AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple working to adopt 802.11ac 5G Gigabit WiFi this year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple working to adopt 802.11ac 5G Gigabit WiFi this year - Page 2

post #41 of 122
1/21/12 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffith9 View Post

Yes.. I just bought my Airport Extreme this January too.. (I'm happy with the router)

Am I A fool for doing so?

I thought internet speed depends on the cable provider, not the actual device..
am I wrong here..?

I don't know jack about what Extreme can do, I'm just happy it 'just worked' and I don't have to deal with any technical difficulty.

Your internet speed is determined by the slowest hop you have to pass through to get to the webpage or data storage you are trying to reach. The bottleneck could be your wifi or router or your Internet provider or any other router along the way to wherever you are going.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #42 of 122
1/21/12 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Sorry if my posts sounded negative. Didn't intend it to be that way but I see now they were:

It's all cool!
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #43 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

As great as WiFi is, if you want speed, you have to go wired. And it doesn't help that the MacBook Air Ethernet adapter is limited to USB 2.0 speeds, which is maybe 30MB/s in the best case scenario. Hopefully we'll get something better.

That's why you want to connect to a display/dock that has thunderbolt - gigabit ethernet!
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Most of the advanced countries that boast about their really fast Internet are about the size and population of New Jersey.

Well then explain a country like Sweden (20 people per square kilometer)? Their population density is similar to that of the United States (33.7/km2).

Or how about South Korea (491/km2) or Japan (337/km2), with population densities way lower than New Jersey's 1189/km2?

And these countries' citizens pay way less for what they are getting (granted they typically pay more taxes, but they also get better healthcare, roads, public transit systems, education, etc.).

Why does 1.5Mbps DSL cost $30 per month in Silicon Valley? The South Koreans and Japanese are getting something like 50x speeds at that price.

Enough excuses for American mobile operators, telephone companies, and cable providers. Stop being a shill for these charlatans.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

10gbe would be nice, too! Pricing on it has stayed way too high, and Apple could change that.

And Thunderbolt currently runs at 10 gigabits per second. This goes to show that contrary to what many Mac users are thinking, a single Thunderbolt cable is nowhere near ready to replace expandable tower computers. Thunderbolt would need to run at hundreds or even thousands of gigabits per second in order to support the full bandwidth of a Mac Pro with every slot being utilized.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Most of the advanced countries that boast about their really fast Internet are about the size and population of New Jersey. The US is a huge place and upgrades come a little more slowly as the major carriers try to roll out the upgrades in many metropolitan areas simultaneously. Since all new utility installations in the US have to be underground it does represent a large investment to dig up all the streets to lay fiber optics. Our Internet may be slow in many suburban neighborhoods but in the commercial areas it is as fast as anywhere in the world. At my office I now have synchronous 100mb/s pure fiber to my datacenter where I have even higher speed. At home about 10 down and 5 up.

I have 200 mb/s cable. Will be moving to 300 mb/s in a few months. If I was willing to pay, I could get fiber but right now, things are okay.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mguy View Post

That's why you want to connect to a display/dock that has thunderbolt - gigabit ethernet!

A lot of confusion on the difference between Megabits (mbs) and Megabytes (MBs)

USB 2 tops out around 12 mbs which is around 1.5 MBs

There are 8 bits per byte.

GigaE is 1000 mbs or about 125 MBs

The fastest Internet you are likely to encounter is 100 mbs which is .125 MBs [fixed]

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Well then explain a country like Sweden (20 people per square kilometer)? Their population density is similar to that of the United States (33.7/km2).

Or how about South Korea (491/km2) or Japan (337/km2), with population densities way lower than New Jersey's 1189/km2?

And these countries' citizens pay way less for what they are getting (granted they typically pay more taxes, but they also get better healthcare, roads, public transit systems, education, etc.).

Why does 1.5Mbps DSL cost $30 per month in Silicon Valley? The South Koreans and Japanese are getting something like 50x speeds at that price.

Enough excuses for American mobile operators, telephone companies, and cable providers. Stop being a shill for these charlatans.

Agreed. I'm in Finland and my Internet speeds are 200 mb/s down and 10 mb/s up. Considering I am not running any servers that feed outside of my house, I am quite happy with this arrangement.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Well then explain a country like Sweden (20 people per square kilometer)? Their population density is similar to that of the United States (33.7/km2).

Or how about South Korea (491/km2) or Japan (337/km2), with population densities way lower than New Jersey's 1189/km2?

And these countries' citizens pay way less for what they are getting (granted they typically pay more taxes, but they also get better healthcare, roads, public transit systems, education, etc.).

Why does 1.5Mbps DSL cost $30 per month in Silicon Valley? The South Koreans and Japanese are getting something like 50x speeds at that price.

Enough excuses for American mobile operators, telephone companies, and cable providers. Stop being a shill for these charlatans.

I'm not saying it couldn't be better but I still like living here more than any other country and apparently so does anyone else in the world who can figure out a way to live here. There is more to life than Internet speed. When the rest of the world downloads movies at lightning speed there is a good chance it is a US made movie and probably pirated since the US media doesn't actually provide much content outside of the states as far as I have heard or experienced in my travels abroad.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #50 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

....Since all new utility installations in the US have to be underground it does represent a large investment to dig up all the streets to lay fiber optics. Our Internet may be slow in many suburban neighborhoods but in the commercial areas it is as fast as anywhere in the world...

In older Southern California neighborhoods, Verizon is installing FiOS (Fiber optics) from pole to pole, no digging required.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #51 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

A lot of confusion on the difference between Megabits (mbs) and Megabytes (MBs)

USB 2 tops out around 12 mbs which is around 1.5 MBs

There are 8 bits per byte.

GigaE is 1000 mbs or about 125 MBs

The fastest Internet you are likely to encounter is 100 mbs which is .125 MBs

12.5 MBps. Me thinks you typo'd given that you had Gig right.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 122
1/21/12 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

In older Southern California neighborhoods, Verizon is installing FiOS (Fiber optics) from pole to pole, no digging required.

I wasn't aware that they were even considering older neighborhoods for fiber. Do they string it across the street and directly to the buildings without any digging? My neighborhood has no poles and the fiber is 300 meters away on the main street. I don't know the specific of whether the city owns the conduit that the cable TV is in or whether the cable company owns them. Anyway I don't think we will be getting fiber since ther are only 15 house on our street and our cul de sac. The return on investment for providing fiber would be rather poor for the carrier.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #53 of 122
1/21/12 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

12.5 MBps. Me thinks you typo'd given that you had Gig right.

Thanks fixed

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #54 of 122
1/21/12 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I wasn't aware that they were even considering older neighborhoods for fiber. Do they string it across the street and directly to the buildings without any digging? My neighborhood has no poles and the fiber is 300 meters away on the main street. I don't know the specific of whether the city owns the conduit that the cable TV is in or whether the cable company owns them. Anyway I don't think we will be getting fiber since ther are only 15 house on our street and our cul de sac. The return on investment for providing fiber would be rather poor for the carrier.

Verizon runs an ugly semi rigid black pipe (trees help) from pole to pole, then a fiber optic "wire" to a plastic box attached to the house. At that point on the house it is converted to cable and distributed to another central point (basement or garage with backup battery for telephone) and then to the rooms of the dwelling.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #55 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

What's the rush to wirelessly connect your phone to an access point at gigabit speeds to the Internet that is probably real-world 5-10mb/s unless you're at a Starbucks with a bunch of other people which will drag it down even more?

While improvements are always welcomed, it cracks me up reading how people want this technology now when in the real world, they will nitice little or no improvement.

But we gotta have it now.

What do you plan on doing on that tiny phone that necessitates gigabit speeds of bandwidth?

It really comes down to how many concurrent connections an access point can handle. Most .g units max out around 20; supposedly .n can hit 25-30. If this can get you to 100, you are golden.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

A lot of confusion on the difference between Megabits (mbs) and Megabytes (MBs)

USB 2 tops out around 12 mbs which is around 1.5 MBs

There are 8 bits per byte.

GigaE is 1000 mbs or about 125 MBs

The fastest Internet you are likely to encounter is 100 mbs which is .125 MBs [fixed]


You're quoting the speed for the old USB 1.1.

The ubiquitous USB 2.0 can top out at 480 Mbs (megabits per second)
which equates to 60 MBs (Megabytes per second)

The new USB 3.0 is faster still, up to 5 Gigabits per second
which equates to 625 Megabytes per second
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

You're quoting the speed for the old USB 1.1.

The ubiquitous USB 2.0 can top out at 480 Mbs (megabits per second)
which equates to 60 MBs (Megabytes per second)

The new USB 3.0 is faster still, up to 5 Gigabits per second
which equates to 625 Megabytes per second

And neither of those are sustained. Those are burst speeds. And I've personally never gotten anywhere near "burst speed" from ANY USB port on ANY computer I've ever touched. FireWire, with all its shortcomings, was at least sustained.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #58 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:30pm
I see 11ac to help other products. Is this important for apple's forthcoming TV? How about iPad3? Both will need very high data data feed rates. . . .

So will this come out with (11ac) come out with iPad3? or will it come out with the new TV's?

Mike
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by berman View Post

I see 11ac to help other products. Is this important for apple's forthcoming TV? How about iPad3? Both will need very high data data feed rates. . . .

So will this come out with (11ac) come out with iPad3? or will it come out with the new TV's?

Welcome to the forum, Mike. They have to introduce it in a product at the same time they update their routers otherwise it makes no sense. Typically the more mobile the device is the farther down the list the newer WiFi standards will come. I don't think the iPhone or Touch even support 5GHz 802.11a/n yet, only 2.4Ghz 802.11b/g/n. I also don't think the iPad, iPhone or Touch support MIMO, and if they do it surely isn't the 450Mbps (MCS Index: 23, 3x spatial streams, 64-QAM, 40MHz channel, 40 ns GI) speeds. The AppleTV could get it, but I don't think it yet even has the capablities of MBPs's WiFi. For those reasons I would expect new MBPs to be updated with them when the Airport products are ready -or- new MBPs to be released with new HW in them in the routers aren't ready and then the driver update sold on the Mac App Store for a nominal price when the routers are released.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #60 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:50pm
802.11ac is going to have even more of an impact in mobile devices.

Right now the iPhone supports 11n but not at 5Ghz. Having 3 antenna in a mobile
device isn't going to jive with good battery life so the odds of getting 450mbps Wifi in a
phone/tablet aren't really in the cards.

Enter 11ac. It will allow for 5Ghz access and speeds of 433 Mbps with one antenna. It actually may save battery life by completing transfers faster and getting off of 2.4Ghz congested frequencies.

If I have to rebuy my time capsule ...so be it. 802.11ac with 8 antenna may just obviate the need to run structured wire (Cat5) in a home to get decent performance.

Do it before your neighbors get onboard and congest up the 5Ghz + frequencies lol.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 of 122
1/21/12 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

802.11ac is going to have even more of an impact in mobile devices.

Right now the iPhone supports 11n but not at 5Ghz. Having 3 antenna in a mobile
device isn't going to jive with good battery life so the odds of getting 450mbps Wifi in a
phone/tablet aren't really in the cards.

Enter 11ac. It will allow for 5Ghz access and speeds of 433 Mbps with one antenna. It actually may save battery life by completing transfers faster and getting off of 2.4Ghz congested frequencies.

If I have to rebuy my time capsule ...so be it. 802.11ac with 8 antenna may just obviate the need to run structured wire (Cat5) in a home to get decent performance.

Do it before your neighbors get onboard and congest up the 5Ghz + frequencies lol.

Excellent points about the spatial streams but I have to think that 802.11ac and 5GHz have power and size constraints that will make them a no go for a couple years once the new Airport routers are available. I hope I'm wrong.

edit: From Wikipedia, "All rates assume 256-QAM". I wonder how that affects power use compared to the 16-QAM(?) used by the iPhone.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #62 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

And Thunderbolt currently runs at 10 gigabits per second. This goes to show that ... Thunderbolt is nowhere near ready to ... run at hundreds or even thousands of gigabits per second in order to support the full bandwidth of a Mac Pro

and no consumer wireless technology is nowhere near running near a 10 gigabits per second speed to overwhelm Thunderbolt.

It's an article about WiFi and networking, not expandable Mac towers.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

and no consumer wireless technology is nowhere near running near a 10 gigabits per second speed to overwhelm Thunderbolt.

It's an article about WiFi and networking, not expandable Mac towers.

1) We need to remember that TB is 10Gbps in each direction.

2) The high end theoretical speeds of 802.11ac are years away. It wasn't until 2011(?) that MBPs got the option for 450Mbps 802.11n and I haven't seen any consumer routers or devices that support the 4x spatial streams that would allow the 600Mbps(MCS Index:31) ceiling.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #64 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

What do you plan on doing on that tiny phone that necessitates gigabit speeds of bandwidth?

Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?
It's a world full of people
Reply
It's a world full of people
Reply
post #65 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] making Apple's inclusion on the iBook a forward-looking innovation. It also made the iBook the first mainstream computer sold with integrated WiFi.

apple is usually ahead of the curve ... i haven't exactly checked release dates and the like, but my macs always seemed to have things i needed and used before my friends' windows machines ... integrated audio, integrated scsi, and integrated ethernet were things that i always was able to take for granted.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post

apple is usually ahead of the curve ... i haven't exactly checked release dates and the like, but my macs always seemed to have things i needed and used before my friends' windows machines ... integrated audio, integrated scsi, and integrated ethernet were things that i always was able to take for granted.

Indeed. The only thing I can remember them being behind on was (either… I can't actually remember…) writable CDs or writable DVDs. Of course, that was back when optical media still mattered.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #67 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?

The sustained write speeds of the on-baord NAND is only about 20Mbps. Unfortunately it can't benefit the way SSDs can with 6Gbps SATA III connections and a modern controller. Hopefully Apple will be able to speed up NAND sooner rather than later but even we project 2x or 4x speed increases we're still much lower than the storage which makes putting larger, more power hungry chips in these devices fairly pointless past what he can deal with for streaming downloads.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #68 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

As great as WiFi is, if you want speed, you have to go wired. And it doesn't help that the MacBook Air Ethernet adapter is limited to USB 2.0 speeds, which is maybe 30MB/s in the best case scenario. Hopefully we'll get something better.

Thunderbolt? Shouldn't be a problem soon enough.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 122
1/21/12 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mguy View Post

That's why you want to connect to a display/dock that has thunderbolt - gigabit ethernet!

Oops, you beat me to it.
http://www.thunderbolt-peripherals.c...erbolt-adapter
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 122
1/21/12 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm not saying it couldn't be better but I still like living here more than any other country and apparently so does anyone else in the world who can figure out a way to live here.

I'm pretty sure that there are more people than the population of the US that would strongly disagree with your very obnoxious statement about "Anyone else in the world". there are several reasons why I wouldn't want to raise my kids in the US even though it would be relatively easy for me to come and live there. Canada for example is much more desirable from my point of view.

Regs, Jarkko
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 122
1/21/12 at 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Unless you have a 55 inch tv and sit too close, nobody can tell the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Completely and utterly wrong. Again.


You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).

Cheers
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 122
1/22/12 at 12:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Most of the advanced countries that boast about their really fast Internet are about the size and population of New Jersey. The US is a huge place and upgrades come a little more slowly as the major carriers try to roll out the upgrades in many metropolitan areas simultaneously. Since all new utility installations in the US have to be underground it does represent a large investment to dig up all the streets to lay fiber optics. Our Internet may be slow in many suburban neighborhoods but in the commercial areas it is as fast as anywhere in the world. At my office I now have synchronous 100mb/s pure fiber to my datacenter where I have even higher speed. At home about 10 down and 5 up.

Those are just very bad excuses. Countries with harsher climates, just as strict or stricter cabling rules, lower population density and lower GDP offer cheaper and faster internet for a wider portion of their population.

Everyone can understand if they can't provide in the foothills of the appalacias, but in the suburbs of major cities, where the income levels and population densities are high? Give me a break.

You are just being purposefully misled by your cartels. And you've bought their excuses hook line and sinker.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 122
1/22/12 at 12:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

My iPhone 4 doesn't even use both frequencies of Wi-Fi N so I won't hold my breath waiting for Apple to support multiple antennas in future iPhones.

Can you please give me a single situation where N speeds would be a bottleneck? I'm serious. N can handle 1080P videos in it's sleep. You do routinely transfer gigabytes of data to and from your phone on your home network? Sure, faster is better, but I have trouble imagining a situation where people feel limited by their wifi speeds on their damn phones.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 122
1/22/12 at 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

Verizon runs an ugly semi rigid black pipe (trees help) from pole to pole, then a fiber optic "wire" to a plastic box attached to the house. At that point on the house it is converted to cable and distributed to another central point (basement or garage with backup battery for telephone) and then to the rooms of the dwelling.

Yep. I watched them install fiber optic into my garage, which then hooked into my phone system for speedy DSL. The fiber optic cable is tiny, like a strand of hair, but then they bolt this plastic box onto the wall the size of a suitcase. It's virtually empty other than the hair-size optic cable and a few other connections.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 122
1/22/12 at 12:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

edit: From Wikipedia, "All rates assume 256-QAM". I wonder how that affects power use compared to the 16-QAM(?) used by the iPhone.

Whoa! i've done s lot of tests with wcdma at 64QAM and that requires very good radio conditions due to the close distance of the different detection points in the constellation diagram to achieve any benefit against 16 QAM. With 256 QAM it is much more difficult. This means that thos maximum speeds will probably be even more of a dream than in HSPA! Especially with single antenna devices.

It will be quite a feat to design a small device with enough spatial separation between antennas to benefit from MIMO at anythin more than two streams. I would therefore assume that macbooks would be first, with pads next. Phones may have to wait for years. Heck how many phones today suppirt even 2x2 MIMO in WCDMA or LTE? Those specs have heen out for several years already.

Refs, jarkko
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 122
1/22/12 at 1:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?

Yup. In fact, I think it is more important for the phone than anything else. With wireless syncing, people rarely connect their phones to their computers, so their phones rarely get fully backed up (or if they do, the backup takes a long time...). Faster WiFi speeds should solve this.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 122
1/22/12 at 1:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by air2air View Post

You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).

Cheers

Actually you are wrong. The best place to sit is based on a personal preference and technically your eye sight quality
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 122
1/22/12 at 2:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Indeed. The only thing I can remember them being behind on was (either I can't actually remember) writable CDs or writable DVDs. Of course, that was back when optical media still mattered.

I believe it was the iMac. Steve wanted a slot loading CD player, but one of his techs said that a tray loader was better, as the upcoming CD-Rs were tray loaders. Steve, of course ruled the day. That was a rare instance SJ got it wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 122
1/22/12 at 2:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Actually you are wrong. The best place to sit is based on a personal preference and technically your eye sight quality

You are such a story teller jfanning

Have a look and you can find yourself much more:

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads...ance_chart.pdf

http://gizmodo.com/5280355/guess-wha...ut-theres-hope

http://s3.carltonbale.com/distance_chart.html

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 122
1/22/12 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by air2air View Post

You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).

Cheers

Yes, there are always 'rules' that the 'purists' put out and expect people to follow. In reality, everyone is different and has different goals. I have a 55" TV that I watch from about 12 feet - and I enjoy it just the way it is. Moving forward to about 9 feet would make me feel claustrophobic. And for all the people who brag about how great 1080p is and how easy it is to see the difference, I say that you should be watching movies that make you more excited about the movie than about the number of pixels on the screen. The difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is quite small - even on my 55" set and even if I sit closer. Can I see a difference? Sure. But Avatar is every bit as enjoyable on DVD as on Blu-Ray. Content is more important than specs.

It's really no different than the home audio stuff that used to be the big bragging rights thing. Could you actually hear the difference between a $1000 cable and a $20 cable? Maybe. Barely. Under precisely controlled conditions. Is it something that mattered in the real world? Not a bit.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple working to adopt 802.11ac 5G Gigabit WiFi this year