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

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 124
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,735member
    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!
  • Reply 42 of 124
    mguymguy Posts: 5member
    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 43 of 124
    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 44 of 124
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    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 45 of 124
    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 46 of 124
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    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]
  • Reply 47 of 124
    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 48 of 124
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    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.
  • Reply 49 of 124
    citycity Posts: 522member
    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.
  • Reply 50 of 124
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,477member
    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 51 of 124
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    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.
  • Reply 52 of 124
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


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



    Thanks fixed
  • Reply 53 of 124
    citycity Posts: 522member
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 124
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,608member
    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 55 of 124
    chiachia Posts: 712member
    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 56 of 124
    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.
  • Reply 57 of 124
    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 58 of 124
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 59 of 124
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    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.

  • Reply 60 of 124
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.