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."
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!
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
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).
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
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?
No.
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.
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
The problem is that as soon as you introduce one 11b device into the same cell as an 11g network you will reduce the effective throughput of the even the faster devices down to around 11-15Mbps vs the 25+Mbps that a pure 11g or 11a network achieves. Basically you pay a 40-50% real world performance penalty for mixed mode operation a 2.4Ghz. Since 11a is in the fairly unused 5Ghz range it doesn't have these problems. The reality is it won't matter in 6-9 months because every chipset provider will have tri-mode dual band chipsets so you can use 11b for legacy networks, 11g for those that bought equipment while it was a draft spec, and 11a for those who bought that equipment or who will buy trimode equipment in the future.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
...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.
...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
You could just summarize the sentence as:
"Every article posted on the Internet might not be true, or could be politically motivated."
And it'd be even closer to the truth.
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.
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.
Contrast this with 802.11a which is in an entirely different Spectrum range, which IT OWNS, specifically for wireless networking.
That's not true; the 5GHz U-NII band is unlicensed as well. There are 5GHz cordless phones already, and I suspect in the future we'll see more non-networking 5GHz equipment.
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.
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 :)
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.