Slashdot Mirror
Intel Putting Wi-Fi into Future Chipsets
Ridgelift writes "Wired's got the story on Intel's plan to incorporate Wi-Fi into the motherboard chipset. "The chipset, however, will not include an actual Wi-Fi radio, so users will still need a wireless add-on card. Intel has said it eventually intends build a Wi-Fi radio into its microprocessors." This would make setting up a wireless network a lot simpler."
It's all very well putting more peripherals onto processors but with the shrinking feature sizes and an increase in cross talk is placing a powerful 2.4GHz source on die really a good idea? You would have to shorten long lines and slow down the processor or suffer random errors. Doesn't inspire me with confidence.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
This is a lot like Microsoft's business plan, but at the hardware level. It leaves ISV's out of the loop. "Centrino" was perhaps the most serious example of this that I've seen.
They will probably promise to provide Linux driver like with the centrino chipset and then not even make specs available.
You will get all kind of lame excuses:
- We are working on a driver.... (For half a year already)
- We can't tell you how to operate it because the FCC won't let us (Complete bullshit but sounds nice: 'linux hackers want to interfere with police radio')
- They might release some binary only modules... (Redhat version bla.bla, kernel version bla.bla and nothing else)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
This would make setting up a wireless network a lot simpler.
Woah there, whats so hard with the way its setup now? pcmcia is a matter of plug and go, pci is a matter of modprobe if that.. theres nothing hard about wifi... its a nic with a wireless medium.. thats all.
Now if intel had some new fangled wep replacement then that would make things simple, no more mac rules on my fw would be nice.. which is unlikely.
moo
The chipset, however, will not include an actual Wi-Fi radio, so users will still need a wireless add-on card. Intel has said it eventually intends build a Wi-Fi radio into its microprocessors.
Why put in a chipset without a radio? Maybe one could argue an attempt to get market share by making their add-on card cheaper than the others (just radio, no chipset), but this card will have a more limited market, since it wouldn't be compatible with older or non-intel mobos.
Now if the were to put a software radio on board, *that* would be cool! Think of upgrading to future standards with just a flash rom upgrade...
I don't follow tech too closely but this sounds like those worthless AMR slots or whatever they were called - the ones that were like having a built-in sound card or modem (in the sense that the board cost more and had less space available) except didn't actually do anything...?
Customer:If I can have a 3 Ghz processor why cant I have WiFi at 3 Ghz
Radio Shack Assistant: Mam the 3Ghz speed refers to CPU speed while Wi Fi works at 2.4 Ghz
Customer:Dont get technical on me . I know this Ghz speed keeps increasing all the time . It cant be fixed at 2.4 Ghz
Building more functionality into the motherboard is an ongoing trend, but adding a radio cannot be a good thing. Due to potential interferance, you cannot go into a hospital or airplane without being told to turn off your cellphone.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I think that if an admin of a corporate network had several thousand wireless clients, a simple airsnort would compromise thousands of computers, without requiring the packet sniffer actually access any sort of ethernet cabling.
This could have a grave impact on the sales of wireless-based chipsets in the corporate market.
I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
So when Big Brother wants to know what you're up to, they don't need you to be online to the public internet. How convenient. The "trusted" BIOS can always let them bypass your firewall, as the BIOS is going to handle the net connection too.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
I sincerely hope they're going to have these things configured in one of the following manners:
1. Disable the Wi-Fi by default
2. If not disabled, seed the encryption key with a pseudorandom number before the user specifically configures it.
You don't want new computers forming unintended bridges or access points between the untrusted network/airspace and your trusted internal network between when they're first powered up and when the overworked sysadmin has a chance to configure them properly. So much for your company's firewalls having a chance to do their job.
Wi-Fi without a radio? Sounds kinda like a soundcard without a DAC or a videocard without a RAMDAC. What's the point of including functionality while not including necessary pieces except, perhaps, to rachet up the marketingspeek and pressure out other manufacturers?
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
I think it should be integrated into the motherboard (like regular ethernet) but not the chipset.
Or is intel upset that sales of centrino are so poor? To be an "official" centrino laptop, you have to offer intel's 802.11b wireless. Not surprisingly, many people want faster (802.11b/g or 802.11a/b/g) wireless cards.
Broadcom has been eating intel's lunch in the oem ethernet (wireless & wired) card market. Sounds like anticompetitive monopolist activity to me.
What about security issues?
I like my router (at home, I share a cable internet connection between two desktop PCs and, occasionally, my laptop). It has an inbuilt firewall according to the manufacturer, and I know if I ever do have a serious problem which I suspect originates from the internet, I can physically disconnect it. Sure, cables are archaic, but they're cheaper and more secure than wireless networks - especially for the novice (like myself).
But if you enable a CPU to act as a wireless hub - or, eventually, if WiFi comes as a full onboard feature (rather like many motherboards now have onboard sound and graphics) - would that not open up your PC and network to security issues? My parents would not be best pleased if someone warchalked on the fence, but since they have little idea of technology or computer security, I think if they bought a new machine enabled with this kind of tech, every l33t hax0r in a two mile radius would be camping out to leech their access.
Any other thoughts, opinions or predictions?
"It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." -- Zork
The FCC DOES require that ISM band consumer devices opearate within specifications. They are certified for a given antenna configuration, among other things. Even the anntenna connectors are non-standard, for this very reason (so the consumer doesn't think you are supposed to hook it up to an amp).
It's nto that you aren't allowed to modify it legally, of course you are, as long as you operate within spec... but that the company has to make it so.
It's not a big stretch for them to feel releasing driver code is a risk, as anyone who gets it from them could easily use it to operate outside of spec.
The reason why Intel probably don't want to integrate the Micoprocessor with the actual WiFi transmitter and receiver is quite simple. If they add it inside the IC, they will have to go through radio use approval for every different potential market in the world, before they sell a single component. By letting the motherboard/add on card manufacturer's do this instead, they can concentrate on developing better microprocessors.
As somebody in the know, I do worry that these new WiFi enabled equipment could be the next mobile phone when it come to interference of avionic systems; especially as many modern microprocessors are prone to soft faults at altitude due to the effects of the upper atmosphere.
This is to make it so that an average desktop computer can function as a router for WiFi traffic in the home or office. The card is needed NMW, in order to grab that traffic. A poster above mentioned using a software radio, but it seems that that would only be useful if things were reversed: the software radio *interprets* the signal, and *generates* one to return to the WiFi device in question, but ultimately it is a radio device which transmits that signal into the air. The problem Intel will face is explaining this in terms that a PHB who *signs* the check to buy this stuff.
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
802.11a/b/g on board would be nice.. but, I would really like to see more motherboards coming with bluetooth onboard. This would seem to make sense with things like keyboard, mice, headsets, and cellphones that are bluetooth enabled coming to market.
I'm all for WiFi everywhere, but it sounds like a pretty big backdoor to me, I don't think I'd want to have a WiFi connection built onto my board that I couldn't disable with anything mroe then software. Next thing you would know Microsooft is using it to send DRM related information or usage stastics without you knowing.
I realize that it would probably able to be disabled in BIOS, but it wouldn't take much that if M$ wanted to take control they could do it with a few sentences in the EULA.
Improbable, but possible.
Oh, yes, it's Intel's fault if 20 of their employees can make a product better suited to the market than 10,000 other peoples' efforts.
By the same token, buses and trains and taxis have all taken jobs away from the good hard-working people with horse-drawn taxis. And we really should go back to rooms full of seamstresses making clothing by hand, like before those evil industrial looms were created. Oh, and the cotton for the clothes (synthetics put farmers out of work) should be picked by immigrant laborers.
It's not society's obligation to prop up inefficient methods of production; quite the contrary. There's a word us old-timers use sometimes. It's called "progress." Might want to study it.
Get off my launchpad!
How freaking simple can it be now?
1) Insert Airport Extreme Card into PowerBook 12"
2) Turn on PowerBook 12" 3) Select Network from Airport menu & Enter WEP if needed
4) Wirelessly communicat
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'm no Wi-Fi expert, but couldn't a wi-fi-enabled cpu transmit data without your permission?
Unique cpu ids? Treacherous Computing Group data?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Customer:If I can have a 3 Ghz processor why cant I have WiFi at 3 Ghz
Radio Shack Assistant: Oh, i dont know. I bet it does.
Customer: Ok. good.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
This just is another step in Intel's ploy to rule the wireless market through cheap and underhanded business practices. Not many people know this, or at least I didn't till I started shopping for a laptop 2 days ago, but all new laptops carrying the Centrino designation have to come with an Intel miniPCI WLAN card preinstalled or they cannot be called Centrino. Which is great except that Intel refuses to support Linux on their stinkin' card. (Yes I could go elsewhere, but for the price, speed, and power consumption, Centrino is far and away the best on the market right now.) If you want to monopolize an entire hardware sector, fine--good luck trying. But don't chain me to a stupid Wintel platform because of it. If Intel had their way they'd be the only supplier of WiFi cards within a few short years--then WTF do we do if we're not on Windows?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
But why!
Onboard soundcards (chips?) are rubbish, onboard NICs are quite often crap (not always), onboard modems are a joke and onboard video is nasty. Apart from some specific cases (VIA's mini-itx stuff) I think manufacturers should be moving away from this onboard-everything obsession.
PCI was invented for a reason! Customisability is what set the PC apart from the Amiga or similar machines!
Personally, I'm not really convinced all these integrated parts do us any favors.
Just last week, for example, I installed a new Pentium 4 motherboard and CPU in a standard ATX case that was formerly running a PII system. This was done for a law firm, and was upgraded on-site, because they couldn't afford to have much downtime.
Well, as luck would have it, the integrated EIDE controller was faulty. I kept getting "data corrupt" type messages when it tried to boot Win2K on the drive that just worked in the other system. I tried a different hard drive with a fresh format, and had the same issue. Even the secondary channel had problems.
If it hadn't been intergated, I could have simply swapped a $15 or $20 controller card and gotten everything back up and running for them.
The more devices Intel can integrate into motherboards using their chipsets, the more often they get to sell people an entire new board when they only need one small part.
On-board video has been a disaster since day 1, for both PC and Mac users. What seems "high end" when a machine is new turns into "mediocre" within a year or two. Then come all the conflicts trying to get the on-board video disabled when you add a new, add-in video card. (I'm sure many long-time Mac users can remember the dislike for the "Performa" towers like the 6400/6500, largely due to the on-board video only allowing up to 2MB of video RAM.)
Integrated NICs may work fine when they work, but again - I've seen many a blown NIC card due to power surges/spikes. I'd rather swap a card and have a fully functional machine again than have a dead port permanently soldered onto the back of my computer....
I, for one, do not like this trend of integrating wireless into everything.
As a security conscious individual, I want to be able to physically choose whether or not I want wireless when I want wireless.
I like to be able to physically pull out the wireless card in my laptop because then I know I can't be h4x0r3d via my WLAN card.
Fine. Call me paranoid. I don't mind.
(Yeah, I know they said the RF part would still be an add-on... I'm just talking in general that I want add-ons and not fully integrated wireless stuff that I can't pull out without desoldering chips.)
Would you people please think before posting?
This includes a chipset, not a radio. Therefore, it won't be sending out your world control schemes to everyone in existence. Yes, Intel will at some point in the nebulous future include a radio. As will many manufacturers. At that point, we go to the next paragraph:
Every integrated soundcard/videocard/ethernet controller/serial port/etc. I've ever seen has a setting in the BIOS. If you don't want the location of your laser embedded sharks known to the black helicopter people, switch it off.
Finally, when is the last time your built in ethernet card just randomly spewed data out the port to the CIA? Oh, last week? Then you have more problems than just a wireless AP built into your motherboard.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I work in a fairly large hospital (200+ beds) and I can tell you from alot of experance that this is no longer the case for hospitals with modern equipment. The hospital I work for just had Nextel come in and install signal multiple repeaters on every floor and building of our entire campus and put a cell tower on top of our main building that houses all patent rooms / OR's with no problems what so ever. There are certain areas where we are advised not to have our Cell phones on but that is due more to respect of patent famlies and not becuase of any interferance issues.
I agree that we should not sacrifice modularity for all-in-one disposability, but for all the applications you list (IDE, NIC, video) you can put in a modular card and override the integrated stuff. Personally, I think ubiquitous integrated mobo NICs are one of the handiest hardware improvements of the last five years.
Internet protocols were designed around wires and it shows when you go to wifi meshes. Meshes are critical due to the fact that meshes scale. If you are going to have a wifi node in every consumer device, as seems potentially viable, then you need to continually discover new routes and do so on nearly every packet. Route-flap is what you get, even with damping protocols, with current internet standards. You can end up waiting minutes for a route to stablize.
Here's an algorithm for a mesh node that seems to work simply:
Just keep a table of destination IP addresses in memory with a counter that decays exponentially with time.
When the counter decays below some threshold, clip its IP address from the list. An IP address with no counter is considered to have a value of 0.
Every time a packet acknowledgement comes through for a given destination IP address, add one to the counter for that IP address.
Whenever a packet (not already awaiting acknowledgement) is 'heard' destined for an IP address, queue it for rebroadcast according to a priority established by the IP address's counter.
Let packets that fall off the end of the queue due to low priority do so without further consideration.
More complex algorithms are required for transmission power optimization, but even this simple algorithm shows how far off-base current internet protocols are for wifi.
Seastead this.
It will probably be easy for mobo makers to make use of this as an optional feature, much like SATA, USB 2.0, etc. Then you just need to have an antenna lead from the mobo, and enable it in the BIOS: it will work just like parallel/serial ports.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
The solution is simple, however; Don't buy the systems with wifi in them, or be sure to configure them with a software image, unattended install, or similar feature to configure the card out of the box, or disable it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/25/094246.shtml
Actually, they already tried that. However, their Israel design team had it almost finished when they pulled the plug, and they were PISSED. Ah, well, they were happy when they got the Pentium M project - what the P4 shoulda been!
BTW, have you played with a Cyrix MediaGX? If so, then you should be modded funny. If not, they need to make a mod for stupid - Cyrix's implementation SUCKED - 44-50MHz CPU speed was lost, and the video was worse than i810.
Why do I read about this on Slashdot, instead of an article about Intel declining to provide drivers or specifications for their wireless part of Centrino?