand that 1Mb = 1024Kb, but to no avail.
--
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station. | |
|
| | | | | | vdiv
Premium Member
join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA
2 edits |
vdiv
Premium Member
2005-Jun-12 10:34 am
Re: where will we see the increase?Considering how slow my connection is on occasions, I easily get a few hundreds of milibits per second Yes, a milibit does not make much sense, but the convention should still apply for capitalising the M. Here we are talking about rates though. Theoretically, it is possible for a system to take longer than a second to transmit a bit, especially if your averaging interval is fairly large. | |
|
| | | | | | | koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK |
koolman2
Premium Member
2005-Jun-12 12:46 pm
Re: where will we see the increase?You can't average half of a bit per second, if that's what you mean. You would say, rather, that you average one bit every two seconds, since it is impossible to split a bit.
--
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station. | |
|
| |
In Other Newsman's head explodes as he stands near his new gigabit wireless reciever... | |
|
| vdiv
Premium Member
join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA |
vdiv
Premium Member
2005-Jun-9 1:42 pm
Re: In Other NewsWe always wanted more functionality from those wi-fi devices... Well, now we can toast bread, heat coffee and fry eggs on them, breakfast is served | |
|
|
|
