Slashdot Mirror
Apple Clarifies 802.11g Controversy
Wireless Spider writes "A couple of days ago there was a controversy over the 802.11g data rates and supposed changes in IEEE specification. Apple has clarified this controversy, stating that nothing has changed in the spec. It seems the article from Computerworld was somewhat misleading. Quote from an Apple Vice President: "802.11g is still a 54Mbit/sec standard," Bell told MacCentral. "802.11b is 11Mbit/sec, but your actual throughput is somewhere between 4 and 5-1/2Mbit/sec. The number that's quoted is the data rate that's used between the radios (raw data rate, which includes the protocols etc.)" After reading this article featured on Macworld, 802.11g transfer rate controversy meaningless, says Apple, it seems clear that the people at Computerworld didn't do their homework for the article featured on May 22. Also, there seems to be a lot of politics between 802.11g and a supporters, and that every article posted on the Internet about this subject might not be true, or could be politically motivated."
Wow, if this isn't news for nerds I don't know what is.
I mean, good fucking lord.
I just, 5 minutes before this article popped up, showed a friend of mine the previous slashdot article saying that 802.11g's 54mbps is not-so. Damn contradictory news services! *shakes fist*
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
and that every article posted on the Internet about this subject might not be true, or could be politically motivated.
really?
yeah, but I'm probably the 20th one today! :-)
jr.
2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Source Caveman develops the axe and releases it under the GPL. The axe quickly gains popularity as a means of crushing moderators' heads.
100,000 B.C.: Man domesticates the AIBO.
10,000 B.C.: Civilization begins when early farmers first learn to cultivate hot grits.
3000 B.C.: Sumerians develop a primitive cuneiform perl script.
2920 B.C.: A legendary flood sweeps Slashdot, filling up a Borland / Inprise story with hundreds of offtopic posts.
1750 B.C.: Hammurabi, a Mesopotamian king, codifies the first EULA.
490 B.C.: Greek city-states unite to defeat the Persians. ESR triumphantly proclaims that the Greeks "get it".
399 B.C.: Socrates is convicted of impiety. Despite the efforts of freesocrates.com, he is forced to kill himself by drinking hemlock.
336 B.C.: Fat-Time Charlie becomes King of Macedonia and conquers Persia.
4 B.C.: Following the Star (as in hot young actress) of Bethelem, wise men travel from far away to troll for baby Jesus.
A.D. 476: The Roman Empire BSODs.
A.D. 610: The Glorious MEEPT!! founds Islam after receiving a revelation from God. Following his disappearance from Slashdot in 632, a succession dispute results in the emergence of two troll factions: the Pythonni and the Perliites.
A.D. 800: Charlemagne conquers nearly all of Germany, only to be acquired by andover.net.
A.D. 874: Linus the Red discovers Iceland.
A.D. 1000: The epic of the Beowulf Cluster is written down. It is the first English epic poem.
A.D. 1095: Pope Bruce II calls for a crusade against the Turks when it is revealed they are violating the GPL. Later investigation reveals that Pope Bruce II had not yet contacted the Turks before calling for the crusade.
A.D. 1215: Bowing to pressure to open-source the British government, King John signs the Magna Carta, limiting the British monarchy's power. ESR triumphantly proclaims that the British monarchy "gets it".
A.D. 1348: The ILOVEYOU virus kills over half the population of Europe. (The other half was not using Outlook.)
A.D. 1420: Johann Gutenberg invents the printing press. He is immediately sued by monks claiming that the technology will promote the copying of hand-transcribed books, thus violating the church's intellectual property.
A.D. 1429: Natalie Portman of Arc gathers an army of Slashdot trolls to do battle with the moderators. She is eventually tried as a heretic and stoned (as in petrified).
A.D. 1478: The Catholic Church partners with doubleclick.net to launch the Spanish Inquisition.
A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he believes to be "India", but which RMS informs him is actually "GNU/India".
A.D. 1508-12: Michaelengelo attempts to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling with ASCII art, only to have his plan thwarted by the "Lameness Filter."
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
A.D. 1553: "Bloody" Mary ascends the throne of England and begins an infamous crusade against Protestants. ESR eats his words. A.D. 1588: The "IF I EVER MEET YOU, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS" guy meets the Spanish Armada.
A.D. 1603: Tokugawa Ieyasu unites the feuding pancake-eating ninjas of Japan.
A.D. 1611: Mattel adds Galileo Galilei to its CyberPatrol block list for proposing that the Earth revolves around the sun.
A.D. 1688: In the so-called "Glorious Revolution", King James II is bloodlessly forced out of power and flees to France. ESR again triumphantly proclaims that the British monarchy "gets it".
A.D. 1692: Anti-GIF hysteria in the New World comes to a head in the infamous "Salem GIF Trials", in which 20 alleged GIFs are burned at the stake. Later investigation reveals that mayn of the supposed GIFs were actually PNGs.
A.D. 1769: James Watt patents the one-click steam engine.
A.D. 1776: Trolls, angered by CmdrTaco's passage of the Moderation Ac
I voted on the 802.11g spec. We all knew the problems we would have with 802.11b integration (and which have been widely reported in various interoperability tests). We had to draw the line somewhere. And when you draw lines, someone will invariably take issue.
It is obvious that CW's reporter talked to someone who had an axe to grind. Maybe when we publish the spec in June (possibly July---yes, the IEEE also has a bureaucracy) that reporter will sit down and read it instead of reporting what someone else has said.
This assumes that the reporter can understand what he/she is reading (a BIG assumption these days with reporters).
i stopped reading computerworld after this article even if it was a joke i am not laughing. bad journalism:
.Net development framework as an open-source project called Mono. The value of Mono eludes me, but perhaps there's a secret contingent of open-source programmers itching to write code in Visual Basic .Net.
"Finally, Ximian Inc. walks away with "The Mouse That Squeaked" award for continuing to reproduce the
Nevertheless, only delusions of grandeur could account for the notion that Microsoft won't bankrupt Ximian and stop the project on claims of patent violations the moment Mono poses a threat."
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
It would have been good if they did this before they introduced the first (801.11b) wireless cards...
Now, the speed rating makes it seem as if 802.11a cards are several times faster than 802.11g cards.
Indeed, it does look as if someone is trying to create confusion.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
In the new millenium we don't even have to threaten to let rats loose on your face, we just hold out the possibility of a scoop!
Why anyone (except maybe a warehousing company) would go out and buy a device that employs a 5ghz signal that can't veen pass through drywall is beyond me. The fact that there is even an argument between G and A is asinine.
-rt
June, 10th
802.11g transfer rate controversy meaningless, says Apple By Jim Dalrymple jdalrymple@maccentral.com May 23, 2003 10:10 pm ET
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE), the group responsible for setting standards in the networking industry, approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs. The standard was approved by the IEEE on May 15, but will not be made publicly available until members of the IEEE 802.11 working group ratify it next month.
Recent published reports that the final standard for 802.11g will be throttled down to 20Mbit/sec aren't an indication of any actual change to the spec, according to Apple's Vice President of Software, Mike Bell.
Bell said the spec has not been throttled back at all, and explains using the familiar 802.11b specification.
"802.11g is still a 54Mbit/sec standard," Bell told MacCentral. "802.11b is 11Mbit/sec, but your actual throughput is somewhere between 4 and 5-1/2Mbit/sec. The number that's quoted is the data rate that's used between the radios (raw data rate, which includes the protocols etc.)"
Although internal tests have shown slightly higher data rates, the actual data rate for 802.11g will be approximately 20Mbit/sec, which is 4 to 5 times higher than 802.11b. Bell said the data rate has always been around 20Mbit/sec and hasn't changed in the final draft standard.
Apple chose 802.11g because of its backward compatibility with 802.11b devices. Many of Apple's own customers in business, education and in the home use the original AirPort for their wireless Internet access, as well as the many wireless HotSpots throughout the United States that use 802.11b.
If you own an 802.11g Base Station and plan to allow 802.11b devices on your network, the changes in the final specification will actually be better for you, according to Apple.
"The only change of any substance is that options were put in place so that if you want to allow legacy 'b' clients on your network, they will co-exist better with 'g' clients," said Bell. "In fact, your throughput is probably better and smoother now than what it was before. There is absolutely no difference in the data rate -- it is still 54Mbit/sec."
Apple has maintained since its release that AirPort Extreme products would follow the final specifications agreed on by the IEEE and Apple's Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak, said on Friday that commitment has not changed.
"We applaud the changes they have made in the final specification," said Joswiak. "As we always said, there is nothing of significance technically that we can't put out in a software update. We expect to have an update available in the future for the final specification."
Apple was one of the first companies to ship a wireless product based on the new 802.11g standard when they announced AirPort Extreme at Macworld Expo in San Francisco in January. Joswiak said Apple picked 802.11g because it was the best choice for Apple's customers.
"We could have chosen any standard we wanted; we had no obligations that would make us select 'g' over 'a' except it was a better solution for our customers," said Joswiak. "We feel really good about out decision, but unfortunately there are some folks out there that are making a last ditch effort to try to cause confusion in the market and that's really unfortunate."
In fact it's so suoupar 1337 that it CAN BEAT teh $2 CRACKHEAD modz!!!111!!!
It is perfectly reasonable to expect only 20 mbps throughput with a 802.11a or 11g network, for the same reason that 4-5 mbps is average using a 10baset hub or 802.11b. These are all shared mediums. Clients must use Collision Detection and avoidance. There is competition for the available bandwidth. All wireless must contend with clients that are connected at different rates. If a host is far enough from a 11a access point that it associates at 12 mbps, It's communications with the AP will take a longer timeslice from the available airspace. Clients associated at a higher rate will have their effective communication rate drastically effected.
Does it matter? Is it bad to market 11a and 11g at their 5x mbps? or 11b at 11mbps? Not really. (IMHO) Just like Hard drives are advertised at they size before putting a file system on them, it is up to the user to understand what the numbers really mean.
If you are the only client associated with an AP, your throughput will probably be much closer to the theoretical maximum, just as if there are only two things connected to a hub, their communications with each other will be better than if there were five.
Why is Apple responsible for defending 802.11g, and why is anyone attacking Apple for the shortcomings (if any) of 'g?
I have a Linksys 802.11g system, and if there is a problem with the design of the spec, that's the IEEE's fault, not Linksys, Apple or anyone else.
-twb
Most of the time the quoted speed is the RAW speed. a 100Mbps network card is doing 100Mbps in RAW speed and actual data level speed is much lower. So then, shouldn't they be always quoting the higher 54Mbit/sec as opposed to some 11Mbit/sec!!?!
Anyway, 802.11b is 11Mbps so I can't believe 802.11g would be the same. I am automatically decreeing that 802.11g is faster than 11Mbps...
Does sound like bad reporting. Shouldnt happen from technically saavy folks
So if I don't want any B clients on my networks all G max speed. But maybe my neighbor has an entire B network that overlaps from an RF point of view with my network? If I turn off the compatibility mode will I sink his B network?
Are they using the correct SI form of the prefix Mega, the now outdated binary form of the prefix Mega which has been replaced by the prefix Mebi?
I wish this stuff would catch on. It's useful.
You quote raw signal rate and actual throughput for b, but not for g, which is a bit misleading. For those who still haven't figured it out:
b: 11Mbps signalling rate, 4-5 Mbps effective throughput
g: 54Mbps signalling rate, ~22 Mbps effective throughput.
[I don't know anything about a, so I'll let someone else comment about that.]
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Reporters that don't do there homework and slashdot editors that don't check the facts before posting? What is this the New York Times?
Is it just me, or when something about a Vice President at Apple, did you expect to see Al Gore quoted?
______ This mind intentionally left blank.
this can also coincide with regulations from the FTC (correct me if i'm wrong), limiting 56K modems to actually having a maximum data transfer rate of 53Kbits..
so although Apple mentioned the article may have something to do with politics, i'm pretty sure there are regulations being set as well..
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
After reading the article, I did a quick search for 802.11g throughput tests and 802.11a/b tests. I came up with two links:
Tom's Hardware 802.11g throughput tests
ExtremeTech's 802.11a and 802.11b throughput tests
There's going to be overhead with any protocol, but I would expect that wireless would have a higher overhead than wired protocols. There's certainly a lot of things you have to take into consideration for wireless throughput - obstructions, distance, error correction.
Computerworld reports that the IEEE has changed the 100BaseT spec to only run at 65Mb/s not 100Mb/s as initially specified, thus slowing down millions of computers world-wide. Additionally gigabit ethernet has also been affected by the IEEE bringing many critical business systems down to a crawl.
The only people who look bad as a result of this are silly chipset vendors and the 54g collaboration of idiots who put products on the market based loosely on the draft since now all their logos look stupid.
Yesterday...love was such an easy game to - ah, fuck it. LICK MY CLIT FP!
If you are afraid of getting it in the ass with meta mod just mod it up with UNDER RATED, no meta mod worries you mod point wimps!
Wireless doesn't do collision detection... because you can't. You only do avoidance (more overhead)
The bottom line is, what number SHOULD we put on teh spec? Call it 11Mbps? It's only approximately that, and that doesn't really tell you anything about the spec. Calling it 54Mbps is totally, completely accurate, and those who misunderstand simply, well, do not understand.
He said *IF* there is a problem witht he spec, then it's the IEEE's fault, not someone elses. ANd he would be right.. if there was a problem in the first place.
This is probably the funniest comment /.'s seen in about three years.
Because in 100Mbps ethernet, the raw speed is NOT much slower.... the max theoretical speed a host can transmit on 100base with ethernet, ip, and tcp overhead is still over 90Mbps.. (I think it's near 97 Mbps, haven't calculated it for a few years). This number is even closer for 10Mbps.. (close to 9.9Mbps)
Nobody ever really kicked up a fuss about this because the speeds are so damn close... but in wireless, they are very different.
You're going to feel pretty stupid when you get around to actually reading the article, aren't you?
It's 54,000,000 bits per second, which is a Megabit per second.. both under the old system AND the new one.
Yes, I realize this contradicts what you might think about a Kilobyte (now Kibi) being 1024 bits, and so on and so forth.. however data transmission speeds have ALWAYS been specified in metric units of bits per second.
A kilobit per second was always 1000 bits per second.
When someone says megabit, it always meant one million bits per second, not some strange power of two. That only comes about when you are dealing with memory.
With the internet, it got confusing because peopel started going from kilobits to kilobytes, or writing software to show upload rates without real knowledge of how thigns are technically specified, so it got muddy, and you have to guess what people mean.
However, in the case of 1.544Mbps T1, 10, 100, 1000, or 10000base ethernet, 11Mbps wireless, or 54Mbps wireless, we are talking about powers of 10
...or just a play on words with "Jobs" and "Wozniak"? :) Hell, if I had a name like that I would also be promoted to president of hardware product marketing.
If it didn't have 11 people on the committee, it wouldn't be called 802.11, would it?
Ah, and I am not on the committee too, but at least I can spell it.
You can't expect much more than 5 Mbps because around 5.5 Mbps is the theoretical bandwidth. Quoting 11 Mbps is highly misleading, as this is merely the signalling rate; there is some overhead in the physical-level protocol. If this sort of misleading labelling were used by ethernet, 100 Mbps ethernet would be advertised as 125 Mbps (the signalling rate is 125 Mbps, but it needs 5 bits for each 4 bits of real data transferred).
So yes, I think it's bad to market 11b at 11 Mbps or 11g at 54 Mbps, as these are not their throughputs; they should be marketed at 5.5 Mbps and 22 Mbps, respectively.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...that every article posted on the Internet about this subject might not be true, or could be politically motivated.
I'm not sure the age of the submitter, but if this comes as a surprise to anyone you really should be ashamed. Just because it's in print, on TV, or online does NOT make it true.
-- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
Okay.
I was on the commity that voted for this
Since you didn't manage to even spell "committee" correctly, I doubt it. I also doubt it since a google search on your name turns up bupkus.
I work for Apple
Hey, so does the other guy. Small world.
but this person is not on the commity.
I agree it's probably unlikely, but how would you know, given the only thing ID'ing the poster is an email address? You're not exactly "Mr. Credibility" posting as 'Anonymous Coward', either, bub.
there is only one member from the us. And her name is Tracy McNeal (she works for Xerox).
Well, that's funny, because I can't find any such person via Google, trying things like ' "Tracy McNeal" Xerox' or ' "Tracy McNeal" 802.11', or ' "Tracy McNeal" IEEE'. Go fish, bub. Oh, and I don't think Xerox makes any 802.11 equipment, although I could be wrong. A google search wasn't too helpful.
I work for Nokia
Oh? You just told us you worked for Apple. Pick a company, will you?
Please help metamoderate.
This comment's been modded up Funny. Where's your messiah now, Malda? Or your gh3y friendz?
I find the discussions about bandwidth (real and potential) less interesting than whether new AP's will have good backward compatability with a and b clients, have better range, and other usability issues.
It would be nice to stream high-quality video over wireless links, but that's what wired segments are for. Other factors are more important for the 802.11x's (most applications; most people). Like for instance, I'd like to see a breakdown of how many web surfers a 'g' access point could handle in a mixed-card environment.
Ok,
Fine. But I would like to point out that the 802.11g spec is in the 2.4Gighertz range, regardless of the contrversy, it would seem to me with all of the communications gear licenses for this spectrum range, that it is going to be HIGHLY dubious that your going to get the range or the speed benfits from g, even with no changes to the SPEC or how it is interpreted.
Contrast this with 802.11a which is in an entirely different Spectrum range, which IT OWNS, specifically for wireless networking.
My guess is 802.11a is still going to have more practical use outside a battle of the specs, than 802.11g.
I find it dubious that the range increases by 802.11g could be significant over the 802.11b standard with regards to both of them operating in the 2.4Gighertz spectrum.
I can use my 2.4Gigahertz cordles phone, my wireless 2.4Gighertz Blue Tooth enabled mice and keyboard, printer...
but I bet your network throughput in such an environment with 802.11g is going to suck rocks with such a crowded spectrum in the real world.
-gc
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
You make some huge statements in that post. The truth as ascertained by anyone who has conducted range tests and read tests conducted by others is that 802.11a is a total joke.
Yes, the 2.4ghz frequency is currently clogged with all the "common use" products. These include directed products (like 2.4ghz phones) and non-directed, incidental uses like microwaves, certain RF lighting, etc.
HOWEVER, the 5ghz frequency is even MORE problematic. Sure, no one uses 5ghz, but there is a REASON for that. 5ghz signals have trouble passing through little things like walls. Even drywall poses a monumental hurdle for 5ghz signals. This shortcoming makes 802.11a USELESS for any applications that involve even the smallest obstructions (like the home, an office, etc.)
The only place 802.11a MIGHT be more useful is in wide open, totally unobstructed horizons. These might include WAN point to point connections, airport runways, and warehouses.
The hope is that as these products evolve the public and the manufacturers (in an attempt to improve them) will demand some rules and regulations to insure non-interference, etc. Given the evolution of other industries and standards this is a good bet.
-rt
Our company has been purely 802.11b within the office complex for over 2 years now. Every client machine uses 802.11b, be it desktop or notebook. Our servers, of course, are connected to fast ethernet.
... it's not -that- much better on a busy LAN, and overall, the lower range makes it useless for us.
We've recently moved the network to 802.11g draft standard using linksys access points and linksys network adapters... which use the Broadcom chipset. I'm personally using a 17" PowerBook with an Airport Extreme (also Broadcom) card.
On the whole. we get between 15-22Mbps.
We did some pretty minor testing with 802.11a, and although I agree that it's throughput is -better- then 802.11g
802.11a will likely die out as 802.11b/g gain more and more popularity... the "non-standardness" of 11a, coupled with it's range issues, make it a hassle for most network admins.
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
I have a question.
Since 802.11g and b are backward compatible.
It would seem the controversy stems from the fact that, if you already invested in 802.11b equipment, mixing 802.11g in with your environment is going to cause the 802.11g access point to step down or send RTS/CTS signals after each packet as a courtesy to 802.11b equipment trying to communicate in the same area.
So, here is something I propose then:
Say you decide to deploy 802.11g equipment in your wharehouse. You have not invested in anything WiFi and you have a nice radio free environment.
So you deply your 802.11g network in your wharehouse and everything is ducky.
Now, along comes Joe Shmoe. Joe Shmoe decides he is going to open a Steppen Brew right next door to your wharehouse.
He has this brilliant plan about offering Customers free internet access while they sip there latte's.
So he deploys a 802.11b access point on his roof next to your wharehouse operating with 802.11g equipment.
All of a sudden, you start getting complaints about crappy through put on your Wharehouse wireless LAN.
You can't seem to figure it out, but your 802.11g network is now half the network it was when your deployed it.
So you look for anyone using 2.4Gigahertz bluetooth devices, remote phones, cordless radio headsets...etc.
Nothing?
In short, the question is: will 802.11g equipment step down in the presence of any 802.11b device, or does it only step down if that device is actually transmitting on your network?
Couldn't find anything in the specs that would rule out this completely NASTY scenario.
Anyone care to comment?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
It seems to me that what the IEEE decided to do was to label the spec with the actual throughput speed as opposed to the raw one. That makes sense and I don't know why it wasn't done with b. But apparantly some people took this to mean the raw speed had been reduced from 54 to 20 which would have meant a sizeable reduction in actual speed.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
wtf?
Oh, sure. *I* posted this when the original article came up, and nobody cared. But then some fly-by-night company nobody's ever heard of named 'apple' steals my comment, and suddenly it's news :)
> every article posted on the Internet about this subject might not be true, or could be politically motivated."
Then again, some posts here might be from people who actually worked on the standard. In fact, I know there are such posts in this very thread.
Which doesn't have to stop slash-dotters from, as usual, making a blithering mess out of things, wasting their employers' time, and generally talking about nothing at all.
"Politically motivated"? Whoever wrote this must have a caretaker somewhere trying to figure out how the cage door opened by itself.
Sorry for being a bit off-topic here, but I'd like to ask the experts regarding VOIP and Wi-Fi:
What's currently the best method to make secure VOIP calls over Wi-FI ?
WEP is not secure and I'm unsure if there are VOIP phones that do support IPSEC or PPTP VPNs thus you need to transmit raw packets but that way anyone with a wireless sniffer can log your conversation.
Is Secure RTP the solution ?
What's the percentage of VOIP phones that support S-RTP ?
Thanks for infos.
...the land of illusions. The speed of your CPU turns out to be a myth and your 801.11g-card is subject to controversy.
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
I wonder why I always keep reading this thing about not getting 11Mbit from Wireless.
I have a Cisco AP and wireless PCMCIA card from the Aironet series and so far I have been getting a clean 11Mbit troughout my house. Which is more then enough to stream a raw DVD from my desktop to my laptop over my wireless connection.
One of my best investments so far I would have to admit and it comes with Linux support and all else you could want.
To prove the system works, Jobs revealed that Apple Senior Director of Hardware Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak, is, in fact, the result of an iClone experiment combining the genes of Jobs and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. "Half Steve and half me!" Jobs said. "He's great for Hardware Product Marketing, and we grew him in just three weeks!"
You have to remember, Apple doesn't really offer a huge product line like some vendors. They have a core set of laptops, desktops, one type of server product, and several accessories and gadgets (mainly the iPod).
The Apple "Airport Extreme" was the first commercial 802.11g device to market - and Apple did their best to put a "spin" on it that it was somehow their own invention. ("That's right folks... good old Steve J. is bringing you the next insanely great thing. Faster wireless than anyone else offers!") Can't really blame them.... They were the only one willing to stick their neck out and start selling the product at the time. Everyone else waited until Apple had it on the shelves before rushing to release their own.
If people start publically attacking the 802.11g spec now and making it look bad, Apple stands to lose the most from it. They've already built all of their systems with it either integrated inside, or upgradable by expansion board.
You mean that there are only the two of you working at Xerox?
you lost
Does that really fucking matter?
Hows my English?;)
Yeah, you're correct there. Apple's wireless is a relative no-brainer to set up (at least compared to many wireless PC config. utilities).
Still, that's improving on the PC side as well. I recently set up some Belkin 802.11g wireless stuff for a client, and it allowed actual passwords too. (Even showed what they converted to in hex, in a seperate "info" window below as you keyed it in.) It also featured auto-detect.
The Belkin hub had an integrated web-based interface, so using the included Windows setup software was optional (and I saw no point to using it at all, since the web interface was functionally equivalent).
One thing I really did like on Apple's software is the way it automatically checks for firmware updates, and lets you update an Airport base with a single click if newer firmware is available. (By contrast, I needed a firmware update for the Belkin setup mentioned above, and it never informed me an update was available. I just happened to check their web site out of habit, and found it there. If I hadn't done it, I wouldn't have gotten one of the 802.11b client cards to connect properly!)
Let me qualify by first saying I've worked designing network equipment at a lower level, and have analyzed this stuff in detail. Of course, that doesn't make me right all the time.. I just mean, I have actually researched this stuff somewhat seriuosly, and looked at it with scopes, compared products, etcetera.
.01 microseconds.And when a card receives a frame, it expects to clock the data in at.. you guessed it, 100 megabits per second, ,or a bit every .01 microseconds.
First, the switches DO matter, because despite what you might have been told, switches are NOT all capable of switching at wire speed. If you don't think the switch has an effect, get a better switch and try again, you'll see. I've done it, it's true. It was true of 10Mbps switches, and is even more true of 100Mbps switches. Switches store & forward packets, and make decisions, and that takes time. In good switches, it takes very little time. Switches also have a limited amount of backplane bandwidth...if you have a 12 port switch, and you think it can actually switch six pairs of computers at wire speed at full duplex, well, unless it has a backplane bandwidth of 1.2 gigabits per second, it's not gonna come close.
Thirdly, the reason I staretd at the TCP layer was very specific: Because people are comparing TCP related transfer speeds, like with FTP.
I didn't START at the TCP layer, I FINISHED there.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that the difference in overhead between looking at what you can expect all the way down at TCP and what you can expect from the raw hardware is almost negligible.
The reason it matters is because those of us who actually do real network engineering have an understand of what all the terms mean, and how they interrelate, and we don't just think "100Mbps means I can transfer a 100 megabit file in one second".. and the same has *always* been true of the wireless protocols. We actually read up on how things work, and make our own decisions.
His card was labelled as 100Mbps because WHEN YOU PUT A FRAME ON THE NETWORK, you do it at exactly 100Mbps. The spacing between the bits is precisely
The networking is called "100 megabit" because, on a busy network, if you look at the "ether" part of ethernet, you will find there are exactly 100 million bits a second in use, if it's at 100% capacity. Nobody said all thsoe bits were actual userland data, and, in fact, any decent network admin realizes they are not.
Yes, they could explain that actual speeds are different.. or anyone could, you know, LOOK IT UP.