Pre-802.11n Offers 4x the Speed

An anonymous reader writes "Belkin said on Monday that they'll be releasing a wireless network card and router that uses pre-802.11n multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology created by Airgo Networks. Belkin said the new pre-n products will provide four times faster speed and coverage area than 802.11b and g products. The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products."

Comments

Multiple signals?

[Davak]

Anybody know if the increase number of signals increases the amount of interference?

new pre-n products

[router_ninja]

Pre-standard? I'll wait thanks. Especially with the history of this company.

Re:new pre-n products

[Gr8Apes]

Heck, I've got a virtually unusable Belkin 54g router sitting at home (well, at least until I flash its firmware with sveasoft or the like)

The damn thing won't hold a configuration for crap, reboots like a windows machine, and otherwise is about the most unpleasant networking product I've owned since the 3Com 503 (I think that was the model #, might have been 501). Fortunately I had a cheap netgear 54g router on the shelf, plugged it in and all was well, except for sustained connectivity. Seems there's lots of interference in my neighborhood (about 12 networks show up, maybe I should just use one of them? :)

Maybe It Means Something

[shadowcabbit]

OK, so we have 802.11b, 802.11n, and 802.11g. Is there an 802.11o? Because that would be interesting, seeing a wireless router advertise itself as being "802.11b/o/n/g Compatible!"

Oh, and I would have titled this "First Pot", but that would just be low-class.

Re:Maybe It Means Something

[GuidoZ]

There really should be an 802.11o, seeing as once 802.11i comes out, we can finally finish 802.11bingo!

And move on to 802.11yahtzee

wireless vs wire

[Davak]

Reliability rivaling that of wired connections and effortless connectivity at real-world distances is why Belkin's True MIMO products have ushered in a new era in wireless."

When I can wirelessly play my PS2 and download torrents at the same time, I'll be in heaven. As much as I love wireless, I think we are far from the reliability and connectivity of a hard wire.

Wireless-G

[Klar]

For me, 802.11G is by fast enough by far for my uses. B is good enough for web traffic. Hopefully this introduction of new A, and now N configerations will lower prices more for the G routers making it even easier to find access points. *crosses fingers for easier wardriving*

And why would I buy from Belkin?

[Saint Aardvark]

This is the same company that lost my trust by screwing their customers. They've done nothing since to earn that trust back. (And no, removing their stupid adware, when it shouldn't have been there in the first place, doesn't count toward earning my trust back.)

ah, let the consumer trickery begin

[SuperBanana]

The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products

Yup, but the box will say "4X FASTER! Also speeds up 802.11b and g networks!" Consumers will think, "hey, it'll speed up my 802.11b network by 4x! Yeah!"

Corporations need to learn to write clear, concise blurbs for their packaging, so customers don't feel ripped off or mislead (and never buy their products again as a result).

Wow!

[dhoonlee]

How many pringles cans does this come with?

must have more speed

[frovingslosh]

Unfortunately, I know way too many people who paid a lot extra to get 802.11g than 802.11b - but only use it to surf the Internet. The truth is that even the 802.11b connection is faster than high speed brodband to the home, so there is no real gain in using 802.11g. I even saw (in a previous /. forum) someone who was plannig on opening a "Internet cafe" and was thinking he should go for 802.11g, not understanding that no user would exceed the 802.11b speed and not even realizing that the entire network would downgrade to 802.11b anyway if even one user was connected through 802.11b equipment.

Now, it seems, people are going to be rushing to these new "standards". Sure, if you're going to be transfering a lot of large files around your internal network, perhaps while you stream real time video to your "entertainment center", then you might justify the extra cost and being on the bleeding edge; but most users just think in terms of "I want the newer faster stuff" or simply "I want the good stuff" and they will end up paying a lot more now for the technology they never use than they would if they just waited until the standrds were worked out, the products came down in price, and the connection to the rest of the Internet caught up in speed to justify the choice.

4x the coverage = 1/2 the wardriving!

[Jtheletter]

Woohoo! Finally, now I don't have to sit in my car in front of my neighbor's house, I can just leech their connexon from my living room!

Re:complex, doable, but who needs it?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Anyone with more than 3 computers. Anyone that wants true security. It never ceases to amaze me that after suffering through non-switched ethernet for years (decades?) people are ready to go back to a medium which is broadcast. When you use wireless (as I am, even now) you're using a single "cable" for everyone. One 100mps switched cable exceeds wireless by a factor of 9.... but the second switched 100mps cable does that again!

Think of it this way, with only a little cable-pulling effort in your home (an investment) you are adding oodles of bandwidth. And if you need more, pull more cable. But you're only (generally) going to get 1 virtual 11mps "cable". Once you use that all up, its gone. So, when your wireless MP3 stereo component, and the 2 tivos, 2 game consoles, your computer, your wife's computer, your children's computer are all on wireless, not to mention the laptop and the ipaq, and you newly installed VoIP phones are all one wireless... you'll be wondering why you ever thought it so great.

My own rule of thumb: Use wireless sparingly, like the limited resource it is.