Honestly I don't know how that works. I just read that's how its supposed to work.
There's no logic to that at all. How can a system perform at 10x it's design speed?
---
I believe that a 11g system will continue to serve all 11g clients at 11g speeds even if a 11b client comes along and joins in. The 11b client just gets 11b speeds on the system. This is unlike when on a 10/100Base-T hub the whole system would be dragged down by a 10BaseT client. I'd guess 11n would work the same.
---
Since my TiBook's Superdrive failed I've tried streaming a PAL DVD from the iMac G4 (Airport Extreme) downstairs up to the bedroom to the TiBook with Airport. It loads the DVD Menu fine but stalls every few seconds when actually playing video. So that's at just 11Mbps. I'd have though 11g would therefore support PAL/NTSC video streaming easily with 11n probably being required for HD video streaming (for those future Macs with Blu-Ray drives).
There's no logic to that at all. How can a system perform at 10x it's design speed?
I don't know it could be false, I'm just going by what's being reported. It has been widely reported that the range and performance of a and g improve on an n network.
Here is a story from The Register saying the same thing.
802.11n, which boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps,
I don't know it could be false, I'm just going by what's being reported. It has been widely reported that the range and performance of a and g improve on an n network.
Here is a story from The Register saying the same thing.
802.11n, which boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps,
How did I miss read it? It says clear as day. ...802.11n boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps....Granted it may not be true but that's what it says.
We're not going to be dicks and call you a dumba$$ but you've just made slight brain-slip. We'll explain over the next few posts.
Let's start with no. 1 - The statement is not false.
802.11n boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
Granted it may not be true but that's what it says.
It's like one of those images that can be seen two different ways: only right now you're seeing one of them.
802.11n is the successor to 802.11g. Thus when it boosts 802.11g's speed, it isn't boosting the speed of existing hardware, it's taking the principles of 11g and taking them further.
Consider the similar but clearer phrase "H.264 gives a boost to video compression." It doesn't mean that H.264 boosts the compression of every previous codec, it just says that H.264 itself is a better codec.
The phrase is vague and it's true that it can be interpreted the way you read it, although the physical impossibility of your interpretation rules it out.
802.11n, which boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps, isn't now expected to be ratified as a standard until 2008. That said, the Wi-Fi Alliance has said it will begin certifying 802.11n product interoperability in March 2007, even though it normally shies away from kit based on draft, pre-standard versions of Wi-Fi. Presumably it senses pent up demand for the next-generation wireless technology.
That may well be why Apple's getting in early, equipping new machines with the faster technology in preparation for turning it on with a firmware update once its kit gets the Wi-Fi Alliance's thumbs up or it decides to unveil 'AirPort Extreme 2' in its own good time.
It's like one of those images that can be seen two different ways: only right now you're seeing one of them.
802.11n is the successor to 802.11g. Thus when it boosts 802.11g's speed, it isn't boosting the speed of existing hardware, it's taking the principles of 11g and taking them further.
Consider the similar but clearer phrase "H.264 gives a boost to video compression." It doesn't mean that H.264 boosts the compression of every previous codec, it just says that H.264 itself is a better codec.
The phrase is vague and it's true that it can be interpreted the way you read it, although the physical impossibility of your interpretation rules it out.
What you wrote is not analogous to what the Register wrote.
802.11n, which boosts WiFi's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
That would be the same as what you wrote.
802.11g is not WiFi, it is a specific WiFi protocol.
H.264 improves MPEG2 video compression.
The same as MPEG 2 is not video compression as whole. This statement directly speaks to MPEG2 the same way that Register article speaks directly to 802.11g.
What you wrote is not analogous to what the Register wrote.
802.11n, which boosts WiFi's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
That would be the same as what you wrote.
802.11g is not WiFi, it is a specific WiFi protocol.
H.264 improves MPEG2 video compression.
The same as MPEG 2 is not video compression as whole. This statement directly speaks to MPEG2 the same way that Register article speaks directly to 802.11g.
The local Apple Store did not have any Airport Extreme Base Stations to sell. They've been returned so that a new base station - 802.11n?, could be sold instead. The new base station is scheduled for sometime this month.
Good catch. AirPort Extreme Base Station (with modem and antenna port) Price: $199.00 Estimated Ship: 5-7 weeks on Apple Online Store. Upgrade to 802.11 preN should be imminent. Next week or week after? Hmm... They'll probably go with the draft standard Linksys and Dlink have gone with, while having enough in place to update the firmware as the pre-N standards are ratified to 802.11N.
802.11n does not increase 802.11g to 540Mbps. At best it increases range and allows you to hit 54Mbps. At worst it's much slower. I also don't believe that you can bond G channels like the current super G implementations.
It doesn't currently play well with adjacent G networks so if you suddenly notice real bad performance on your G network, your neighbor probably bought a pre-N router. Stay away from Ch 6.
802.11n does not increase 802.11g to 540Mbps. At best it increases range and allows you to hit 54Mbps. At worst it's much slower. I also don't believe that you can bond G channels like the current super G implementations.
But if I have all 802.11pre-N gear (wireless cards and routers) then the range should be much better than G and I should have a throughput of at least say, 400Mbps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It doesn't currently play well with adjacent G networks so if you suddenly notice real bad performance on your G network, your neighbor probably bought a pre-N router. Stay away from Ch 6.
Interesting. Channel 6 is the new Channel 11, huh?
But if I have all 802.11pre-N gear (wireless cards and routers) then the range should be much better than G and I should have a throughput of at least say, 400Mbps?
For current gear on the market the measured rates are 86-101Mbps.
Somewhere on that site is throughput when you have unmatched pairs and what happens to G gear on those networks as well as video streaming. Seems like Apple is about as likely to get good performance on A as pre-N.
Somewhere on that site is throughput when you have unmatched pairs and what happens to G gear on those networks as well as video streaming. Seems like Apple is about as likely to get good performance on A as pre-N.
Vinea
Cheers, that's a good link. The test method is very interesting and I think a much better way to test speeds over distances.
Yeah, looks like firstly, we are looking at 80-100Mbps throughput far below the claimed max 540mbps.
Secondly, the range dropoff is really drastic compared to 802.11g:
802.11g still kicks along even if further away while 802.11n drops off bad except for one of them which drops to but kinda maintains below-802.11g speeds...
802.11g is still sucky in and of itself. Yesterday I had my iBook G4 and a MSI-PC-card Toshiba transferring files via local FTP server going through a 802.11g router. Was getting the AWESOME speed of 3Mbps on the internal wireless network.
Still, 80Mbps is 10megabytes/sec which is nothing to sneeze at. The range dropoff is worrying but let's say a 44minute XVID of 360megabytes, that clocks in at 36seconds to transfer that file.
Looks like for 802.11n it's a real possibility for Apple implementing it to have the headroom to do the AirMovies streaming and stuff, even if it is crappy at first, it doesn't really matter because Apple has to look at existing 802.11g Macs being able to use iTV and stuff.
I just hope 802.11 final-N gets its act cleaned up so we can have strong throughput over good range, without causing brain cancer to everyone in the house/office.
Comments
Honestly I don't know how that works. I just read that's how its supposed to work.
There's no logic to that at all. How can a system perform at 10x it's design speed?
---
I believe that a 11g system will continue to serve all 11g clients at 11g speeds even if a 11b client comes along and joins in. The 11b client just gets 11b speeds on the system. This is unlike when on a 10/100Base-T hub the whole system would be dragged down by a 10BaseT client. I'd guess 11n would work the same.
---
Since my TiBook's Superdrive failed I've tried streaming a PAL DVD from the iMac G4 (Airport Extreme) downstairs up to the bedroom to the TiBook with Airport. It loads the DVD Menu fine but stalls every few seconds when actually playing video. So that's at just 11Mbps. I'd have though 11g would therefore support PAL/NTSC video streaming easily with 11n probably being required for HD video streaming (for those future Macs with Blu-Ray drives).
Honestly I don't know how that works. I just read that's how its supposed to work.
The opposite happens. If an 11b or 11g peer joins the 11n network, the entire network has to slow down tremendously for that peer.
There's no logic to that at all. How can a system perform at 10x it's design speed?
I don't know it could be false, I'm just going by what's being reported. It has been widely reported that the range and performance of a and g improve on an n network.
Here is a story from The Register saying the same thing.
802.11n, which boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps,
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09..._imac_802-11n/
The opposite happens. If an 11b or 11g peer joins the 11n network, the entire network has to slow down tremendously for that peer.
From everything I've read the intention is for a or b to run on an n network with improved range and speed.
I don't know it could be false, I'm just going by what's being reported. It has been widely reported that the range and performance of a and g improve on an n network.
Here is a story from The Register saying the same thing.
802.11n, which boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps,
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09..._imac_802-11n/
From everything I've read the intention is for a or b to run on an n network with improved range and speed.
Holy shit, that's just too funny.
They mean that 802.11n's maximum speed is 540 Mbps, compared to 11g's which is 54 Mbps.
You just completely misread that.
802.11n boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
Granted it may not be true but that's what it says.
How did I miss read it? It says clear as day. ...802.11n boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps....Granted it may not be true but that's what it says.
Let's start with no. 1 - The statement is not false.
How did I miss read it? It says clear as day.
802.11n boosts 802.11g's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
Granted it may not be true but that's what it says.
It's like one of those images that can be seen two different ways: only right now you're seeing one of them.
802.11n is the successor to 802.11g. Thus when it boosts 802.11g's speed, it isn't boosting the speed of existing hardware, it's taking the principles of 11g and taking them further.
Consider the similar but clearer phrase "H.264 gives a boost to video compression." It doesn't mean that H.264 boosts the compression of every previous codec, it just says that H.264 itself is a better codec.
The phrase is vague and it's true that it can be interpreted the way you read it, although the physical impossibility of your interpretation rules it out.
That may well be why Apple's getting in early, equipping new machines with the faster technology in preparation for turning it on with a firmware update once its kit gets the Wi-Fi Alliance's thumbs up or it decides to unveil 'AirPort Extreme 2' in its own good time.
It's like one of those images that can be seen two different ways: only right now you're seeing one of them.
802.11n is the successor to 802.11g. Thus when it boosts 802.11g's speed, it isn't boosting the speed of existing hardware, it's taking the principles of 11g and taking them further.
Consider the similar but clearer phrase "H.264 gives a boost to video compression." It doesn't mean that H.264 boosts the compression of every previous codec, it just says that H.264 itself is a better codec.
The phrase is vague and it's true that it can be interpreted the way you read it, although the physical impossibility of your interpretation rules it out.
What he said.
"H.264 gives a boost to video compression."
What you wrote is not analogous to what the Register wrote.
802.11n, which boosts WiFi's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
That would be the same as what you wrote.
802.11g is not WiFi, it is a specific WiFi protocol.
H.264 improves MPEG2 video compression.
The same as MPEG 2 is not video compression as whole. This statement directly speaks to MPEG2 the same way that Register article speaks directly to 802.11g.
What you wrote is not analogous to what the Register wrote.
802.11n, which boosts WiFi's raw maximum speed from 54Mbps to 540Mbps.
That would be the same as what you wrote.
802.11g is not WiFi, it is a specific WiFi protocol.
H.264 improves MPEG2 video compression.
The same as MPEG 2 is not video compression as whole. This statement directly speaks to MPEG2 the same way that Register article speaks directly to 802.11g.
I said similar, not analogous.
The local Apple Store did not have any Airport Extreme Base Stations to sell. They've been returned so that a new base station - 802.11n?, could be sold instead. The new base station is scheduled for sometime this month.
It doesn't currently play well with adjacent G networks so if you suddenly notice real bad performance on your G network, your neighbor probably bought a pre-N router. Stay away from Ch 6.
Vinea
802.11n does not increase 802.11g to 540Mbps. At best it increases range and allows you to hit 54Mbps. At worst it's much slower. I also don't believe that you can bond G channels like the current super G implementations.
But if I have all 802.11pre-N gear (wireless cards and routers) then the range should be much better than G and I should have a throughput of at least say, 400Mbps?
It doesn't currently play well with adjacent G networks so if you suddenly notice real bad performance on your G network, your neighbor probably bought a pre-N router. Stay away from Ch 6.
Interesting. Channel 6 is the new Channel 11, huh?
But if I have all 802.11pre-N gear (wireless cards and routers) then the range should be much better than G and I should have a throughput of at least say, 400Mbps?
For current gear on the market the measured rates are 86-101Mbps.
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2006/0...ase_throughput
Somewhere on that site is throughput when you have unmatched pairs and what happens to G gear on those networks as well as video streaming. Seems like Apple is about as likely to get good performance on A as pre-N.
Vinea
For current gear on the market the measured rates are 86-101Mbps.
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2006/0...ase_throughput
Somewhere on that site is throughput when you have unmatched pairs and what happens to G gear on those networks as well as video streaming. Seems like Apple is about as likely to get good performance on A as pre-N.
Vinea
Cheers, that's a good link. The test method is very interesting and I think a much better way to test speeds over distances.
Yeah, looks like firstly, we are looking at 80-100Mbps throughput far below the claimed max 540mbps.
Secondly, the range dropoff is really drastic compared to 802.11g:
802.11g still kicks along even if further away while 802.11n drops off bad except for one of them which drops to but kinda maintains below-802.11g speeds...
Still, 80Mbps is 10megabytes/sec which is nothing to sneeze at. The range dropoff is worrying but let's say a 44minute XVID of 360megabytes, that clocks in at 36seconds to transfer that file.
Looks like for 802.11n it's a real possibility for Apple implementing it to have the headroom to do the AirMovies streaming and stuff, even if it is crappy at first, it doesn't really matter because Apple has to look at existing 802.11g Macs being able to use iTV and stuff.
I just hope 802.11 final-N gets its act cleaned up so we can have strong throughput over good range, without causing brain cancer to everyone in the house/office.