And Thunderbolt currently runs at 10 gigabits per second. This goes to show that ... Thunderbolt is nowhere near ready to ... run at hundreds or even thousands of gigabits per second in order to support the full bandwidth of a Mac Pro
and no consumer wireless technology is nowhere near running near a 10 gigabits per second speed to overwhelm Thunderbolt.
It's an article about WiFi and networking, not expandable Mac towers.
and no consumer wireless technology is nowhere near running near a 10 gigabits per second speed to overwhelm Thunderbolt.
It's an article about WiFi and networking, not expandable Mac towers.
1) We need to remember that TB is 10Gbps in each direction.
2) The high end theoretical speeds of 802.11ac are years away. It wasn't until 2011(?) that MBPs got the option for 450Mbps 802.11n and I haven't seen any consumer routers or devices that support the 4x spatial streams that would allow the 600Mbps(MCS Index:31) ceiling.
[...] making Apple's inclusion on the iBook a forward-looking innovation. It also made the iBook the first mainstream computer sold with integrated WiFi.
apple is usually ahead of the curve ... i haven't exactly checked release dates and the like, but my macs always seemed to have things i needed and used before my friends' windows machines ... integrated audio, integrated scsi, and integrated ethernet were things that i always was able to take for granted.
apple is usually ahead of the curve ... i haven't exactly checked release dates and the like, but my macs always seemed to have things i needed and used before my friends' windows machines ... integrated audio, integrated scsi, and integrated ethernet were things that i always was able to take for granted.
Indeed. The only thing I can remember them being behind on was (either… I can't actually remember…) writable CDs or writable DVDs. Of course, that was back when optical media still mattered.
Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?
The sustained write speeds of the on-baord NAND is only about 20Mbps. Unfortunately it can't benefit the way SSDs can with 6Gbps SATA III connections and a modern controller. Hopefully Apple will be able to speed up NAND sooner rather than later but even we project 2x or 4x speed increases we're still much lower than the storage which makes putting larger, more power hungry chips in these devices fairly pointless past what he can deal with for streaming downloads.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure that there are more people than the population of the US that would strongly disagree with your very obnoxious statement about "Anyone else in the world". there are several reasons why I wouldn't want to raise my kids in the US even though it would be relatively easy for me to come and live there. Canada for example is much more desirable from my point of view.
Unless you have a 55 inch tv and sit too close, nobody can tell the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Completely and utterly wrong. Again.
You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).
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.
Those are just very bad excuses. Countries with harsher climates, just as strict or stricter cabling rules, lower population density and lower GDP offer cheaper and faster internet for a wider portion of their population.
Everyone can understand if they can't provide in the foothills of the appalacias, but in the suburbs of major cities, where the income levels and population densities are high? Give me a break.
You are just being purposefully misled by your cartels. And you've bought their excuses hook line and sinker.
My iPhone 4 doesn't even use both frequencies of Wi-Fi N so I won't hold my breath waiting for Apple to support multiple antennas in future iPhones.
Can you please give me a single situation where N speeds would be a bottleneck? I'm serious. N can handle 1080P videos in it's sleep. You do routinely transfer gigabytes of data to and from your phone on your home network? Sure, faster is better, but I have trouble imagining a situation where people feel limited by their wifi speeds on their damn phones.
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.
Yep. I watched them install fiber optic into my garage, which then hooked into my phone system for speedy DSL. The fiber optic cable is tiny, like a strand of hair, but then they bolt this plastic box onto the wall the size of a suitcase. It's virtually empty other than the hair-size optic cable and a few other connections.
edit: From Wikipedia, "All rates assume 256-QAM". I wonder how that affects power use compared to the 16-QAM(?) used by the iPhone.
Whoa! i've done s lot of tests with wcdma at 64QAM and that requires very good radio conditions due to the close distance of the different detection points in the constellation diagram to achieve any benefit against 16 QAM. With 256 QAM it is much more difficult. This means that thos maximum speeds will probably be even more of a dream than in HSPA! Especially with single antenna devices.
It will be quite a feat to design a small device with enough spatial separation between antennas to benefit from MIMO at anythin more than two streams. I would therefore assume that macbooks would be first, with pads next. Phones may have to wait for years. Heck how many phones today suppirt even 2x2 MIMO in WCDMA or LTE? Those specs have heen out for several years already.
Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?
Yup. In fact, I think it is more important for the phone than anything else. With wireless syncing, people rarely connect their phones to their computers, so their phones rarely get fully backed up (or if they do, the backup takes a long time...). Faster WiFi speeds should solve this.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).
Cheers
Actually you are wrong. The best place to sit is based on a personal preference and technically your eye sight quality
Indeed. The only thing I can remember them being behind on was (either? I can't actually remember?) writable CDs or writable DVDs. Of course, that was back when optical media still mattered.
I believe it was the iMac. Steve wanted a slot loading CD player, but one of his techs said that a tray loader was better, as the upcoming CD-Rs were tray loaders. Steve, of course ruled the day. That was a rare instance SJ got it wrong.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).
Cheers
Yes, there are always 'rules' that the 'purists' put out and expect people to follow. In reality, everyone is different and has different goals. I have a 55" TV that I watch from about 12 feet - and I enjoy it just the way it is. Moving forward to about 9 feet would make me feel claustrophobic. And for all the people who brag about how great 1080p is and how easy it is to see the difference, I say that you should be watching movies that make you more excited about the movie than about the number of pixels on the screen. The difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is quite small - even on my 55" set and even if I sit closer. Can I see a difference? Sure. But Avatar is every bit as enjoyable on DVD as on Blu-Ray. Content is more important than specs.
It's really no different than the home audio stuff that used to be the big bragging rights thing. Could you actually hear the difference between a $1000 cable and a $20 cable? Maybe. Barely. Under precisely controlled conditions. Is it something that mattered in the real world? Not a bit.
Yes.. I just bought my Airport Extreme this January too.. (I'm happy with the router)
Am I A fool for doing so?
I thought internet speed depends on the cable provider, not the actual device..
am I wrong here..?
I don't know jack about what Extreme can do, I'm just happy it 'just worked' and I don't have to deal with any technical difficulty.
My cable provider has speeds upto 20MB........ my 2 year old Time Capsule cannpt get close to those speeds in the wireless connection it provides. It is wireless "n" but now when the new standard comes out with the new products you still will be limited by what your laptop, ipad, imac can connect. If they still have a wireless G or N card installed then that is the speed they will connect at....no matter what the router is capable of producing. So along with the router being able to connect at the new speeds you will have to upgrade all of your other devices to get the increase in speeds.
Comments
And Thunderbolt currently runs at 10 gigabits per second. This goes to show that ... Thunderbolt is nowhere near ready to ... run at hundreds or even thousands of gigabits per second in order to support the full bandwidth of a Mac Pro
and no consumer wireless technology is nowhere near running near a 10 gigabits per second speed to overwhelm Thunderbolt.
It's an article about WiFi and networking, not expandable Mac towers.
and no consumer wireless technology is nowhere near running near a 10 gigabits per second speed to overwhelm Thunderbolt.
It's an article about WiFi and networking, not expandable Mac towers.
1) We need to remember that TB is 10Gbps in each direction.
2) The high end theoretical speeds of 802.11ac are years away. It wasn't until 2011(?) that MBPs got the option for 450Mbps 802.11n and I haven't seen any consumer routers or devices that support the 4x spatial streams that would allow the 600Mbps(MCS Index:31) ceiling.
What do you plan on doing on that tiny phone that necessitates gigabit speeds of bandwidth?
Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?
[...] making Apple's inclusion on the iBook a forward-looking innovation. It also made the iBook the first mainstream computer sold with integrated WiFi.
apple is usually ahead of the curve ... i haven't exactly checked release dates and the like, but my macs always seemed to have things i needed and used before my friends' windows machines ... integrated audio, integrated scsi, and integrated ethernet were things that i always was able to take for granted.
apple is usually ahead of the curve ... i haven't exactly checked release dates and the like, but my macs always seemed to have things i needed and used before my friends' windows machines ... integrated audio, integrated scsi, and integrated ethernet were things that i always was able to take for granted.
Indeed. The only thing I can remember them being behind on was (either… I can't actually remember…) writable CDs or writable DVDs. Of course, that was back when optical media still mattered.
Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?
The sustained write speeds of the on-baord NAND is only about 20Mbps. Unfortunately it can't benefit the way SSDs can with 6Gbps SATA III connections and a modern controller. Hopefully Apple will be able to speed up NAND sooner rather than later but even we project 2x or 4x speed increases we're still much lower than the storage which makes putting larger, more power hungry chips in these devices fairly pointless past what he can deal with for streaming downloads.
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.
Thunderbolt? Shouldn't be a problem soon enough.
That's why you want to connect to a display/dock that has thunderbolt - gigabit ethernet!
Oops, you beat me to it.
http://www.thunderbolt-peripherals.c...erbolt-adapter
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.
I'm pretty sure that there are more people than the population of the US that would strongly disagree with your very obnoxious statement about "Anyone else in the world". there are several reasons why I wouldn't want to raise my kids in the US even though it would be relatively easy for me to come and live there. Canada for example is much more desirable from my point of view.
Regs, Jarkko
Unless you have a 55 inch tv and sit too close, nobody can tell the difference.
Completely and utterly wrong. Again.
You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).
Cheers
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.
Those are just very bad excuses. Countries with harsher climates, just as strict or stricter cabling rules, lower population density and lower GDP offer cheaper and faster internet for a wider portion of their population.
Everyone can understand if they can't provide in the foothills of the appalacias, but in the suburbs of major cities, where the income levels and population densities are high? Give me a break.
You are just being purposefully misled by your cartels. And you've bought their excuses hook line and sinker.
My iPhone 4 doesn't even use both frequencies of Wi-Fi N so I won't hold my breath waiting for Apple to support multiple antennas in future iPhones.
Can you please give me a single situation where N speeds would be a bottleneck? I'm serious. N can handle 1080P videos in it's sleep. You do routinely transfer gigabytes of data to and from your phone on your home network? Sure, faster is better, but I have trouble imagining a situation where people feel limited by their wifi speeds on their damn phones.
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.
Yep. I watched them install fiber optic into my garage, which then hooked into my phone system for speedy DSL. The fiber optic cable is tiny, like a strand of hair, but then they bolt this plastic box onto the wall the size of a suitcase. It's virtually empty other than the hair-size optic cable and a few other connections.
edit: From Wikipedia, "All rates assume 256-QAM". I wonder how that affects power use compared to the 16-QAM(?) used by the iPhone.
Whoa! i've done s lot of tests with wcdma at 64QAM and that requires very good radio conditions due to the close distance of the different detection points in the constellation diagram to achieve any benefit against 16 QAM. With 256 QAM it is much more difficult. This means that thos maximum speeds will probably be even more of a dream than in HSPA! Especially with single antenna devices.
It will be quite a feat to design a small device with enough spatial separation between antennas to benefit from MIMO at anythin more than two streams. I would therefore assume that macbooks would be first, with pads next. Phones may have to wait for years. Heck how many phones today suppirt even 2x2 MIMO in WCDMA or LTE? Those specs have heen out for several years already.
Refs, jarkko
Uh, how about syncing large HD video files wirelessly? Or syncing all of your content back wirelessly (via LAN) after getting a new phone?
Yup. In fact, I think it is more important for the phone than anything else. With wireless syncing, people rarely connect their phones to their computers, so their phones rarely get fully backed up (or if they do, the backup takes a long time...). Faster WiFi speeds should solve this.
You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).
Cheers
Actually you are wrong. The best place to sit is based on a personal preference and technically your eye sight quality
Indeed. The only thing I can remember them being behind on was (either? I can't actually remember?) writable CDs or writable DVDs. Of course, that was back when optical media still mattered.
I believe it was the iMac. Steve wanted a slot loading CD player, but one of his techs said that a tray loader was better, as the upcoming CD-Rs were tray loaders. Steve, of course ruled the day. That was a rare instance SJ got it wrong.
Actually you are wrong. The best place to sit is based on a personal preference and technically your eye sight quality
You are such a story teller jfanning
Have a look and you can find yourself much more:
http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads...ance_chart.pdf
http://gizmodo.com/5280355/guess-wha...ut-theres-hope
http://s3.carltonbale.com/distance_chart.html
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
You are wrong Tallest Skill. Zuzz is right.
If you want to experience and enjoy FULL HD format you shouldn't be farther to your 55 inch TV set then 2 times its diagonal. In this situation it should be maximum 110 inches (2.8 meters).
Cheers
Yes, there are always 'rules' that the 'purists' put out and expect people to follow. In reality, everyone is different and has different goals. I have a 55" TV that I watch from about 12 feet - and I enjoy it just the way it is. Moving forward to about 9 feet would make me feel claustrophobic. And for all the people who brag about how great 1080p is and how easy it is to see the difference, I say that you should be watching movies that make you more excited about the movie than about the number of pixels on the screen. The difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is quite small - even on my 55" set and even if I sit closer. Can I see a difference? Sure. But Avatar is every bit as enjoyable on DVD as on Blu-Ray. Content is more important than specs.
It's really no different than the home audio stuff that used to be the big bragging rights thing. Could you actually hear the difference between a $1000 cable and a $20 cable? Maybe. Barely. Under precisely controlled conditions. Is it something that mattered in the real world? Not a bit.
Yes.. I just bought my Airport Extreme this January too.. (I'm happy with the router)
Am I A fool for doing so?
I thought internet speed depends on the cable provider, not the actual device..
am I wrong here..?
I don't know jack about what Extreme can do, I'm just happy it 'just worked' and I don't have to deal with any technical difficulty.
My cable provider has speeds upto 20MB........ my 2 year old Time Capsule cannpt get close to those speeds in the wireless connection it provides. It is wireless "n" but now when the new standard comes out with the new products you still will be limited by what your laptop, ipad, imac can connect. If they still have a wireless G or N card installed then that is the speed they will connect at....no matter what the router is capable of producing. So along with the router being able to connect at the new speeds you will have to upgrade all of your other devices to get the increase in speeds.