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."

Comments

Is wifi on CPU a good idea?

[brejc8]

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.

Like Microsoft...

[Jake73]

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.

Intel linux support sucks

[pe1rxq]

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

Re:Intel linux support sucks

[Homology]

Intel are not forthcoming with documentation about NIC and crypto. Here is what OpenBSD has to say about this
OpenBSD experience with Intel :


Much like Intel does for all their networking division components, and completely unlike most other vendors, Intel steadfastly refuses to provide us with documentation. We have talked to about five technical people who are involved in the development of those products. They all want us to have documentation. They commend us on what we have done. But their hands are tied by management who does not perceive a benefit to themselves for providing documentation. Forget about Intel. (If you want to buy gigabit ethernet hardware, we recommend anything else... for the same reason: most drivers we have for Intel networking hardware were written without documentation).

Really?

[odyrithm]

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.

What's the point?

[bobthemuse]

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...

users will still need a wireless add-on card

[rokzy]

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...?

Wouldn't this compromise security?

[twiztidlojik]

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.

how convenient

[vinsci]

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.

Unintentional network compromises through bridging

[AgTiger]

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.

WiFi Security

[Chalybeous]

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?

There are other problems

[plusser]

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.

Re:Not complete bullshit

[timeOday]

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.

It's no different than selling cars that can exceed the speed limit. My compliance with FCC regulations is not Intel's concern.

Bluetooth?

[ybmug]

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.

Re:Why do companies expand into other est business

[Artifex]

I think it's silly how Intel is now embracing a trend to include features already provided by another market. Intel will probalby do this witout adding more than 20 employees and in turn drive about 10,000 people out of jobs due to their companies going out of business.

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.

Easier?

[toupsie]

This would make setting up a wireless network a lot simpler."

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

Ack

[FrostedWheat]

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!

Re: integration

[King_TJ]

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....