 
Oxygen
Times Square can't shine as bright
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Nesconset, NY | Very Nice Can't wait for it...
I am glad to see the technology evolving before our eyes... and fast. | |
|  | | 
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA
| 802.11g didn't work And this won't either, hell, 802.11g doesn't work 100% still... why not make something that is a standerd work instead of complicating the mess with yet another wireless standard thats not even done. That would be too easy, but hey, if someone buys this crap before the standard is finished and gets burned, thats on them. And I will laugh at them because there will be people dumb enough to buy the equipment without a standard. Too bad the IEEE couldn't just stop posting what it was doing, would be fun for chip makers to have to see the entire standard before making chips. Would do wonders for getting everything talking correctly.
--
some people believe in astrology others believe in technology some people believe in all those -ologies but i believe in swordfish | |
| | Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON | Re: 802.11g didn't work YES ANUBIS!!! that's exactly what i was thinking. also, picture and radio? that will never work either! | |
| | | youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: 802.11g didn't work More to the point what about all those Centeno "Intel" chip sets out there in laptops?? most work with b,a,g but will they be able to upgrade them via firmware to use this new standard?? I don't think so. Seems like the faster we move ahead the more we leave behind.
ym | |
| | | | 
Hawk
Premium
join:2003-08-25
La Quinta, CA
| Re: 802.11g didn't work said by youngmoore  :
Seems like the faster we move ahead the more we leave behind.
That's a very interesting point! Dose there come a point where speed becomes irrelevant?
--
Forums are the "True Tech Support" | |
| |
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Thank you for the asinine comment, may I have another? | |
| | 
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs: 
| said by 72276539 :
And this won't either, hell, 802.11g doesn't work 100% still... why not make something that is a standerd work instead of complicating the mess with yet another wireless standard thats not even done. That would be too easy, but hey, if someone buys this crap before the standard is finished and gets burned, thats on them. And I will laugh at them because there will be people dumb enough to buy the equipment without a standard. Too bad the IEEE couldn't just stop posting what it was doing, would be fun for chip makers to have to see the entire standard before making chips. Would do wonders for getting everything talking correctly.
I was going to be the first post to this news article, but I couldn't come up with the right words. Looks like you nailed my thoughts exactly though.
Big companies would be stupid to invest in wireless at the rate they are coming up with new standards (unless of course they are just looking for a write-off).
Get the existing ones stable first is what I think they should do.
- FM
--
DCExec Member, Member of 'StarFire Seven' & Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! | |
| | 8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| Hopefully if Broadcom gets their feet in first, they will convice all the others to follow a single standard like they did with the short lived HPNA networking cards. HPNA net cards are one of the only peripherals (possibly the only ones) in recent times, where all manufacturers followed the same standard so there is only 1 driver that works for every brand of card. Microsoft and others should learn something from them instead of screwing the public by using proprietary standards that are incompatible with other versions. We still haven't got web browsers that will work on every site, and it's the web developers who take the brunt having to write 3 or 4 different versions of a website to work with incompatible browsers. | |
| | 8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| Hopefully if Broadcom gets their feet in first, they will convince all the others to follow a single standard like they did with the short lived HPNA networking cards. HPNA net cards are one of the only peripherals (possibly the only ones) in recent times, where all manufacturers followed the same standard so there is only 1 driver that works for every brand of card. Microsoft and others should learn something from them instead of screwing the public by using proprietary standards that are incompatible with other versions. We still haven't got web browsers that will work on every site, and it's the web developers who take the brunt having to write 3 or 4 different versions of a website to work with incompatible browsers. | |
| | 
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| said by 72276539 :
And this won't either, hell, 802.11g doesn't work 100% still... why not make something that is a standerd work instead of complicating the mess with yet another wireless standard thats not even done. That would be too easy, but hey, if someone buys this crap before the standard is finished and gets burned, thats on them. And I will laugh at them because there will be people dumb enough to buy the equipment without a standard. Too bad the IEEE couldn't just stop posting what it was doing, would be fun for chip makers to have to see the entire standard before making chips. Would do wonders for getting everything talking correctly.
Because, like every engineer knows, it's sexier to work on new products than to fix old ones...
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
| 
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA
| Stop Developing Faster Speeds Ok.. I shouldn't have to type this, but apparently some bozo's think that faster speeds are going to be the answers for everything.
»Wi-Fi Raises New Questions
Speaking for a security aspect, wireless is not secure enough to let someone connect at 11 mbs, much less 100 mbs. I would much rather have someone spamming at 11 vs. 100 on a unsecure 802.11n network.
We need to ditch the speed jumps and concentrate on dynamic wep rekeying, and other various security methods of securing wifi, and making it affordable to secure home and private networks at a cost lower than buying a new car.
Just my 5 cents again. | |
| | 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Stop Developing Faster Speeds I disagree. If you want security, get wired. If you want speed and convenience, let the industry do its magic. Security is not a big deal to many of us, we just want speed!!!
I've had my wireless router open with no WEP and no MAC filters for almost a year now. I live in an apartment and no one has ever logged in to it yet.
Speed is good. Security? You'll never have it! | |
| | | 
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Stop Developing Faster Speeds Agreed, mines been wide open because its simply easier for my friends if they come over to get onto my network than dealing with keys, etc. I have been logging for over 6 months and the only people who have connected are people who should be 
--
U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network :::: »www.foreverchat.net | |
| | | | 
wireless_bounce
@emhril.ameritech | Re: Stop Developing Faster Speeds "and the only people who have connected are people who should be"
... that you know of | |
| | | | |
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Stop Developing Faster Speeds Sure, because I know when my friends visit, and I check my logs weekly.
I have learned to do this quite religiously, since I have linux boxes hosting websites that get probed constantly.
--
U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network :::: »www.foreverchat.net | |
| | | | | | | 
Andy8
B B R Bash Bush Regularly
Premium
join:2002-01-26
::1
| said by verolom :
I've had my wireless router open with no WEP and no MAC filters for almost a year now. I live in an apartment and no one has ever logged in to it yet.
Speed is good. Security? You'll never have it!
Being just a short jaunt down rt.35 away from me, what does the first person to accept your "invite" and successfully war-drive your 4800/930 connection and run a Kazaa server win?:D
*fires up the laptop*. j/k, but see my point?;)
Seriously, Being one who has a wireless LAN up and running, I still feel "naked" even though I have WEP and MAC filtering on.
Sure "speed is good" but 100mbps wireless LAN still will not get me a faster connection with my ISP.
I would also like to see it more secure first, before they start using those customers who absolutely HAVE to have the latest-greatest anything as beta-test guinea pigs.
--
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental. | |
| | | | | | | 
skyfreedomdo
Premium
join:2003-01-01
Boise, ID | Where do you live?:D | |
| 
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
| Hitting the floor Obviously the standard is just theoretical speed ( isn't everything in this world that way? )..as was 54g. Interesting eh?
The thing about it is that these companies know about the technology already- its already kinda technically there. The IEEE just has to look everything over and make sure everything is alright.
Its kinda like software design and waiting for RFCs. I can design a framework application, that essentially will be the final product. Most of the major stuff is done mostly, like the interface, prompts and stuff. The only thing that I have to do later on is just make it standard a la RFC when it comes out. I know what to expect, so I can just adjust the application later and recompile it. Tada, finished application. Didn't even need to wait for a standard.
Back to hardware. Of course, in the hardware world, that analogy doesn't exactly fit. It comes close however. Makers build the chipsets, dump in UPnP support, a DHCP server (if you run a dhcpcd linux client and run it to a WGR614--you will smirk at this knowingly), and basically model what they can, and then make everything adjustable via firmware.
Unwittingly, this makes the inital hardware semi poor quality (or even better quality initally- depending on firmware settings) until the firmware update comes out..but even then, mostly the standard doesn't change much from expectations, therefore the firmware update is mostly a touch-up. | |
| | | 
ViviTheMage
vivi
Premium
join:2002-10-28
Minneapolis, MN
clubs: | gee thats awesome! Its evolving VERY fast. Before you know it...we will have gigavyte connections with 2 mile radiuses  ....i wish! lol. | |
| biobob
join:2003-09-04
Bayside, NY
|  Maybe my view is wrong
I am a little frustrated because I have 2 laptops, each with built in wireless. The first one is a powerbook, and naturally it has G in it. I then bought a PC laptop that came with A in it. I bought that one because it had really good specs, and price, but the wireless was a downside. It just seems like lately that companies are in such a race to get ahead they are ignoring the rules, and pushing out their own standards, and when one gets picked up mainstream you have to pay big time to get the other less popular standard in stuff. I say this because A+G+B routers cost $250+, but I can get just G+b routers for under $100. I have been in computers a long time, and know this is nothing new, but it seems like it gets just a little bit worse every year. | |
| 
Bulldawg
join:2001-02-14
Harwood Heights, IL
| 108MB Now Without getting to involved in the conversation here, I just wanted to add my 2cents and state I had just walked in from BestBuy and the Dlinks 802.11g Access Point/4-port Router is claiming Now 2X the Speed and posted on box 108MB for wireless. Nope didn't buy and no I have no experience with it's claim. Though I do use the 22MB Dlinks wireless and it works Great.
Happy Holidays to All and 1gb connection to all  | |
| 
TheHondaMan
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
| D-Link = 108mbps? Atheros using their new chip featured in the D-Link DI-624 has speeds of up to 108mbps. So what is this 102.11n?
It would only be a successor to G if it were more secure and had a greater range. Otherwise the D-Link is already faster, and here today at the cost of regular G devices.
--
The Power of Dreams. Powered by Honda | |
| | macmouse
Premium
join:2002-05-30
Saratoga, CA
| Re: D-Link = 108mbps? Okay, there is an couple things going here.
1) 802.11a is running on the 5ghz band. B and G are running on the now highly populated 2.4ghz band. Recently, the FCC has announced that they will be adding an lot more "channels" to the 5ghz band allocation. Like, an additional 20-100 channels. The band has little population and there is an *lot* more room to grow for the future.
The more "stuff" you have in use in the same area, the slower and less reliable things will work. Only so much room in 2.4ghz land.
2) 802.11g uses an different encoding system, which allows them to squeeze more data through the same space. Its semi-compatible with b.
3) The new "2X 108MB" systems is essentially, 802.11g using TWO channels at once (full-duplex) effectively doubling the transfer speed. Sadly, this means it kills two of the three (effective) channels that 802.11b/g has. This can cause havoc with other systems that are nearby. This is at best an hack. While it does work in some situations, it doesn't really play nice with other base stations. | |
| BrandonP63
join:2003-03-09
Sunbury, PA | 5Ghz I read that 802.11n will use the 5Ghz frequency to be compatible with 802.11a. This turns me away from this standard since 5Ghz products work over a shorter distance than 2.4Ghz products. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
