"Super G"

in macOS edited January 2014
Will Airport support "Super G" which lets you combine two of the 11 channels to have double the bandwidth?


  • Reply 1 of 8
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member

    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 writemac write Posts: 289member
    TSS did a segment on this awhile back. www.thescreensavers.com basicly it sucks and is not worth it.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    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
    but does it remain backward compatible?
  • Reply 5 of 8
    My wife calls me "Super G"!!!
  • Reply 6 of 8
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    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
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    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
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    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.