I really don't think it is an explaination. The implication is that whatever board space occupied by adding 'a' meant losing FW800, but that would be a false claim if it were to be made. It isn't as if there is a separate chip to add that only does 'a', or that chip is larger than previous b/g-only chips to the point that it means trading off the FW800 chip.
I don't think that's it either, if that's what he was talking about.
FW 800 costs more for Apple to impliment. It rarely is needed. When it is, people will by buying drives and cases anyway. The Express slot will have 800 solutions available, as Apple says, hopefully, by the time the machine itself is available.
My problem here is that they went for the narrower slot to save room. Far more devices will be available for the wider version. There are already a bunch of devices for it. This is an unfortunate limitation.
One thing that would be nice is if the remote control would allow control of Keynote presentations. Likely it doesn't. But it would seem that this is an opportunity for Alessandro Montalcini to make USB Overdrive, or some new app, support it. The program is great. This would be a VERY welcome feature.
Alessandro, are you listening? Nah, I'll have to write him.
FW 800 costs more for Apple to impliment. It rarely is needed. When it is, people will by buying drives and cases anyway. The Express slot will have 800 solutions available, as Apple says, hopefully, by the time the machine itself is available.
My problem here is that they went for the narrower slot to save room. Far more devices will be available for the wider version. There are already a bunch of devices for it. This is an unfortunate limitation.
Another unfortunate thing is that there is only one slot. If I decide to get a separate card to put in a second firewire channel, that would mean swapping cards should WiMax or other long range wireless Internet service become viable.
Maybe it is needless griping about Firewire 800, external SATA seems to be the thing that is taking off now, but I would think that solution would likely be limited to two drive connections on an Expresscard slot.
Another unfortunate thing is that there is only one slot. If I decide to get a separate card to put in a second firewire channel, that would mean swapping cards should WiMax or other long range wireless Internet service become viable.
Maybe it is needless griping about Firewire 800, external SATA seems to be the thing that is taking off now, but I would think that solution would likely be limited to two drive connections on an Expresscard slot.
A second slot would be tight. But, yes, I was thinking the same thing. But there were dual function cards before, so maybe, we will see them again.
Two SATA drives would seem to be enough for location, at least, plugged in at once. But, it's possible that a four drive card could come out, if the 34 pins would allow it.
I'm switching to SATA here at home. I have two four drive FW towers, and one four drive SCSI tower.
I've lost several FW drives because of Apple's FW problems, and I'm tired of it. The problem of needing new chips in the cases every 18 months or so is getting me frazzled. Hopefully, external SATA won't have these problems.
Also the Apple FW800 chipset is a Texas Instruments chip which is actually quite large in size (I've seen on on a PBG4 1.5 MB) and they may simply have not been able to fit it on the MB? Another possiblity is there may be no open PCI bus slots left on the chipset once you had the Wireless card (mini PCI)? I dont know how many PCI slots the ICH7M supports. Interesting that some of Intel's own high end desktop motherboards feature FW800, but again they use a seperate TI chip for it. No PC chipset has native FW support (although neither did Apples).
Sounds like a good thing IMHO. 'a' may have a shorter range, but it doesn't have the overlapping channels issues of 'b' and 'g', is as fast as 'g', and has a number of channels that simply do not overlap with ISM equipment (so you don't have to buy 900MHz cordless phones, which aren't available in digital expandable form, just to make sure your cordless phones don't interfere with your networks. Get 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz and while you're running with 'a', you're fine.)
I really don't understand why Josniak was criticising the standard. Yeah, people who want to use it will need new equipment, but at the time he said that, most people didn't have any kind of wireless. Looked short sighted to me, and I'm glad they're no longer going down that path.
That Intel chipsets/motherboards don't support FW800 yet.
I thought that someone else pointed out that there aren't any chipsets for any architecture that support FW800, it has always been a seperate chip on Macs.
I thought that someone else pointed out that there aren't any chipsets that support FW800, it has always been a seperate chip on Macs.
Perhaps Apple choose to be a 100% Intel beoch and not do anything themselves besides pack whatever Intel gave them into their own shell. Or rather, thats exactly what they did.
Perhaps Apple choose to be a 100% Intel beoch and not do anything themselves besides pack whatever Intel gave them into their own shell. Or rather, thats exactly what they did.
I don't see why that would be so. The mobo's that Intel builds are not only completely different in form, they build them to spec for those who need that. Apple is certainly no different. And has been said, ALL mobo's with FW use seperate chips. It's really no biggie - if Apple really wantd it.
Perhaps Apple choose to be a 100% Intel beoch and not do anything themselves besides pack whatever Intel gave them into their own shell. Or rather, thats exactly what they did.
If that were true, then I think they would have used Intel's video chip too.
IIRC, the higher frequency for 802.11a means its signals don't go through walls/floors as well as 802.11b/g signals. For the large percentage (majority?) of people who wanted 802.11 as an alternative to cabling the house/apartment/office, that pretty well ruled out 802.11a--which is why 802.11a hasn't gone anywhere in spite of the advantages mentioned by previous posters.
IIRC, the higher frequency for 802.11a means its signals don't go through walls/floors as well as 802.11b/g signals. For the large percentage (majority?) of people who wanted 802.11 as an alternative to cabling the house/apartment/office, that pretty well ruled out 802.11a--which is why 802.11a hasn't gone anywhere in spite of the advantages mentioned by previous posters.
I think range issue is probably overstated. 11b/g has far better range than I need, I can imagine 11a being enough and not interfering with cordless phones, Bluetooth or getting knocked out by microwave use. Heck, I was in a development where I was getting a signal from six access points from inside a house.
If Apple keeps using their own brand for the wireless in their computers (and why not?) what will they call this next iteration which includes all of the above.
IIRC, the higher frequency for 802.11a means its signals don't go through walls/floors as well as 802.11b/g signals. For the large percentage (majority?) of people who wanted 802.11 as an alternative to cabling the house/apartment/office, that pretty well ruled out 802.11a--which is why 802.11a hasn't gone anywhere in spite of the advantages mentioned by previous posters.
The coverage should be fine, and it's not much more susceptable to inteference from drywall than regular 'b' (it's only half the wavelength, after all.) I wouldn't try to cover a wide area with it, but an appartment or normal sized house should be easily covered internally.
Plus you can always go the microcellular route if you want.
If the problems were that bad, the new fashion for 5.8GHz cordless phones wouldn't be going anywhere either, as they use the same frequency and have the same power/reception issues.
The coverage should be fine, and it's not much more susceptable to inteference from drywall than regular 'b' (it's only half the wavelength, after all.) I wouldn't try to cover a wide area with it, but an appartment or normal sized house should be easily covered internally.
<P>
Plus you can always go the microcellular route if you want.
<P>
If the problems were that bad, the new fashion for 5.8GHz cordless phones wouldn't be going anywhere either, as they use the same frequency and have the same power/reception issues.
They say a radius of 300 feet. As far as I know, there isn't much interference from building materials, except for metal.
My house, for example, was built in 1925. The walls are 1.25" plaster and mortar, with a metal mesh backing over wood slats. No government picking at my brains!
Only where I had major upgrading in the house done, where I had the floors, walls, and ceilings stripped to the beams, was that eliminated.
Older house like mine are not good candidates for ANY wireless networking.
That's why I installed 1GHz ethernet throughout the house a few years ago. It was NOT fun!
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
I really don't think it is an explaination. The implication is that whatever board space occupied by adding 'a' meant losing FW800, but that would be a false claim if it were to be made. It isn't as if there is a separate chip to add that only does 'a', or that chip is larger than previous b/g-only chips to the point that it means trading off the FW800 chip.
I don't think that's it either, if that's what he was talking about.
FW 800 costs more for Apple to impliment. It rarely is needed. When it is, people will by buying drives and cases anyway. The Express slot will have 800 solutions available, as Apple says, hopefully, by the time the machine itself is available.
My problem here is that they went for the narrower slot to save room. Far more devices will be available for the wider version. There are already a bunch of devices for it. This is an unfortunate limitation.
One thing that would be nice is if the remote control would allow control of Keynote presentations. Likely it doesn't. But it would seem that this is an opportunity for Alessandro Montalcini to make USB Overdrive, or some new app, support it. The program is great. This would be a VERY welcome feature.
Alessandro, are you listening? Nah, I'll have to write him.
Originally posted by melgross
FW 800 costs more for Apple to impliment. It rarely is needed. When it is, people will by buying drives and cases anyway. The Express slot will have 800 solutions available, as Apple says, hopefully, by the time the machine itself is available.
My problem here is that they went for the narrower slot to save room. Far more devices will be available for the wider version. There are already a bunch of devices for it. This is an unfortunate limitation.
Another unfortunate thing is that there is only one slot. If I decide to get a separate card to put in a second firewire channel, that would mean swapping cards should WiMax or other long range wireless Internet service become viable.
Maybe it is needless griping about Firewire 800, external SATA seems to be the thing that is taking off now, but I would think that solution would likely be limited to two drive connections on an Expresscard slot.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Another unfortunate thing is that there is only one slot. If I decide to get a separate card to put in a second firewire channel, that would mean swapping cards should WiMax or other long range wireless Internet service become viable.
Maybe it is needless griping about Firewire 800, external SATA seems to be the thing that is taking off now, but I would think that solution would likely be limited to two drive connections on an Expresscard slot.
A second slot would be tight. But, yes, I was thinking the same thing. But there were dual function cards before, so maybe, we will see them again.
Two SATA drives would seem to be enough for location, at least, plugged in at once. But, it's possible that a four drive card could come out, if the 34 pins would allow it.
I'm switching to SATA here at home. I have two four drive FW towers, and one four drive SCSI tower.
I've lost several FW drives because of Apple's FW problems, and I'm tired of it. The problem of needing new chips in the cases every 18 months or so is getting me frazzled. Hopefully, external SATA won't have these problems.
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawar...l/01141162.jpg
I really don't understand why Josniak was criticising the standard. Yeah, people who want to use it will need new equipment, but at the time he said that, most people didn't have any kind of wireless. Looked short sighted to me, and I'm glad they're no longer going down that path.
Originally posted by melgross
What explanation is that?
That Intel chipsets/motherboards don't support FW800 yet.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That Intel chipsets/motherboards don't support FW800 yet.
WINNAR!
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That Intel chipsets/motherboards don't support FW800 yet.
I thought that someone else pointed out that there aren't any chipsets for any architecture that support FW800, it has always been a seperate chip on Macs.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I thought that someone else pointed out that there aren't any chipsets that support FW800, it has always been a seperate chip on Macs.
Perhaps Apple choose to be a 100% Intel beoch and not do anything themselves besides pack whatever Intel gave them into their own shell. Or rather, thats exactly what they did.
Originally posted by Anders
Perhaps Apple choose to be a 100% Intel beoch and not do anything themselves besides pack whatever Intel gave them into their own shell. Or rather, thats exactly what they did.
I don't see why that would be so. The mobo's that Intel builds are not only completely different in form, they build them to spec for those who need that. Apple is certainly no different. And has been said, ALL mobo's with FW use seperate chips. It's really no biggie - if Apple really wantd it.
Originally posted by Anders
Perhaps Apple choose to be a 100% Intel beoch and not do anything themselves besides pack whatever Intel gave them into their own shell. Or rather, thats exactly what they did.
If that were true, then I think they would have used Intel's video chip too.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That Intel chipsets/motherboards don't support FW800 yet.
Intel chipsets don't support FW400 either, yet Apple managed to add it.
Originally posted by DavidH
IIRC, the higher frequency for 802.11a means its signals don't go through walls/floors as well as 802.11b/g signals. For the large percentage (majority?) of people who wanted 802.11 as an alternative to cabling the house/apartment/office, that pretty well ruled out 802.11a--which is why 802.11a hasn't gone anywhere in spite of the advantages mentioned by previous posters.
I think range issue is probably overstated. 11b/g has far better range than I need, I can imagine 11a being enough and not interfering with cordless phones, Bluetooth or getting knocked out by microwave use. Heck, I was in a development where I was getting a signal from six access points from inside a house.
Originally posted by wmf
Intel chipsets don't support FW400 either, yet Apple managed to add it.
Almost all Sony PCs come with FW400 and almost all of them use Intel chipsets.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Almost all Sony PCs come with FW400 and almost all of them use Intel chipsets.
That still doesn't tell us if it's IN the chipset, or simply that Sony elected to use the far more popular FW 400.
Most people use FW for attaching their camcorders. You don't need more than 400 for even the new low end Hi Def models.
Originally posted by webmail
802.11a/b/g/n + WiMax + EVDO (Cell Network) + EDGE (Cell Network)
Wondering:
Airport -> Airport Extreme -> ?
If Apple keeps using their own brand for the wireless in their computers (and why not?) what will they call this next iteration which includes all of the above.
Airport Max
Airport Extreme Pro
Airport Extreme MegaMaxPro
Airport MultiUltraExtremeMegaMaxPro Mk. II?
Only time will tell.
Originally posted by DavidH
IIRC, the higher frequency for 802.11a means its signals don't go through walls/floors as well as 802.11b/g signals. For the large percentage (majority?) of people who wanted 802.11 as an alternative to cabling the house/apartment/office, that pretty well ruled out 802.11a--which is why 802.11a hasn't gone anywhere in spite of the advantages mentioned by previous posters.
The coverage should be fine, and it's not much more susceptable to inteference from drywall than regular 'b' (it's only half the wavelength, after all.) I wouldn't try to cover a wide area with it, but an appartment or normal sized house should be easily covered internally.
Plus you can always go the microcellular route if you want.
If the problems were that bad, the new fashion for 5.8GHz cordless phones wouldn't be going anywhere either, as they use the same frequency and have the same power/reception issues.
Originally posted by peharri
The coverage should be fine, and it's not much more susceptable to inteference from drywall than regular 'b' (it's only half the wavelength, after all.) I wouldn't try to cover a wide area with it, but an appartment or normal sized house should be easily covered internally.
<P>
Plus you can always go the microcellular route if you want.
<P>
If the problems were that bad, the new fashion for 5.8GHz cordless phones wouldn't be going anywhere either, as they use the same frequency and have the same power/reception issues.
They say a radius of 300 feet. As far as I know, there isn't much interference from building materials, except for metal.
My house, for example, was built in 1925. The walls are 1.25" plaster and mortar, with a metal mesh backing over wood slats. No government picking at my brains!
Only where I had major upgrading in the house done, where I had the floors, walls, and ceilings stripped to the beams, was that eliminated.
Older house like mine are not good candidates for ANY wireless networking.
That's why I installed 1GHz ethernet throughout the house a few years ago. It was NOT fun!