Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

802.11n Should Be Finalized By September

Posted by Soulskill on from the speedy-process dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "It's probable that the 802.11n standard will finally be approved at a scheduled IEEE meeting this September, ending a contentious round of infighting that has delayed the standard for years. For the 802.11n standard, progress has been agonizingly slow, dating back almost five years to 2004, when 802.11g held sway. It struggled throughout 2005 and 2006, when members supposedly settled on the TGnSync standard, then formed the Enhanced Wireless Consortium in 2006 to speed the process along. A draft version of 802.11n was approved in January 2006, prompting the first wave of routers based on the so-called draft-n standard shortly thereafter."

16 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Compatibility with Draft-N by nsteinme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will the final version be (backwards?) compatible with Draft-N routers and wireless cards?

    --
    call me FOSS im the boss with the sauce and the source
    1. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think that it would have to be, otherwise no one will use the real standard due to backwards compatibility. Most probably the draft version of N will be about the exact same as the final version of N.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is, of course, the mistake of releasing, producing to, and buying products based on a draft of a standard: there's nothing standard about it.

      Trying to get compatibility to the draft could prove difficult, depending on the changes. If it isn't there, that's what you get for buying non-compliant hardware. Typical early-adopter penalty.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    3. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if it is there, how many non-techie people are going to know that draft n means "this is an unfinished protocol that most likely will change in the future, possibly rendering this device incompatible with devices based on the finalize protocol".

    4. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's sad that you're subject to the "early-adopter penalty" after purchasing a product that's been out for nearly 5 years...

    5. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's sad that you're subject to the "early-adopter penalty" after purchasing a product that's been out for nearly 5 years...

      It's sad to expect that purchasing a product built on the first draft of a protocol, rather than an IEEE standard, will be forward compatible.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    6. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think most of the Draft-N hardware has allowed for firmware updates - which could allow you to implement the necessary changes to make something N compliant.

      Most do, but there's a big difference between theory and practice. I notice a lot of older (but still being sold) Draft N stuff that isn't even receiving driver updates anymore (cough, cough, DLink). If a company can't be bothered to fix incompatibilities caused by XP SP3 or Vista SP1, what hope is there for getting firmware to fix incompatibilities with nonDraft-N?

  2. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any bets on how many "Draft N" products will play nice with "N" products? (and, in that vein, any boneheaded misfeatures going into "N" because Vendor X sold 15 million "draft N" chips that were a little undercooked?)

  3. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, 802.11n has a much larger range than 802.11g. So while you might not use all the speed, the fact that you can get a much better connection everywhere in your house makes it a better standard.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  4. Re:California Budget by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. I don't remember how long it took but it always seemed like a/b/g came along fairly quickly. Then n was rumored for a while, then it was finally "drafted" and I got all excited and figured it was only 6 months or a year from being final.... not so much. Here we are 3 and a half years later and I still haven't bothered to buy something based on n because I've been burned too many times by things that don't quite meet the official spec.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  5. Re:IEEE FAIL! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since 2004.

    Trouble is, with something like Wifi, where much of the value lies in ubiquity and interoperability, there really isn't a "forward" to move toward without a standard(official, informal consensus, or de-facto standard + clones).

  6. Troll much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jeez did someone get a little trigger happy with the troll mod in this thread?

    1. Re:Troll much? by TheCycoONE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly someone doesn't want any mention that the standard was delayed.

      They probably think this line from the summary is trolling too: "ending a contentious round of infighting that has delayed the standard for years."

  7. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps I'm missing something, but don't iPhones only support B/G wireless networks? That would mean you would be only getting the G signal...

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  8. ah, marketing by nimbius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    once again steering the fail-boat that engineering is driving, until she wraps around a phone pole, hits a standard, and kills a company or two.

    "draft" N is exactly why i make sure marketing does not get to see developer mailing lists and content at my slave site. why in the holy hell SHOULD the production standard be compatible, or even remotely similar to, its draft??

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. designing products with draft standards by Bassman59 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a copy of one of the draft PCI specifications. In big bold letters it tells the reader to "NOT DESIGN PRODUCTS BASED ON THIS DRAFT STANDARD." Because the very definition of "draft" means that it's not complete and it's likely that the final specification will deviate from the draft in some ways.

    I suppose the standards folks have no real way of enforcing that edict (an aside: the USB Implementers group are particularly toothless), but still -- anyone who buys a product based on a draft spec should not be surprised when it doesn't work with products built to the released spec.