Perhaps after this product comes out the full-featured Apple VideOla!(TM) home entertainment center will roll out in force. Tremble and weep, consumers. You'll be buying so many movie downloads your fingers will bleed.
802.11g is much faster than any cable modem or ADSL line - you would have to be transferring large files between computers in order to notice the slowdown I think.
Or do remote administration. I sometimes back up over the network. Printing over a wired network might be quicker. I keep my desktops wired, but my notebooks wireless unless transferring large files, then easily it's worth jacking in, even "just" to a 100 network, I get a 5x or so speed increase doing that.
Sometimes I also run one program from another machine. with 1Gb/s it can seem as though you are at the original machine. quite amazing really.
i will be purchasing a macbook soon and i also want to invest in a wireless network for my house. apple has the easiest and apparently best network for what i would like to do, which is just cover one or two rooms with wi-fi. should i purchase the base station now, or wait until the the new standard is released. oh, i do have a budget too. any advice would help. thanks.
i will be purchasing a macbook soon and i also want to invest in a wireless network for my house. apple has the easiest and apparently best network for what i would like to do, which is just cover one or two rooms with wi-fi. should i purchase the base station now, or wait until the the new standard is released. oh, i do have a budget too. any advice would help. thanks.
Your MacBook will never support 802.11n, so there's no point in waiting for an 802.11n base station. AirPort Express is cheap; buy it.
Because to use 802.11n, it would require a different wireless chipset. The one it has now only supports a/b/g.
Melgross: There are no wireless connections that I'm aware of that support more than around 50-60 Mbs at this time. And no, the MBP doens't support it because it hasn't been released. The only new addition to its wireless connection was 802.11a.
Because to use 802.11n, it would require a different wireless chipset. The one it has now only supports a/b/g.
Melgross: There are no wireless connections that I'm aware of that support more than around 50-60 Mbs at this time. And no, the MBP doens't support it because it hasn't been released. The only new addition to its wireless connection was 802.11a.
Because to use 802.11n, it would require a different wireless chipset. The one it has now only supports a/b/g.
Melgross: There are no wireless connections that I'm aware of that support more than around 50-60 Mbs at this time. And no, the MBP doens't support it because it hasn't been released. The only new addition to its wireless connection was 802.11a.
That's not true. 108 is a pretty well used speed. What the routers do it to use two channels and agglomerate them for higher bandwidth. Up to now, at least, Apple has been the only one who has NOT done this. Look at Best buy, Circuit City, Comp Usa, and you will find many of these routers for sale for around $60 to $100.
Check out the reports on this page, though you will have to scroll down about a third of the way to get to them.
That's not true. 108 is a pretty well used speed. What the routers do it to use two channels and agglomerate them for higher bandwidth. Up to now, at least, Apple has been the only one who has NOT done this. Look at Best buy, Circuit City, Comp Usa, and you will find many of these routers for sale for around $60 to $100.
Check out the reports on this page, though you will have to scroll down about a third of the way to get to them.
Isn't this pig-headedness to use two channels like that? For b/g, there are only three effective non-overlapping channels and for one network to simply use two thirds of the available band is tactless. "n" supposedly allows interleaving so several networks can share the same band, but the older standards don't.
Isn't this pig-headedness to use two channels like that? For b/g, there are only three effective non-overlapping channels and for one network to simply use two thirds of the available band is tactless. "n" supposedly allows interleaving so several networks can share the same band, but the older standards don't.
No, it's not. It makes perfect sense. The same thing is done for ethernet.
The fact is that you don't get 54Mbs, you get closer to 20 to 30. That just isn't fast these days. It can't even come close to 100Mbs ethernet, much less 1Gbs.
No, it's not. It makes perfect sense. The same thing is done for ethernet.
The fact is that you don't get 54Mbs, you get closer to 20 to 30. That just isn't fast these days. It can't even come close to 100Mbs ethernet, much less 1Gbs.
Using 108 makes the speed more acceptable.
Wired ethernet doesn't usurp the available public RF bandwidth. I am well aware that you don't get more than 20MBps out of a single g link, but that's not an excuse to use two thirds of the local available spectrum, if this is what is really happening. It just ends up being the fat guy that sits in two of three available public seats.
Wired ethernet doesn't usurp the available public RF bandwidth. I am well aware that you don't get more than 20MBps out of a single g link, but that's not an excuse to use two thirds of the local available spectrum, if this is what is really happening. It just ends up being the fat guy that sits in two of three available public seats.
WiFi is a very limited area network. There will rarely be a problem. Besides there aren't three channels. I believe that the old 11Mbs version used three channels. 54 uses at least five.
Comments
Anyone remember the first unit to ship with AirPort Extreme? I don't think it was an iBook though, so that sorta blows a hole in my theory.
Originally posted by e1618978
802.11g is much faster than any cable modem or ADSL line - you would have to be transferring large files between computers in order to notice the slowdown I think.
Exactly!
Originally posted by JeffDM
Or do remote administration. I sometimes back up over the network. Printing over a wired network might be quicker. I keep my desktops wired, but my notebooks wireless unless transferring large files, then easily it's worth jacking in, even "just" to a 100 network, I get a 5x or so speed increase doing that.
Sometimes I also run one program from another machine. with 1Gb/s it can seem as though you are at the original machine. quite amazing really.
Originally posted by groverat
Why not just release routers with an a/b/g chipset and an n chipset?
The n chipsets also support a/b/g, so everything is nicely backwards compatible.
Originally posted by maimezvous
i will be purchasing a macbook soon and i also want to invest in a wireless network for my house. apple has the easiest and apparently best network for what i would like to do, which is just cover one or two rooms with wi-fi. should i purchase the base station now, or wait until the the new standard is released. oh, i do have a budget too. any advice would help. thanks.
Your MacBook will never support 802.11n, so there's no point in waiting for an 802.11n base station. AirPort Express is cheap; buy it.
Originally posted by wmf
Your MacBook will never support 802.11n, so there's no point in waiting for an 802.11n base station. AirPort Express is cheap; buy it.
Why will it never support it?
Originally posted by wmf
Your MacBook will never support 802.11n, so there's no point in waiting for an 802.11n base station. AirPort Express is cheap; buy it.
Doesn't the MBP support it? I'm not sure what they have, but they do, at least, support 108Mb/s.
That was an unannounced feature, but several reports surfaced on http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ stating it worked.
Perhaps the MB does as well.
Originally posted by alexluft
Why will it never support it?
Because to use 802.11n, it would require a different wireless chipset. The one it has now only supports a/b/g.
Melgross: There are no wireless connections that I'm aware of that support more than around 50-60 Mbs at this time. And no, the MBP doens't support it because it hasn't been released. The only new addition to its wireless connection was 802.11a.
Originally posted by Lust
Because to use 802.11n, it would require a different wireless chipset. The one it has now only supports a/b/g.
Melgross: There are no wireless connections that I'm aware of that support more than around 50-60 Mbs at this time. And no, the MBP doens't support it because it hasn't been released. The only new addition to its wireless connection was 802.11a.
He can always get a USB N adapter
Originally posted by alexluft
He can always get a USB N adapter
I was speaking in terms of the hardware that he already has.
Originally posted by Lust
Because to use 802.11n, it would require a different wireless chipset. The one it has now only supports a/b/g.
Melgross: There are no wireless connections that I'm aware of that support more than around 50-60 Mbs at this time. And no, the MBP doens't support it because it hasn't been released. The only new addition to its wireless connection was 802.11a.
That's not true. 108 is a pretty well used speed. What the routers do it to use two channels and agglomerate them for higher bandwidth. Up to now, at least, Apple has been the only one who has NOT done this. Look at Best buy, Circuit City, Comp Usa, and you will find many of these routers for sale for around $60 to $100.
Check out the reports on this page, though you will have to scroll down about a third of the way to get to them.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/m....html#storytop
It's been reported elsewhere as well.
Originally posted by melgross
That's not true. 108 is a pretty well used speed. What the routers do it to use two channels and agglomerate them for higher bandwidth. Up to now, at least, Apple has been the only one who has NOT done this. Look at Best buy, Circuit City, Comp Usa, and you will find many of these routers for sale for around $60 to $100.
Check out the reports on this page, though you will have to scroll down about a third of the way to get to them.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/m....html#storytop
It's been reported elsewhere as well.
Isn't this pig-headedness to use two channels like that? For b/g, there are only three effective non-overlapping channels and for one network to simply use two thirds of the available band is tactless. "n" supposedly allows interleaving so several networks can share the same band, but the older standards don't.
Originally posted by hmurchison
If Apple is using mini-pci for their wireless cards then they could indeed offer an upgrade. The thing is would they?
Come on, this is Apple we're talking about. Also, I think you need three antennas to really take advantage of 802.11n.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Isn't this pig-headedness to use two channels like that? For b/g, there are only three effective non-overlapping channels and for one network to simply use two thirds of the available band is tactless. "n" supposedly allows interleaving so several networks can share the same band, but the older standards don't.
No, it's not. It makes perfect sense. The same thing is done for ethernet.
The fact is that you don't get 54Mbs, you get closer to 20 to 30. That just isn't fast these days. It can't even come close to 100Mbs ethernet, much less 1Gbs.
Using 108 makes the speed more acceptable.
Originally posted by melgross
No, it's not. It makes perfect sense. The same thing is done for ethernet.
The fact is that you don't get 54Mbs, you get closer to 20 to 30. That just isn't fast these days. It can't even come close to 100Mbs ethernet, much less 1Gbs.
Using 108 makes the speed more acceptable.
Wired ethernet doesn't usurp the available public RF bandwidth. I am well aware that you don't get more than 20MBps out of a single g link, but that's not an excuse to use two thirds of the local available spectrum, if this is what is really happening. It just ends up being the fat guy that sits in two of three available public seats.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Wired ethernet doesn't usurp the available public RF bandwidth. I am well aware that you don't get more than 20MBps out of a single g link, but that's not an excuse to use two thirds of the local available spectrum, if this is what is really happening. It just ends up being the fat guy that sits in two of three available public seats.
WiFi is a very limited area network. There will rarely be a problem. Besides there aren't three channels. I believe that the old 11Mbs version used three channels. 54 uses at least five.