Slashdot Mirror
WiFi Woes With .11g
Herby Werby writes "The Register has an article on the incompatibility between .11g and .11b across differing unnamed vendors due to premature roll-outs. The part which really hurts is the suggestion that if there's a .11b participant to your .11g network then either it gets ignored or the network reverts to .11b status. Anyone tried this yet with their new Powermacs?" As the article points out, this is most likely due to the fact that .11g hasn't really even been set as a *standard* yet, so incompatibility is to be expected. I just hope vendors get really good with flash updates.
I am reading this article while waiting for FedEx to bring me my new 12" Powerbook. I'll check it out when it gets here. It has the Airport "Extreme" card.
-------
When come back bring pie!
No they don't. Normal people call it "wireless networking" or maybe wi-fi. No, wait, normal people probably don't call it anything at all.
They became famous for their "v.Everything" modems, which allowed you to basically connect to any other type of modem, even with bad line conditions. Could they produce an 802.11Evertyhing? It could talk to all these incompatible "standards" and sell well to higher end consumers who need guaranteed connectivity.
Little "(2)" at the bottom of the page says:
(2) Based on IEEE 802.11g draft specification. Data rates greater than 11 Mbps require an AirPort Extreme Base Station, an AirPort Extreme Card, and an AirPort Extreme-ready computer. To achieve maximum speed of 54 Mbps, all users must use AirPort Extreme Cards. Actual speed will vary based on range, connection rate, and other factors
thats how long my backorder on the 17" powerbook is. My concern with 802.11g is that it seems extremely distance limited, my dlink 614+ can push 22mbit over 2.4ghz, but it sucks because you need to be right next to the damn thing to get that much throughput. I'd rather have 11mbit and actually be able to get some distance with it.
Erm, this was in the reg seven days ago. Maybe it should be in the "olds for nerds" section instead? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
"When one or more 802.11b users connect, the wireless network begins to decrease its maximum data rate to accommodate them. When many 802.11b users are active on the wireless network, the overall network data rate begins to approximate 802.11b rates."
See the "Airport Extreme Technology Overview" at the bottom of this page.
...as the register makes it sound ? Obviously different standards will have at least some compatibility issues that need to be resolved, but it seems that the registers depicts it as a huge problem
I wasn't able to find any cards out on the market that'll work under Linux.. Most of them use the Broadcom chipset (or a newer rev of the prism chipset) that doesn't work with the existing prism drivers out there.. =/ I tried to toy around with the Linksys "54g" card.. but.. ended up giving up and brought it back.
*shrug* I figure I'll just wait the 4 months until 802.11g is out of draft and is actually standardized.. People are saying there will be flash updates for the cards.. but.. *shrug* I don't trust word of mouth too much..
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
I bought a Buffalo 802.11g Air Station for my house that delievered a 4x speed increase over 802.11b. When My wife comes online with her Apple laptop using 802.11b the speed does drop back to 802.11b but since we are hardly ever on at the same time this isn't a problem. I still enjoy the faster speeds and Buffalo has a guarentee that they will upgrade or replace all hardware to meet the standards when they become ratified. Till then i'm enjoying a preview and lovin it...
I thought 802.11g was made a standard according to this /. post.
Boredom's not a burden anyone should bear.
At least until all the standards are sorted out Im going to stick with 802.11b. I know its not exactly blasteringly fast, but manily I just like to surf on my laptop or pda its certainly faster than any internet connection I have access to.
Added to the most of the sites (not websites real places!) have 11b wireless. Personally until 11g or some other backwards compatible solution proliferates I would rather be compatable than quick.
I have a Linksys 11g Access Point. There are about 7 11b users (mostly linksys pc cards and usb adapters). I use a powerbook (12inch) with the 11g card, and everything seems to play nice in that network. The powerbook always connects at 54, though the acctual throughput never gets close to that (I test with iperf). The 11b clients don't seem to affect the 11g client.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
The IEEE Wireless Standards Zone overview is here.
Recent news from the IEEE re: 802.11 is available here.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I have a wired + wireless router (one of the many little ones that Walmart / CompUSA / your local Lucky Dragon sell), and it's great, works with very little coaxing.
...?"
.11g which would make it worth buying -- for household use, that is -- over a ridiculously cheap 801.11b router? I guess at a frathouse (or a co-op), it would make more sense ...
However, it also offers throughput on both the wired and unwired sides which is far greater than the bandwidth of my cable modem. For person-to-person communication (IRCing with your tenant in the basement, or even using VoIP if you're into that sort of thing) or moderate file exchanging, 11b is *plenty* until you get pretty far apart.
How often do you do large file transfers wirelessly so that you'd get a big benefit out of 11g? For some people that answer is going to be "All the time, thank you!" but for most residential wireless users, I think the answer is going to be "Large file transfers
Are there really compelling advantages to
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
This article has so many errors in it I don't know where to start.
7 61 for the complete story. The only sensationalism here is for ignorant reporters being used by vendors who want to inject some controvery into a very technical process.
It says that because of incompatibilities between 11g implementations the IEEE was "forced" to decide between them. WRONG!!! The decision on a final IEEE 11g standard has had the SAME EXACT schedule for the last year per the association's roadmap. And, as the article DOES NOT SAY, the IEEE gave approval to a draft last week, RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. See http://www.80211-planet.com/news/article.php/1584
The Register really botched this story. Big time.
Are you using Nick Sayer's hack on AppleAirPort2.kext or some other 802.11g driver?
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Naming conventions for networking standards are all over the map: airport, airport extreme, wifi etc.
You'd think it would just be simpler to use the 802.xyz definition because at least that's a version number.
Oh yeah, except 802 isn't even a version number. The first meeting of the IEEE Computer Society "Local Network Standards Committee", Project 802, was held in February of 1980. It was called 802 for the second month of 1980.
So all these things are pretty arbitrary. Personally, I think networking standards should be named Uhura.
I realize there is a lot of excitement about the OFDM and increased bandwidth 802.11g is going to bring to the ISM band, but don't hold your breath waiting for your local WISP to roll it in your area.
http://www.apertonet.com is very active in 802.16, they've got a $2k/channel head end unit, and $1k subscriber units. Its too expensive for resi but it *works* for business - both cost wise and radio wise, which is something I'll never claim about 802.11b. I've got Cisco 802.11b gear in five counties and base on what I've seen from Aperto the only place 802.11b will survive is in very cost sensitive rural areas.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
This client decided to put a PC on the network along with several networked printers. All networked printers worked fine with current Macs utilizing the "802.11b part" of the Airport Extreme (802.11b/802.11g hybrid)
The PC, with a Linksys 802.11g card didn't like the network - while it saw the network and Macs saw it, no connection could be made to the internet via AE BaseStation t1 internet.
I called Linksys, and they said, "At the moment, the Linksys 802.11g (which includes a new implementation of 802.11b) was only compatible with other Linksys equipment". Phone support managed to help me get the 802.11b working. I was transferred to a tech where discussed timeframes and support. I was told that Linksys is actually working with Apple to make a standard since more people initially will buy Airport Extreme. I was told to expect a flash updater for both units by the middle of March.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
this makes perfect sense from a bandwidth slice point of view. if each card is getting an equal fraction of bandwidth (or time or whatever) and the b- cards are only exploiting that bandwidth at their normal 11MB/s flux then well yes they are wasting bandwith (but thats becasue they are B-cards).
the transmitter is still jamming bits as fast as it can, it just cat jam them as fast to the B-cards
of course a better situation would be if the bandwidth could be shared better so the b-cards got a smaller slice. but I doubt the b-cards would work that way.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The performance of the DI 614+ I have is excellent.
I have no problem with distance problem. I can get a more than decent connection throughout the house. That's roughly more than 40 foot radius.
By the way, the actual speed of D-Link 614+ and 650+ is 11MBbps with 22Mbps throughput. It is more efficient than the "original" 802.11b
I have a Powerbook G4 Ti 550Mhz and an IBM Thinkpad T21.
I have an airport extreme wireless hub.
I have an Airport card in the Powermac. It works fine with the Airport Extreme (as one would expect).
I have an old 'IBM High Rate Wireless LAN' card which as I understand is a 40bit WEP compatible 802.11b card. It works fine.
So i bought a Linksys 802.11g card for my Thinkpad so I could at least use 128Bit WEP. I plug it in, and it don't work at all. It connects to the base station, but won't get an IP address. If you hard code an IP address it doesn't work either, but it sees the base station.
Of course I've worked on this for about 20 min, so I'm not finished yet. Not real thrilled with the 'ease of use' crap with Windows 200, wish it'd give more detail other than the pretty graphics.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I've had a Siemens Gigaset phone system (2.4GHz) at home since before wireless really took off. Seeing as there are at least four wireless networks that I know of within 50 feet of where I live, I'm beginning to get quite annoyed with the interference. It's bad enough that I have to share the spectrum with leaky microwave ovens (2.45GHz). Now would all please show some respect and use wireless technology in a different spectrum, such as 802.11a?
Thank you.
it says "By the way, the actual speed of D-Link 614+ and 650+ is 11MBbps with 22Mbps throughput. It is more efficient than the "original" 802.11b
It should be:
By the way, the actual maximum transfer speed of D-Link 614+ and 650+ is 11MBbps with maximum of 22Mbps throughput. It is more efficient than the "original" 802.11b
This is going to do nothing but piss a lot of people off and make even more think that .11g sucks ass due to bad word-of-mouth.
I live within 50 feet of some jerk with a 2.4 Ghz phone who is screwing up my WiFi connection.
"Actual speed will vary based on range, connection rate, and other factors.*"
* Other factors may include (but are not limited to) the color of your hair, current antartic wind patterns, and whether or not you are wearing clean underwear today.
Honestly though - actual speed depends on the connection rate? Talk about covering all your legal bases...
-j
This article doesn't deserve to be promoted on /., and besides is old news anyway.
The main aim of the article seems to be to try to boost the author's own credibility by making it look as if his previous 802.11g pessimism was prescient. But the author is really trying to stretch the facts to fit his premise; he's not making a useful report.
He says of the release of pre-standard agreement 802.11g devices: "As predicted, the result is a monumental cockup"
Monumental cockup? Hardly. These devices work pretty well and manufacturers such as Apple are open about the fact that the standard is still in draft form - and have stated they will release firmware updates to bring their products in line with the final specification when agreed.
What this article actually gives us is a load of FUD about 802.11g, even quoting a Gartner analyst for a 'techincal'
explanation!
It makes you wonder if this guy's got friends in the 802.11a camp...
What is 802.11g? It is a mix of 802.11b and 802.11a.
802.11b, the commonly seen version, runs at 2.4GHz, just like Bluetooth. Why? Because 2.4GHz is the natural resonance frequency of water, which is the frequency of microwave ovens. So 2.4GHz was left open years ago, because nobody thought it would be any use (a 1KW noise source could completely swamp out the 1nW power of a tranmsitted frequency).
802.11b uses a digital modulation scheme called CCK, which is basically a fluffed up version of QPSK. 802.11a uses a more advanced modulation format called OFDM, but at 5.2GHz. OFDM is better able to operate in an environment with multiple reflections, but requires a much more complicated modulator/demodulator. But the complexity gets about 5x the data rate in the same bandwidth.
802.11g was a higher data rate version of 802.11b. Texas Instruments had proposed to use a data format called PBCC to get higher data rates than the CCK used in 802.11b. Intersil proposed to use the OFDM from 802.11a. A standards committee war started, and the end was TI lost. TI wanted PBCC because it was already working on a chipset that would support it, giving TI a great advantage. Of course, Intersil waas probably doing the same thing. When TI lost, it tried to do an end-run around the standard by releasing its chipset anyway. The Dlink plus series and USR 22MB/s Wireless components use the TI chipset.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
why don't you burn his house down?
I would
That was classic intercourse!
No, I'm just using the stock setup on the powerbook. Although at home I connect the 11g powerbook to an 11b linksys ap, and only 3 of the channels (9-11) work. But I'm fairly certain that it is an interference issue and not a b/g compatibility issue.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
Check out 3com's solutions. I think that they are linux compatible across the board. Everyone else just says "Winblows XP" or Mac OS (9/X). Good luck.
Rumor has it that the incompatibility is due to Linsys' use of a Broadcom chipset. Apparently, they (Broadcom) are 'new' to the .11x market and their backwards compat to .11b is a problem.
Linksys being what they are will probably fix it with firmware then everyone will forget about it.
being ratified or anything like that. Regardless of the fact that 802.11g is in Final Draft status and will likely have very few, if any, changes... the issue is entirely whether or not 802.11b vendors completely implemented the 802.11b standard.
802.11b / 802.11g compatibility relies on implementation of RTS/CTS in the respective stacks. Many 802.11b vendors failed to implement this (for whatever reason).
Further, the idea that 802.11g access points revert to 802.11b when as little as one 802.11b client is present is a myth! What happens is that when an 802.11g access point is run in compatibility mode, it is forced to use RTS/CTS. The data rate is not slowed down. Rather, it experiences slightly greater overhead as RTS/CTS packets must be used.
Let us take the time to stop all this FUD now and educate ourselves.
My girlfriend's roommate bought the 802.11b/g DSL router/switch combo jobby from the store, and while her one roommate's iBook works great, the other roommate's PC with an orinoco card can't find the network. Maybe a new firmware will fix it, but it really doesn't seem like it was ready.
DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
In this article, EE Times looks at some of the same issues.
.11b and .11g basestations, Krewell said, clients will automatically default to the lower 11-Mbit/s bandwidth of .11b.
.11b chips for its Banias notebook platform, following that up with .11a/b combo chips within three months, and probably add support for .11g by the end of the year, Krewell said.
However, some of the same misinformation prevails:
And in an environment of mixed
Not true on two counts.
First, the only reason that a/b access points don't do this is because they're basically two different access points in one box! If a b/g access point had essentially two access points - one b, and one g - within itself, it wouldn't need to scale back either! Which brings me to...
Second, g clients don't scale back to 11 when b clients are present. They will get slower, but only because of the way the packets are interspersed. When 802.11b is present on an interface where g is present, everything, including b clients, will slow a little bit; by about a third. But g clients will not slow to 11.
Also, Apple's equipment has the ability to force b or g only, if needed in a particular installation.
Ultimately, one Apple design manager said, chip sets will support all three WLAN standards, eliminating any conflicts. Indeed, Intel intends to initially ship
Looks to my like it'll be a wash in the end, and I'd rather have g, albeit a draft g, right now (which, if there are any changes, will most certainly be updated to the final g via a firmware update). I can still connect to all b access points, and have increased speed when connected to my g access point (connected via 100mbit ethernet) today.
Note: this was posted wirelessly over draft 802.11g-Draft6.
Maybe Broadcom's Jeff Abramowitz won't tell which legacy cards have a problem with 11g access points, but slashdot readers should have no such constraints. I was using an Apple airport with an Orinoco PC24E-H-FC laptop card. A week ago I installed a Linksys WRT54G. The wireless part (with first firmware release) wouldn't talk to the Orinoco card. Installing the January firmware revision solved that problem. Also, the article suggests that using a large number of 11b clients might diminish the results for the 11g users. Setting the new 11g access point to a different channel (frequency) and running both at the same time, with 11g clients using the new channel, should solve that problem. (Assuming one can specify the channel on which the clients are to work - as in Linux).
Hmm. Airport Extreme...
iPods coming around to their scheduled upgrade...
Rendezvous bringing it all together without configuration...
Kinda makes ya wonder what Apple will do with their little puzzle pieces, doesn't it?
But it is "802.11g" not ".11g"
GEEZ GET IT RIGHT!!
And in other news, 802.11h will replace 802.11a in the futur. 802.11h is still in the 5Ghz band, and will have support for transmission power changes.
You should read this link.
To achieve maximum speed of 54 Mbps, all users must use AirPort Extreme Cards
This is ambiguous; it could mean that to get 54mbs transfers, you'll need two machines that have Extreme cards via an Extreme base station, regardless of any 802.11b products using it, or it could mean that if an 802.11b card is connected, the whole Base Station drops to 11Mbs.
From the above paragraph alone, it's difficult to say for sure.
ZDNET wi-fi types.
This article for a review of the Linksys G device:
Toms Hardware Review
Lot's of possible headaches listed.
I bought one anyway, since my SMC Barricade Router broke down the other day. I could have bought an A or a B, but since I try to hang onto my equipment as long as possible I decided to risk it by going with a G machine.
I don't have any wireless client machines yet, my house has plenty of cat 5 in it already, so I cannot attest to Tom's review.
BTW, I do not recommend SMC, their device was constantly overheating on me. It's just not acceptable to have to walk all the way to the other end of the house when I want to use the internet (i.e. to turn on/off the stupid Barricade router).
Caution: Contents under pressure
Last week I got a new G4 12" Powerbook (very nice, BTW!), with built-in 802.11g. Of course it wouldn't talk to the basestation. To get it to work required re-flashing the basestation to bring it up to more recent spec. After that it worked fine. It's always annoying to have to upgrade firmware, but to be honest I'm really impressed it works at all - I was expecting to have to change the card in the basestation to something a little more recent.
- Fzz
...this doesn't increase web surfing speeds at all, because high-speed DSL or cable is actually slower than an 11G card. It does increase your speed on a wireless home network with multiple 11G cards set up in your various boxes.
But if you don't have a home network, or don't NEED to beat the Joneses in "kewlness", save your money for beer. This is all hype so far, with very little applicability. I don't have a home network, so it would be a 100% waste of money for me. And even if I DID have a home network, why does it have to be cutting edge? Money doesn't grow on trees, you know. I still leave my computer on at night to download stuff, and I don't NEED a home network, since I burn stuff to CD's anyway.
Bitterman
of the v.90 / flex56, 56k modem non-sense. what a disaster that was for consumers.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
As bad as the game companies that send out a game still in need of patches. They know there are errors; they know things need fixing; they know it's not a "solid" game yet.
So what do they do? They ship it...and keep working on it.
Right now the manufacturers are hiding behind the statement, "this is based on a draft of the 802.11g standard and may differ from the standard when it's published."
They are putting out a product that will mostly achieve the results people are looking for with 802.11g and hoping they can get the devices into the needed spec with firmware updates when the standard is published.
On a side note, 802.11g may be a much more viable solution for large businesses. Those companies which require their wireless users to sign in through a DMZ and VPN into the network (thereby not having to worry so much about wireless security problems) will find the added bandwidth of the 802.11g standard very helpful for their wireless users.
Those of us setting up a home network, well, it's nice to keep up with the Joneses, but you won't see me upgrading my 802.11b wireless network anytime soon.
Obviously this stuff is based on my opinion, but being a wireless networking specialist at one of the largest computer manufacturers, that opinion is also based on factual observation.
And no...my company won't be putting out 802.11g equipment until we are much closer to the standard and more of the bugs are worked out between b and g compatibility.
The whole problem with shipping several companies' ideas of draft standards is that there's no central certification or testing, as there is with Wi-Fi. Several articles have said that Wi-Fi testing involves a plugfest. Well, there are plugfests, in which lots of manufacturers try interop with lots of devices, but there's also the Wi-Fi certification process with involves lab testing according to a long list of standards.
When 802.11g is finalized in a last draft soon, then is the time to buy 802.11g gear. I'm testing Linksys and Apple gear now, and although it's fine, there's no great motivation to hop on board until it all works correctly all the time.
InfoWorld reported this week on problems with speed, WEP compatibility, and cross-manufacturer compatibility. These will be fixed.
Draft, draft, draft!
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
I have a 2x 802.11b access point from D-Link (22mpbs).
My roommate bought an 802.11g D-Link card, hoping it could run at 22 mbps at home, and faster elsewhere.
Unfortunately, it only connected at 2 (!) mbps. Nothing we tried could get it to go higher. So, he returned it for a 802.11b 2x card, which works great.
I don't know if it was just a bad apple, but it was disappointing.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
That last troll was posted by:
McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net
McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112
Feel free to call this troll. He's lives with his mom, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to troll, another copy of his personal info will be posted immediately afterward.
Bowie J. Poag
Have you tried changing the channel on your base station? That should help.
FWIW, Cordless phones should cause bandwidth degradation, but if you are experiencing other problems beyond that, it suggests a problem with either the phone, the base station, or your wireless card, or some combination thereof.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
According to this Apple Knowledge Base article, the speed of the base station DOES NOT throttle when 11b users are connected.
It specifically says:
"Mixing clients on an AirPort Extreme network
When you mix 802.11b (AirPort) and 802.11g (AirPort Extreme) clients on an AirPort Extreme network, each type of client receives an appropriate data throughput rate. The 802.11g clients continue to receive data at a higher rate than 802.11b clients.'
The "little 2" is probably there so people don't think that when an 11b user is transfering files to an 11g user that the transfer will zoom along at 54mbs. In this scenerio, all user need to be extreme to get high speeds.
I think "Wireless" should be a topic on slashdot.
There is so much past news and news yet to come on this topic. It makes sense to document and archive it distinctly.
"Failure of Windows operating systems is extremely rare. If it happens, it is usually due to operating system file c
I've got a linksys 54g base station, two 54g cards (also linksys) and an Orinoco gold card.
:P )
While I haven't done any serious testing on bandwidth in a mixed environment, I can say that everything appears to play well...at least it does after I flashed the firmware in the base station. (Damn linksys, I didn't pay to be your betatester...I guess that's what that $20 I saved makes me.)
But seriously, interaction isn't that big a deal in my case. The 11g cards work GREAT on the 11b network at the office, and they work GREAT on the 11g network at home. On the off chance somebody comes over with a 'b' card, everybody STILL has more bandwidth than the cablemodem can feed, and 'g' is STILL a little slow to blow raw video to the fileserver. Other than that, what else requires more bandwidth than 11 mbps can feed?
BTW, the 11g cards have better signal discrimination...by a bunch.
Now, if somebody would just port Broadcom drivers to Linux, I wouldn't have to keep using the orinoco card in Linux and the Linksys cards in XP!
(oh yeah, and a 25 Mb file transfers in about 32 seconds on a 54g network with good signal and no congestion.
And costs: $149 for the basestion and $69 for each card.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Ah yes. The problem there is that the only wireless networking Windows 200 supports is carrier pigeon. You have to upgrade to a least Windows 1900 to get radio network going. To get 802.11g you have to move to Windows 2000, but I'm not sure if your 18 century old computer can handle that.
Hadn't realized that was part of the BSE, thanks for pointing that out.
;)
:)
Of the wireless routers I've got, one of them (Linksys) has external antenna jacks; the lack of them is one of the only things I dislike about the SMC I'm on right now, though I have never actually attached an external antenna -- I'd still like to be able to if the opportunity comes up
The BSE is just about the same price as I paid for a messier package of [SMC wireless AP / 3-port switch / DHCP box (with a serial port) + external 56k modem (to attach to the serial port)] However, that 3-port hub has come in very handy; if I had the BSE, I'd have to have an external switch anyhow. A tossup
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Interop between 802.11b cards can be sketchy enough as is.
I really wish the vendors would concentrate on getting the existing 'standard' working well enough first before going faster. Things like support for real security (TKIP, EAP), and Ad-Hoc
Even just basic WEP is sketchy on a lot of cards, causing serious throughput issues, or worse, crashing the card.
Get it together folks!
Have you painted a shed today?
I'm running my PC with a Linksys 802.11g card, a 400-MHz G4 tower with Airport 802.11b, connecting to an Airport Extreme Base Station with no problems. The latest drivers on everything (Linksys card, Airport admin software, Airport card drivers). Windows XP Home, OS X 10.2.4.
I just upgraded to 11g with a link sys AP and card. I do see substantial improvement over my 11b (d-link ap and card). :)
with 11b I always thought my putty shells where gonna disconnect when reaching for my beer ;)
11g pulls off 2MBps from my server fine. 11b did only 600KBps. The old 11b cards play happy with the new AP. Now I'm just crossing my fingers that the 12"PB that we just got for dad in law works with it. Although I did read somewhere that linksys 11g and Airport Extreme use the same chipsets.
Strangly, the 11g does seem to improve internet access through my DLS connection. Page loads do seem faster.
More importantly with 11g I don't see the signal strength drop bellow 50% when I'm in bed
"Never trust a computer you can't throw." -- The Mac
Much like mixing compact cars and tractor-trailers on the expressway.
Thank you for the link. Did not catch that first time through
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
This was not redundant.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Since nobody knows jack crap how to read English on here. this is DIRECTLY from the Apple Store webpage for the Airport Extreme Base Station.
5 The AirPort Extreme Base Station defaults to 802.11b compatibility mode when users of AirPort Cards or other Wi-Fi certified 802.11b products join the network. Maximum data rate for AirPort Cards or other Wi-Fi certified 802.11b products is 11Mbps.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
3com's wireless page doesn't list any 802.11g equipment yet. The only 802.11g cards I've seen in person were the Linksys WPC54G & WMP54G.
I was looking for compatibility between Linux and 802.11g last night; I found someone saying "long story short, Broadcom doesn't work" (Note: That link is down, and checking nearby files pop up errors about "vulnerable Internet Explorer version," closes the window, and probably fucks up my computer. Thanks a lot guys. Um. The upshot is, people have tried the Broadcom stuff on Linux, it doesn't work, and it's suggested you request documentation from Broadcom. Later.)
I'm very interested in knowing if this is true, as I'm planning on buying an Airport base station this month. If it's FUD, then why does Apple post it under their own specs? Are they just being lazy, or is there a genuine technical issue at work here?:
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Your girlfriend? Oh, you mean your imaginary girlfriend? The one who you love and cherish and sucks my dick? She's a nice girl - a little chunky - but nice. I'm glad that, in coming up with a fantasy to revolve your life around, you not only chose a female (way not to be a fag, you fucking fag) but she's also good enough so that she would never be satisfied by you. I am glad that you understand the basic construct of reality and that you will never have a meaningful relationship because you are a dickless faggot. I fucked your imaginary girlfriend in the pooper.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
The problem is that although 11g products are supposed to interoperate with 11b, they have to slow down to do so. Thus any 11b traffic will seriously limit the effective data rates available for 11g devices. For instance, if you have one 11b device using 5 Mbps of the bandwidth, you won't be able to get more than 10 Mbps from an 11g device.
I've been involved in 11g product development and have seen this firsthand.
all that quote/footnote is really saying is that if one uses an 802.11b card with the APE, then the APE will communicate with it using 802.11b.
/. how it is that I know this. But, trust that the only difference between running a 'pure' .11g network and a mixed .11g/.11b network is the use of RTS/CTS packets. .11g clients will get a 54Mbps connection and .11b clients will get a 11Mbps connection.
I know you don't know me from Adam, and I would not feel comfortable revealing on
Apple and Linksys use the same chipset. Probably the folks with problems are those mixing vendors.
They didn't get the 'draft' bit...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But you (the moderator) are an idiot.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
The New Testament offers the basis for modern computer coding theory,
in the form of an affirmation of the binary number system.
But let your communication be Yea, yea; nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-- Matthew 5:37
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...