Query failed: connection to localhost:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused). "Super G" - macOS Discussions on AppleInsider Forums Toggle navigation All Forums Recent Posts Sign In "Super G" aquatic Posted: July 6, 2004 11:10PM in macOS edited January 2014 Will Airport support "Super G" which lets you combine two of the 11 channels to have double the bandwidth? Comments Reply 1 of 8 ipodandimac Posts: 3,273member July 7, 2004 8:43AM Quote:Originally posted by Aquatic Will Airport support "Super G" which lets you combine two of the 11 channels to have double the bandwidth? i was wondering this too. of course all of those sh***y PC manufacturers are jumping on this, but I think it's one of those deals where it looks good on paper but doesnt add any real speed to the network. Reply 2 of 8 mac write Posts: 289member July 7, 2004 8:14PM TSS did a segment on this awhile back. www.thescreensavers.com basicly it sucks and is not worth it. Reply 3 of 8 eugene Posts: 8,254member July 7, 2004 9:41PM Apple won't support Super-G because it's an Atheros feature only. Apple uses Broadcom, which has its own proprietary speed-up technology called Afterburner, that Apple has yet to take advantage of. They should.Afterburner does not use more than one channel, so it's a good radio citizen.Linksys' Speedbooster line uses Afterburner. So does Buffalo's AirStation 125 product line. Reply 4 of 8 imergingenious Posts: 252member July 8, 2004 8:59PM but does it remain backward compatible? Reply 5 of 8 greggwsmith Posts: 523member July 8, 2004 10:11PM My wife calls me "Super G"!!! Reply 6 of 8 aquatic Posts: 5,602member July 8, 2004 10:11PM Apparently it does according to material I just read. That's pretty slick! Speeds up .g and .b. I wonder why they don't use it. Reply 7 of 8 wmf Posts: 1,164member July 13, 2004 12:16AM If Apple starts using proprietary turbo modes, they would be effectively locked in to Broadcom. But if they stick with the standard, they can switch chipsets whenever they want. (e.g. AirPort used the Lucent chipset and AirPort Extreme uses Broadcom.) Reply 8 of 8 gon Posts: 2,437member July 13, 2004 5:08AM I don't find it urgent to add wireless speed.At least for me 802.11g has been plenty fast. The only way it could theoretically be the bottleneck is when I want to transfer large files in my university network. I understand that the "real speed" of 802.11g is about 20+ Mbps while the 100Mb wired connection would be capable of 70+ Mbps, but in practice I just don't feel a difference between the two. I did notice a difference between 10Mb and 100Mb network cards, for instance.Best to wait till 802.11n comes (when's that anyway?). I bet 95% of the people will not notice the difference, since their Internet connection is the bottleneck and will remain so. Sign In or Register to comment.