If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   802.11ac work it, make it, do it, makes us harder, better, faster, stronger   (latimes.com) divider line 55
    More: Cool, Wi-Fi, cordless phone, Institute of Electrical, fifth generation, Electrical and Electronics, frequency bands  
•       •       •

4512 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jun 2013 at 8:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-24 12:19:56 AM  
You're daft, punk.
 
2013-06-24 08:47:23 AM  
That's great! And when Comcast gets to be faster than 802.11g, I'll look forward to getting one of these routers.
 
2013-06-24 08:52:13 AM  
So are there a bunch of specs that the IEEE creates and never ratifies, or are there ones created that were just never used for common tasks? I'm just curious how we jumped from 802.11b to g to n and now we've wrapped back around to ac. What happened to all the iterations in between?
 
2013-06-24 08:53:10 AM  
photos.appleinsider.com

I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE
 
2013-06-24 09:00:03 AM  

Tax Boy: I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE


It kind of makes sense because it reduces the footprint on the shelf compared to the flat routers that waste a lot of space unless you stack your modem above or below it.
 
2013-06-24 09:07:39 AM  

Mad_Radhu: So are there a bunch of specs that the IEEE creates and never ratifies, or are there ones created that were just never used for common tasks? I'm just curious how we jumped from 802.11b to g to n and now we've wrapped back around to ac. What happened to all the iterations in between?


Some are skipped intentionally because the letters would be confusing (like 802.11o or q), some are in use but not for home routers (802.11p is used for things like ambulances). and some are proposed only to be trumped by something bigger and better. That's technology for you. There's a list of stuff on this page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11
 
2013-06-24 09:13:31 AM  
Meh. When one considers the amount of time it takes to crank out one of these standards, alongside the unceasing pace at which they do so, it sounds like our work is never over.
 
2013-06-24 09:19:06 AM  
Dear everyone: If you want your shiat to actually be fast and reliable, use a wire.
All that crap over by your TV that can access Netflix? Don't want to run an ethernet cable over there? Get a $60 homeplug kit and a $10 100Mbit switch.

802.11ac will make no meaningful difference in speed or reliability for end users over 802.11n.
 
2013-06-24 09:26:59 AM  
Well, so far, my "N" 450 is light-years beyond my bandwidth capacity, so this isn't really that exciting.

The only real use would be to transfer data from one machine to another, with at this time, I can reach between 10 to 15MBps, which is fairly close to USB 2.0 speed (standard speed jump drives).

(yes I know, USB 2.0 can reach about 25-30MBps with a high speed quality jump drive, but why I'm stating regular  or cheap jump drives)

My bandwidth maxes at about 1.5MBps, and if I was to switch services, I probably could get something around the 2.5 mark, but that's still way behind the "N"'s capacity.
 
2013-06-24 09:39:29 AM  

likefunbutnot: Dear everyone: If you want your shiat to actually be fast and reliable, use a wire.
All that crap over by your TV that can access Netflix? Don't want to run an ethernet cable over there? Get a $60 homeplug kit and a $10 100Mbit switch.

802.11ac will make no meaningful difference in speed or reliability for end users over 802.11n.


You've certainly convinced me.
 
2013-06-24 09:41:32 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Tax Boy: I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE

It kind of makes sense because it reduces the footprint on the shelf compared to the flat routers that waste a lot of space unless you stack your modem above or below it.


I wonder if the vertical design also helps load in some higher dB antennae that point up rather than horizontally for improved gains?
 
2013-06-24 09:54:51 AM  

likefunbutnot: Dear everyone: If you want your shiat to actually be fast and reliable, use a wire.
All that crap over by your TV that can access Netflix? Don't want to run an ethernet cable over there? Get a $60 homeplug kit and a $10 100Mbit switch.

802.11ac will make no meaningful difference in speed or reliability for end users over 802.11n.


B-B-But I bought a lappy so I could surf da wab outside on mah back deck - WITHOUT WIRES! The patio door would close properly with a Cat5 cable in the way.
And my smart phone would look `old skool' with a wire on it and I'm trying to shed my "archaic-flatulent" image.
 
2013-06-24 09:59:26 AM  

MightyPez: Mad_Radhu: Tax Boy: I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE

It kind of makes sense because it reduces the footprint on the shelf compared to the flat routers that waste a lot of space unless you stack your modem above or below it.

I wonder if the vertical design also helps load in some higher dB antennae that point up rather than horizontally for improved gains?


I think I heard there's a bunch of empty space in there that you can fill with hard drives
 
2013-06-24 10:01:15 AM  
 
2013-06-24 10:27:39 AM  

Tax Boy: [photos.appleinsider.com image 660x442]

I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE


So we're going from the old mini-pizza box of the old Airport routers to the new can opener look like the new Mac Pro.  It's not terrible, and if that's an iPhone 5 then the router certainly isn't huge.

802.11ac sounds like a gradual upgrade.  It's not something I'm going to run out to get when it's first available, but I expect it to be on any new devices I buy in the near future.
 
2013-06-24 10:30:08 AM  

MightyPez: I wonder if the vertical design also helps load in some higher dB antennae that point up rather than horizontally for improved gains?


that's probably it. rather than having external antennae, which would look very old-school, they probably just built it taller to look intentional. the top ⅔ of that box is probably empty, save a couple of antennae.
 
2013-06-24 10:41:34 AM  
Given that I'm still on a/b/g, this will likely be an upgrade worth having. As soon as I have a device that support it.
 
2013-06-24 10:55:00 AM  
Log in or subscribe to continue readingNo article limits. Get all the stories that matter.
Premium content
In-depth reports
Photo essays
Daily eNewspaper

Unique experiencesSignature events
Editorial forums
Film series

Exclusive offersWin tickets
Enjoy special
discounts
 
2013-06-24 11:01:31 AM  

oldfarthenry: likefunbutnot: Dear everyone: If you want your shiat to actually be fast and reliable, use a wire.
All that crap over by your TV that can access Netflix? Don't want to run an ethernet cable over there? Get a $60 homeplug kit and a $10 100Mbit switch.

802.11ac will make no meaningful difference in speed or reliability for end users over 802.11n.

B-B-But I bought a lappy so I could surf da wab outside on mah back deck - WITHOUT WIRES! The patio door would close properly with a Cat5 cable in the way.
And my smart phone would look `old skool' with a wire on it and I'm trying to shed my "archaic-flatulent" image.


If your on a properly designed enterprise wifi network, wireless can be pretty darn reliable and fast (one can even support wireless VOIP and some unis run exclusively on wifi). However, in that kind of environment, it's kind of dumb for fifteen people in the same room to try and run Netflix at the same time. Wire your TV and then it wont interfere with business traffic.

/reliably running Netflix over home wireless right now...but to be fair, the network is using enterprise equipment
//cant see home users benefiting from ac for a while
//and if ac does MU-MIMO, of course it will improve an end user's experience!
 
2013-06-24 11:01:43 AM  
Youtube is not slow due to my connection or my router.
It is slow due to YT itself.

We can have Wizard101 on one machine, netflix on a tv, amazon prime video on another and be checking FB on the smartphone and it all goes great.

Turn everything off and try to run YT off any device at 480 or higher and, unless it is a high traffic video generating YT, then it screeches to a buffering halt.

Fancy new router technology is not going to fix that.
 
2013-06-24 11:07:46 AM  

Mad_Radhu: So are there a bunch of specs that the IEEE creates and never ratifies, or are there ones created that were just never used for common tasks? I'm just curious how we jumped from 802.11b to g to n and now we've wrapped back around to ac. What happened to all the iterations in between?


That's addressed in the article.  Err, sorry, I mean RTFA.

Tax Boy: [photos.appleinsider.com image 660x442]

I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE


That doesn't look so large. Maybe the size of a large cup, seeing as that's an iPhone 5 next to it. (and I'm not Apple fanboy, by any means).
 
2013-06-24 11:08:49 AM  

MightyPez: Mad_Radhu: Tax Boy: I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE

It kind of makes sense because it reduces the footprint on the shelf compared to the flat routers that waste a lot of space unless you stack your modem above or below it.

I wonder if the vertical design also helps load in some higher dB antennae that point up rather than horizontally for improved gains?


The antennas are improved, and to hear Apple tell it, the 802.11ac ability comes with a "beamforming" antenna array- the router can sense the location of a device and aim the signal at that device.

In other words, it's something that probably works friggin' awesome in a lab and will be so-so in actual use. None of my devices have 801.11ac and I'm not adding external adapters for them, so it's hard for me to get all excited about it. N has always been fast enough for my purposes, even with a 100Mb internet connection (Charter Communications).
 
2013-06-24 11:15:24 AM  

FlashHarry: MightyPez: I wonder if the vertical design also helps load in some higher dB antennae that point up rather than horizontally for improved gains?

that's probably it. rather than having external antennae, which would look very old-school, they probably just built it taller to look intentional. the top ⅔ of that box is probably empty, save a couple of antennae.


I was actually thinking about getting one of these and putting my linksys wireless router on top.

img.fark.net

Anyone have the switch paired with this?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-24 11:18:55 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Tax Boy: I don't care how fast your interwebs are -- the new apple router is STUPID-LOOKING and HUGE

It kind of makes sense because it reduces the footprint on the shelf compared to the flat routers that waste a lot of space unless you stack your modem above or below it.


They already make routers that stand on their side, the one I use can be put on its side and uses very little shelf space.
 
2013-06-24 11:22:59 AM  

akula: None of my devices have 801.11ac and I'm not adding external adapters for them


You are of course aware that it's reasonably simple to upgrade the wireless adapter in a laptop, right?
 
2013-06-24 11:34:28 AM  

likefunbutnot: akula: None of my devices have 801.11ac and I'm not adding external adapters for them

You are of course aware that it's reasonably simple to upgrade the wireless adapter in a laptop, right?


Depends on the laptop. I've had some where it was simple.

This one is a retina display MacBook Pro. My wife has a MacBook Air. They're a little different beasts than a garden variety Windows machine (I have upgraded those before). If an upgrade that fits will become available, then sure, I'll make the jump. But that's pretty far from a given.

I have a Time Capsule due to arrive tomorrow (to ease the backup situation), but the 802.11ac ability means bugger-all for me for the time being.
 
2013-06-24 11:44:25 AM  

akula: This one is a retina display MacBook Pro. My wife has a MacBook Air.


If that's the case I'd say it's your fault for knowingly purchasing a substandard product.
Other than Apple laptops, I'm not aware of a single notebook made in the last eight years that did not have its 802.11 on a standardized socketed interface of one sort or another.

I do know that the WLAN hardware in a 2010 MBP can be replaced. It's not as easy as a proper laptop, but it's possible. Given how hostile the current MBP is to technician intrusion I doubt I'd bother.
 
2013-06-24 11:48:29 AM  

likefunbutnot: Dear everyone: If you want your shiat to actually be fast and reliable, use a wire.
All that crap over by your TV that can access Netflix? Don't want to run an ethernet cable over there? Get a $60 homeplug kit and a $10 100Mbit switch.



Ended up doing this for our "smart" TV -- the wireless N in the TV  just couldn't keep up streaming from the home server. Its much happier wired, and I've freed up some bandwidth for the kids and their tablets.
 
2013-06-24 11:49:09 AM  

likefunbutnot: If that's the case I'd say it's your fault for knowingly purchasing a substandard product.
Other than Apple laptops, I'm not aware of a single notebook made in the last eight years that did not have its 802.11 on a standardized socketed interface of one sort or another.


Whatever.

If I wanted to run a Windows laptop I'd still be doing it. Lack of the latest/greatest wifi standard is hardly going to put a scratch in my computing. I didn't upgrade to N until fairly recently either.

likefunbutnot: I do know that the WLAN hardware in a 2010 MBP can be replaced. It's not as easy as a proper laptop, but it's possible. Given how hostile the current MBP is to technician intrusion I doubt I'd bother.


I've read the WLAN is on a socketed daughterboard, but the question will be if the new ones fit the same interface. I'd be likely to farm this out to somebody who normally does work on these things anyway. I could do it, but as you point out, these machines are not that friendly to part time hardware hacks rooting through them. It's the price you pay for the thin/light design.
 
2013-06-24 12:07:47 PM  

akula: Whatever.

If I wanted to run a Windows laptop I'd still be doing it. Lack of the latest/greatest wifi standard is hardly going to put a scratch in my computing. I didn't upgrade to N until fairly recently either.


If you only have a 100 Mbps connection, it's probably not worth moving over to ac anyway unless you have tons of users. By the time home users need ac, all of the computer manufacturers will be selling computers with ac nics pre-installed. I believe most new Mac products are already shipping out with ac nics...probably because businesses and unis are already starting to install ac hardware.

likefunbutnot: If that's the case I'd say it's your fault for knowingly purchasing a substandard product.

Blowhard much in this thread? First you say ac (and maybe even wifi) is useless to the end user then you go on to chastise this person for not upgrading his/her nic to that standard when that wasn't the person's goal in the first place.

/and I'm sure an Apple computer is exactly what you see in the dictionary under "substandard product"
 
2013-06-24 12:26:07 PM  

elysive: If you only have a 100 Mbps connection, it's probably not worth moving over to ac anyway unless you have tons of users. By the time home users need ac, all of the computer manufacturers will be selling computers with ac nics pre-installed. I believe most new Mac products are already shipping out with ac nics...probably because businesses and unis are already starting to install ac hardware.


So far it's just the new MacBook Airs. The new MBPs are pretty much certain to have it too, but upgrading a $3K computer just to get faster wifi is farkin' stupid.

Do the newer versions of wifi (N, AC) default to the earlier specs if you connected something slower? I know that putting a B unit on a G network would slow everybody down to B speeds, but I'm not sure if that's still the case with the newer ones.
 
2013-06-24 12:30:55 PM  

akula: If I wanted to run a Windows laptop I'd still be doing it. Lack of the latest/greatest wifi standard is hardly going to put a scratch in my computing. I didn't upgrade to N until fairly recently either.


Since you're clearly talking about a laptop that's missing an ethernet port, you should at least recognize that at least some fraction of users with the same hardware WOULD like to have access to the latest/greatest 802.11 wireless standard.

elysive: First you say ac (and maybe even wifi) is useless to the end user


I do think that 802.11ac is largely useless to consumers (not "end users"). They don't have equipment to take advantage of it - they don't have equipment to take advantage of 8022.11n, either - and they're expecting a level of reliability in incredibly hostile environments where the equipment they do have is surrounded by sources of radio interference from phones and baby monitors who-know-what-else. Almost any consumer device that is not hand-held would be better off with some form of wired connection under those circumstances. Even when 802.11ac finally does become widely available, consumers won't particularly see a benefit because their hardware won't support anything but the most basic, shoddy implementation.

elysive: /and I'm sure an Apple computer is exactly what you see in the dictionary under "substandard product"


A computer that cannot be upgraded or repaired by its owner but costs 60% to 100% more than similar machines? Perhaps it should be.
 
2013-06-24 12:34:52 PM  

akula: Do the newer versions of wifi (N, AC) default to the earlier specs if you connected something slower


Yes.

802.11ac is actually a 5GHz-only specification, but every implemented 802.11ac device also has a 2.4GHz transceiver and will drop to n, g or b as needed.

Also, and this is true for any high speed 802.11 wireless network, allowing slower clients to connect to your fast WLAN will auto-negotiate the speed downward for all connected clients. So the 802.11g chip in your wireless printer can keep your 802.11n network from working any faster than 54Mbit, unless you give it its own SSID to connect to.
 
2013-06-24 12:38:27 PM  
PsyLord:

Anyone have the switch paired with this?

img.fark.net

I got a WRT160N (same case, maybe even the same router) at a yard sale for like $8, dropped dd-wrt on it
and after a bit of version hopping it makes a damn fine wifi extender that allowed me to get onto the
internet with the old beater desktop in my basement.
 
2013-06-24 12:39:06 PM  

likefunbutnot: Since you're clearly talking about a laptop that's missing an ethernet port, you should at least recognize that at least some fraction of users with the same hardware WOULD like to have access to the latest/greatest 802.11 wireless standard.


Ethernet ports are a piece of cake to add. I ordered a Thunderbolt to gigabit adapter with it. No point in hauling around an ethernet port inside the machine when you only use it at one place.

likefunbutnot: A computer that cannot be upgraded or repaired by its owner but costs 60% to 100% more than similar machines? Perhaps it should be.


WAH! Somebody likes what I don't like!
 
2013-06-24 12:41:03 PM  

likefunbutnot: akula: Do the newer versions of wifi (N, AC) default to the earlier specs if you connected something slower

Yes.

802.11ac is actually a 5GHz-only specification, but every implemented 802.11ac device also has a 2.4GHz transceiver and will drop to n, g or b as needed.

Also, and this is true for any high speed 802.11 wireless network, allowing slower clients to connect to your fast WLAN will auto-negotiate the speed downward for all connected clients. So the 802.11g chip in your wireless printer can keep your 802.11n network from working any faster than 54Mbit, unless you give it its own SSID to connect to.


Thanks, I suspected that but wasn't certain. I probably should move my wireless printer at home, but that means either moving an ethernet port or moving a phone line (for the fax capability). I've suspected it's b/g wireless has been a drag on the network.
 
2013-06-24 12:42:06 PM  

akula: So far it's just the new MacBook Airs. The new MBPs are pretty much certain to have it too, but upgrading a $3K computer just to get faster wifi is farkin' stupid.

Do the newer versions of wifi (N, AC) default to the earlier specs if you connected something slower? I know that putting a B unit on a G network would slow everybody down to B speeds, but I'm not sure if that's still the case with the newer ones.


Yeah, I guess it's the Airs for now, but the others can't be far behind. As for upgrading just for a NIC? That's unnecessary, but  as an alternative you probably have to be willing to take your computer in to Apple for to upgrade the NIC or use an external card. I'll repeat that unless you are a student at a Uni with great WiFi tech or work at a big company, there's probably no need to outfit your computer for ac for at least a few years. I know by then I'll probably need a new MBP (but then again, my whole household works in wireless and have clients installing ac equipment so we are probably buying external ac NICs within the next month).

According to Cisco "802.11ac is carefully designed to be maximally forward and backward compatible with 802.11a/n devices."http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5678/ ps11983/whi te_paper_c11-713103.html

Btw, the b devices slowing down g connectivity is a myth and is completely false.  http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps430/products_white _p aper09186a00801d61a3.shtml  See table 2 for max throughput of g devices. Even with CTS/RTS, the max throughput of g devices is greater than the max throughput of b devices on a mixed environment.
 
2013-06-24 12:47:56 PM  

likefunbutnot: akula: Do the newer versions of wifi (N, AC) default to the earlier specs if you connected something slower

Yes.

802.11ac is actually a 5GHz-only specification, but every implemented 802.11ac device also has a 2.4GHz transceiver and will drop to n, g or b as needed.

Also, and this is true for any high speed 802.11 wireless network, allowing slower clients to connect to your fast WLAN will auto-negotiate the speed downward for all connected clients. So the 802.11g chip in your wireless printer can keep your 802.11n network from working any faster than 54Mbit, unless you give it its own SSID to connect to.


That's incorrect. Please see my above link to Cisco. If you have a sniffer, AP's running at 5GHz, and BYOD it is easy to observe that g devices still run faster than b devices on the same SSID. I'm studying for my CCNA and it's appalling/asinine that books say this but it is incorrect in an implemented network (and very easy to verify). Cisco has even addressed the claim.
 
2013-06-24 12:53:12 PM  

elysive: Btw, the b devices slowing down g connectivity is a myth and is completely false.


If you'd carefully read a bit more of that whitepaper, you'd see that ditching legacy clients results in a near-tripling of throughput. I wouldn't call that a falsehood.
 
2013-06-24 12:55:06 PM  

akula: likefunbutnot: akula: Do the newer versions of wifi (N, AC) default to the earlier specs if you connected something slower

Yes.

802.11ac is actually a 5GHz-only specification, but every implemented 802.11ac device also has a 2.4GHz transceiver and will drop to n, g or b as needed.

Also, and this is true for any high speed 802.11 wireless network, allowing slower clients to connect to your fast WLAN will auto-negotiate the speed downward for all connected clients. So the 802.11g chip in your wireless printer can keep your 802.11n network from working any faster than 54Mbit, unless you give it its own SSID to connect to.

Thanks, I suspected that but wasn't certain. I probably should move my wireless printer at home, but that means either moving an ethernet port or moving a phone line (for the fax capability). I've suspected it's b/g wireless has been a drag on the network.


Please read my posts. I took the time to get links and verification of my claims. Not sure why this rumor propagates when it is easy to test its validity. And incidentally, b/g runs at 2.4 GHz while n runs at 5GHz. Settings on your 2.4 GHz radio would not affect 5GHz radio's speeds anyway even if the b/g rumour were true because the two radios run independently and on different channels.
 
2013-06-24 01:00:13 PM  

likefunbutnot: elysive: Btw, the b devices slowing down g connectivity is a myth and is completely false.

If you'd carefully read a bit more of that whitepaper, you'd see that ditching legacy clients results in a near-tripling of throughput. I wouldn't call that a falsehood.


In a mixed environment g clients still run at a higher throughput than any b clients can so the rumor that mixed environments force everyone to run at b speeds is demonstrably false.

Rather than "ditching" legacy clients, it makes more sense to compromise and enable CTS-to-self on most networks. If it's a SOHO and you don't need actually need that single legacy device then ditch it or upgrade it, but don't propagate rumors that even Cisco has busted.
 
2013-06-24 01:03:06 PM  

elysive: And incidentally, b/g runs at 2.4 GHz while n runs at 5GHz.


Technically speaking, n runs on BOTH 2.4 and/or 5GHz. Depending on the 802.11n device in question, it may or may not have a 5GHz implementation and, again, most hardware that is described as 802.11n compatible only supports 2.4GHz connections.

Also, I did not write that "everything slows down to the speed of the slowest client", only that slow clients connected to nominally fast networks make the entire network much slower, which is true even according to the whitepaper you took the time to link.
 
2013-06-24 01:12:43 PM  

likefunbutnot: elysive: First you say ac (and maybe even wifi) is useless to the end user

I do think that 802.11ac is largely useless to consumers (not "end users"). They don't have equipment to take advantage of it - they don't have equipment to take advantage of 8022.11n, either - and they're expecting a level of reliability in incredibly hostile environments where the equipment they do have is surrounded by sources of radio interference from phones and baby monitors who-know-what-else. Almost any consumer device that is not hand-held would be better off with some form of wired connection under those circumstances. Even when 802.11ac finally does become widely available, consumers won't particularly see a benefit because their hardware won't support anything but the most basic, shoddy implementation.


You actually said in your Boobies "802.11ac will make no meaningful difference in speed or reliability for end users over 802.11n. " That is false in a corporate environment and at a university level where the network backbone can actually support ac speeds and where user density is often an issue. As for consumer/home users, I've been agreeing with that. It will be some time before home users can benefit from ac.

As for the wifi being useless to home users, I'm someone who regularly measures rogues and wireless interference. You are overstating the interference that a person regularly has in their home. In my house the only major interference we have is a screamingly loud wireless camera and wireless network equipment can easily be configured around that.

What I can't speak to is the quality of home user network gear like LinkSys and the rest of those brands and the equipment's ability to self configure or overcome even minor interference. My guess is that it's not optimal but not bad for a home user experience. Wireless itself is pretty darn fast (most can support speeds exceeding its wired connection, for instance akula's n card can support speeds greater than 100 Mbps). Wireless has its limits and shouldn't be running too many Netflix streams at a time, but there's no need to wire every single device in your house for every purpose. That is just dumb in an era of tablets and laptops.
 
2013-06-24 01:24:01 PM  

PsyLord: I was actually thinking about getting one of these and putting my linksys wireless router on top.


I wouldn't use another Cisco/Linksys device even if one was given to me.

After 7-8 of their routers and hubs go bad on me I've come to the conclusion that they are far from the quality they once delivered.

I've been sticking with Netgear and TP-Link and no problem since.
 
2013-06-24 01:35:49 PM  

likefunbutnot: elysive: And incidentally, b/g runs at 2.4 GHz while n runs at 5GHz.

Technically speaking, n runs on BOTH 2.4 and/or 5GHz. Depending on the 802.11n device in question, it may or may not have a 5GHz implementation and, again, most hardware that is described as 802.11n compatible only supports 2.4GHz connections.

Also, I did not write that "everything slows down to the speed of the slowest client", only that slow clients connected to nominally fast networks make the entire network much slower, which is true even according to the whitepaper you took the time to link.


Sorry, working in enterprise so long it's just dumb to bond channels on 2.4GHz and silly to use cheap equipment that only supports 2.4GHz (which Apple is not one...it has its own method of choosing the band, usually choosing 5) but you're right about the spectra. Just consider that mixed mode is specific to the band.

The issue is that in a mixed environment, performance is less efficient but everyone still runs at their max available data rate. On 2.4, n users will run faster than g users and g users will run faster than b users in that mixed environment. There are configurations that will greatly increase the efficiency and, as other users have pointed out, there aren't always a lot of functions we can perform online where download speeds can keep up with wireless or even wired speeds.

If you do have an n client that supports 5GHz and channel bonding on 5GHz, you can get speeds upwards of 300Mb, and b and g clients will have no effect whatsoever. Mixed mode is specific to the band.
 
2013-06-24 01:39:46 PM  

likefunbutnot: I do think that 802.11ac is largely useless to consumers (not "end users"). They don't have equipment to take advantage of it - they don't have equipment to take advantage of 8022.11n, either - and they're expecting a level of reliability in incredibly hostile environments where the equipment they do have is surrounded by sources of radio interference from phones and baby monitors who-know-what-else.


in my apartment, i can pick up about 25 nearby 2.4 ghz wireless networks. My wireless was so farking slow because of all the interference regardless of channel.

After buying a 5 ghz-capable router, speeds went to awesome. it's the only 5ghz network in the immediate area so that's a plus. feel really bad for all the neighbors apparently relying on whatever  shiatty router the cable company gives them.
 
2013-06-24 01:39:48 PM  

likefunbutnot: elysive: And incidentally, b/g runs at 2.4 GHz while n runs at 5GHz.

Technically speaking, n runs on BOTH 2.4 and/or 5GHz. Depending on the 802.11n device in question, it may or may not have a 5GHz implementation and, again, most hardware that is described as 802.11n compatible only supports 2.4GHz connections.

Also, I did not write that "everything slows down to the speed of the slowest client", only that slow clients connected to nominally fast networks make the entire network much slower, which is true even according to the whitepaper you took the time to link.


'Cisco has a feature called "Band Select" which tries to detect if a client supports both 2.4GHz and 5GHz, and responds with the 5GHz first to try to entice it over.' Aruba's version is called "band steering".

In a corporate environment, especially with company issued computers, a large bulk of n traffic will run on 5GHz and as such that traffic will be completely unaffected by b/g traffic.
 
2013-06-24 01:46:53 PM  

Tax Boy: likefunbutnot: I do think that 802.11ac is largely useless to consumers (not "end users"). They don't have equipment to take advantage of it - they don't have equipment to take advantage of 8022.11n, either - and they're expecting a level of reliability in incredibly hostile environments where the equipment they do have is surrounded by sources of radio interference from phones and baby monitors who-know-what-else.

in my apartment, i can pick up about 25 nearby 2.4 ghz wireless networks. My wireless was so farking slow because of all the interference regardless of channel.

After buying a 5 ghz-capable router, speeds went to awesome. it's the only 5ghz network in the immediate area so that's a plus. feel really bad for all the neighbors apparently relying on whatever  shiatty router the cable company gives them.


It's infuriating how few channels there are on 2.4...and it's crazy that you live in such a building with such tiny apartments that you can see so many other networks so strongly. All you really need is as few as three strong signals nearby to negate a 2.4 implementation.

The problem usually is that crappy little home equipment will auto-set itself to the same channel as everyone else and they don't make it easy to change that setting. Then there are dumbasses who do find the setting and change their AP channel to something like 4 and effectively interfere with two thirds of all wireless devices in proximity.
 
2013-06-24 01:59:22 PM  
likefunbutnot:Also, I did not write that "everything slows down to the speed of the slowest client", only that slow clients connected to nominally fast networks make the entire network much slower, which is true even according to the whitepaper you took the time to link.

Actually in your response to akula at 12:34 timestamp you wrote "So the 802.11g chip in your wireless printer can keep your 802.11n network from working any faster than 54Mbit ", which is essentially the same thing. You're not claiming degraded speed or performance but rather a downgrade to the slowest client speed.

The limitation of my link is that I don't know how you set CTS-to-self on home equipment, including Cisco's iteration of LinkSys. Like everything else, you should first test the equipment to see if the devices are actually performing much slower than desired or if it's something like crummy youtube hosting that's making the user miserable. Then make small changes at a time (CTS-to-self or wire legacy devices) to the system and test.
 
2013-06-24 02:29:22 PM  

likefunbutnot: Dear everyone: If you want your shiat to actually be fast and reliable, use a wire.
All that crap over by your TV that can access Netflix? Don't want to run an ethernet cable over there? Get a $60 homeplug kit and a $10 100Mbit switch.

802.11ac will make no meaningful difference in speed or reliability for end users over 802.11n.


Ya except that's not true.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report