Slashdot Mirror


First 802.11n Products Breaking Out

capt turnpike writes "If you're hooked up to a fat pipe, but want mobility, it looks like the new 802.11n standard might have some promise. eWEEK.com got their hands on some of the upcoming products and put the new devices through their paces." From the article: "The 802.11n task group is aware of the current draft's issues with legacy wireless LAN devices (specifically with how 802.11n shares bandwidth with attached legacy clients), and representatives from Cisco and Motorola broke off to look into the issues before the next meeting of the draft subcommittee, which is scheduled for May. Expectations vary widely, depending on whom you talk to. In previous conversations with Dave Borison, Airgo's director of product marketing, we leaned that Airgo is not making chip sets based on the draft standard because the company thinks the issue of legacy interoperability is significant enough to necessitate small modifications to the silicon."

3 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "... whom you talk to."

    Either use "to whom you talk" or "who you talk to", but don't half-assed try to make yourself look English compliant when you just end up butchering the language.

  2. yeah thats right, eat it you nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    1st post! that's right you filthy f'ers i am here

  3. Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    agreed, also a horseless is more expensive,
    That may or may have been true at the time of the first horseless carriages. It is definitely true today, but that is irrelevent.

    breaks down,
    So does the horse. Much more so.

    requires gas and repairs,
    The horse requires feed, water and medical attention.

    and is way more dangerous.
    Not so. Look up typhoid rates, and the cause in the 19th century urban world.

    If you're going to try to actually get somewhere, you'd be better off using a horsed carriage.
    I assume you meant "horseless" instead of "horsed," so yes. That is why your analogy is nonsense.