No WiFi In 'Grantsdale' Chipset
bizpile writes "A company spokesman confirmed Friday, Intel has decided not to enable the wireless access-point functionality in its 'Grantsdale" chipset. Intel decided not to include this feature because of the proliferation of cheap wireless access points. Spokesman Dan Snyder said, 'So many wireless APs are out there, and they're essentially free" when purchased in conjunction with DSL or cable service from an ISP. The company may still develop a custom chipset to re-enable the WiFi functionality if a large customer requests it. Also, their Centrino plans and production will be unchanged."
What's the big deal? They disabled the ability to use the pre-installed chipset as an access point. This is just a cheap, consumer grade chipset for people who want wireless to come with the laptop they buy. anyone who needs to use their laptop as an access point will know about this and buy a different laptop, or just use a different Wifi card.
Wireless network cards for desktops are never free. Access points are not generally free either, unless somehow bundled with the Internet service by the ISP. Maybe I am missing something.
How much would it cost Intel to enable the WiFi? I mean... if it's a small cost, then they'd get their wireless access points into computers instantly so people don't have to go out and buy wireless APs. I mean, if my computer came with a wireless access point, then I certainly wouldn't go out and buy another one (unless it was terrible). It's the same deal with firewire. Most people don't use it, but it's sure a lot more convenient if it was there when you needed it.
Hate to be suggesting monopolistic marketing ideas, but Intel can really get a lot of their wireless AP into computers by bundling it.
Intel made a 486SX chip which was a 486 with the math co-processor disabled and it was slightly cheaper than the 486DX. They also sold a 487SX which they called the co-processor, but in truth it was just a 486 with a working co-pro, and when you used the 487SX, it completely disabled the 486SX and took over as the only CPU in the system.
The whole thing seemed like a test of how gullible their customers were. It looks like they're doing the same thing again.
Jason
ProfQuotes
Let us assume electricity costs $0.15 per kWh.
I'll assume you already have a low-end PC for use "Free", e.g. already paid for and with a market value near zero.
I will also assume you can configure it to spin down the HD and turn off the monitor. We'll say this is around ~30W; it's actually much less if your processor is idle. My via c3 backup server consumes about 14W, the firewall a little more, an older 486 at around 20W.
Let's stick with 30W. To be a fair comparison, it needs to run a wireless card. That's not a major addition to power, but we'll account for it.
30W is 0.003 kW, so per day, this device costs 0.72kWh x $0.15/kWh = $0.108/day. Per year electricity cost would be roughly $40.
An access point costs about $150 in my parts; I'll say you can get it for $100 for the sake of arguement though.
At 12W, using the above calculations again, this access point takes 40% of the power. Or, a yearly power bill of about $16. The difference in the power bills is $24.
So it would take about 4 years to catch up, assuming the access point doesn't die. I have enough spare parts and obsolete hardware to run a firewall indefinately for no extra expense. The PC based firewall can do a lot more stuff too - much more configurable, patchable, can run other servers, etc etc. I run OpenBSD on mine and find it more than adequate. Plus, unlike every access point I've seen in the $100 range, my ages-old USR modem I bought 10 years ago sits there doing it's job shuffling bits around. No DSL in these parts.
At best I'd consider it a draw. You add a little polution, but can save that firewall computer from ending up as toxic waste, too.
Myself, I run an access point and a firewall. I don't like trusting one device to do everything, and I know the firewall is very hard to beat.
..don't panic