802.11n finally ratified - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 23rd Jan 2006, 21:43

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/01...211n_ratified/

perplekks45 · 23rd Jan 2006, 21:48

600 Mbit/s?!

And I thought my 108 Mbit/s WLAN rocks.
But what will it bring to the average user like me? Having 6 Mbit/s internet, not that often go to LAN, living with girl friend (sharing files over WLAN @ 12-13 MB/s). I mean, I really don't need that much bandwidth. I don't use mine often.

Hybr1d · 23rd Jan 2006, 21:57

802.11n - "Stealing broadband just got a whole lot easier!"

But that's sweet having the hooge range and hooge speed ramp up. :cool:

Bladestorm · 23rd Jan 2006, 22:14

My local LAN party got a gigabyte ethernet switch some time back, very nice, if you can manage to leverage it - think the highest I ever managed was 160mb/s and then only by running FTP host on one machine and client on the other

Arkuden · 23rd Jan 2006, 22:31

any idea on when these devices are going to be available? I see there are mimo routers out now but are they truely 802.11n standard?

yodasarmpit · 23rd Jan 2006, 22:59

Excellent, the idea of transferring files from my laptop to main PC is no longer a nightmare.

Da Dego · 23rd Jan 2006, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkuden

any idea on when these devices are going to be available? I see there are mimo routers out now but are they truely 802.11n standard?

No, MIMO standard (802.11n) will not be 'officially' supported until start of 2007. However, devices that are largely compliant are hitting shelves soon, just with health labels due to the frequency not having been examined in depth.

One company already has a MIMO product out, but it is actually against the grain...they said they do not want to adapt to the standard 802.11n.

Firehed · 23rd Jan 2006, 23:24

Excellent, it's still slower than my new gigabit setup. If it comes with a 'net connection at 600Mbit (!!!), I'll care just a *little* bit more.

MIMO != 802.11n, just like SATA 3Gbps!= SATA-II. Both of the latters incorporate the formers, but there's more to it than just that. As it currently is, I think most devices labelled MIMO are simply multiple-antenna devices so you can run that old laptop at 802.11b and keep everthing else at .11g. And, of course, 802.11a needs it's own antenna as it runs at 5GHz rather than the 2.4GHz of absolutely anything else that's wireless. I'm sure there are exceptions, though. Speaking of which, is .11n at 2.4GHz as well? Or are they going to piss me off by moving *that* to 5.8GHz (which our very expensive phone system runs at, solely so it doesn't interfere with our 2.4ghz 802.11g) or use some other overpopulated frequency.

customh · 23rd Jan 2006, 23:59

Im curious about the same firehed, and of course ethernet aint dead, never guaranteed that 600mbps and gigabit is faster than it so ha!!

DaSuperFly · 24th Jan 2006, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by customholle

Im curious about the same firehed, and of course ethernet aint dead, never guaranteed that 600mbps and gigabit is faster than it so ha!!

Because you truly utilize a gigabit connection

There's no need to have a connection faster that the speed of your hard drive, what's good about 802.11n is the better range!

customh · 24th Jan 2006, 01:52

True story, im just a wired guy, guaranteed fast and no range issues easier to troubleshoot, plus im just not one that needs wifi

LoneArchon · 24th Jan 2006, 03:20

Sound nice 600mbits would be nice over air but right now i am still using 802.11b and that is more than enought to surf the internet in the living room or outside the house. For current use i don't see a true need for it but maybe in 2007 i may if i can get fios internet from verizon then then it may be worth it.

Cthippo · 24th Jan 2006, 06:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by customholle

True story, im just a wired guy, guaranteed fast and no range issues easier to troubleshoot, plus im just not one that needs wifi

I'm with you on that one. I live in a dumpy single-wide mobile home. no two points in the house are more than 50 feet apart, so why bother with wireless? My laptop has it built in, which is really all I need since I don't take the desktops out (Though if my social life gets any crappier I might think about it). I just hope this helps drive down the price of gigabit a little more. I'm planning a rack for an upcoming re-model and it would be really nice to put in a 16 port gigabit switch and be done with it once and for all.

Lazlow · 24th Jan 2006, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Dego

However, devices that are largely compliant are hitting shelves soon, just with health labels due to the frequency not having been examined in depth.

Tough call... 600Mbit/s connection and a brain tumour, or no brain tumour and 100Mbit/s?!?

specofdust · 24th Jan 2006, 16:46

Hmm, this is good news, because the speed is fantastic(roughly the same bandwidth a single hard disk can manage) and the extra range will be great, because, lets face it, 802.11G range sucks.

Bad news because these things aren't out for at least a year, and even in early 2007 they're no doubt going to cost silly money, so they'll probably not really be an appropriate option for most untill mid to late 2007, thats a long time away

customh · 25th Jan 2006, 03:40

FYI lazlow you could say 1000 seeing as there IS gigabit

Risky · 25th Jan 2006, 09:04

Well I won't upgrade in a rush, my house is very old in part with collosally think walls so I'm concentrating on running cable for the time being. Wireless can be handy but if you can wires are a better solution for anything that isn't mobile.

23rd Jan 2006, 21:43	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	802.11n finally ratified http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/01...211n_ratified/

23rd Jan 2006, 21:48	#2
perplekks45 BSc... finally Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 3,353	600 Mbit/s?! And I thought my 108 Mbit/s WLAN rocks. But what will it bring to the average user like me? Having 6 Mbit/s internet, not that often go to LAN, living with girl friend (sharing files over WLAN @ 12-13 MB/s). I mean, I really don't need that much bandwidth. I don't use mine often. __________________ "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Blame it on Cheaps! [now a social group] Last edited by perplekks45; 23rd Jan 2006 at 21:56.

23rd Jan 2006, 22:14	#4
Bladestorm Hypermodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 682	My local LAN party got a gigabyte ethernet switch some time back, very nice, if you can manage to leverage it - think the highest I ever managed was 160mb/s and then only by running FTP host on one machine and client on the other __________________ Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 250x10 (1.475v) \| EVGA GTX 260 55nm SSC \| A8N-SLI Premium \| 2x(4GB) Corsair Twinx2048-PC3200C2 \| Asus Xonar DX \| Antec truepower 550w \| Akasa Eclipse-62 DDC12VPlus1, DD TDX, 3/8 tygon r3603 tubing, PA120.2, DD double floppy bay res

23rd Jan 2006, 22:59	#6
yodasarmpit The other Brett. Moderator Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Lothian , Scotland Posts: 9,667	Excellent, the idea of transferring files from my laptop to main PC is no longer a nightmare. __________________ The Rt. Hon. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - "Ping Pong is coming home" www.yodasarmpit.com clickr my flickr

23rd Jan 2006, 23:24	#8
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Excellent, it's still slower than my new gigabit setup. If it comes with a 'net connection at 600Mbit (!!!), I'll care just a little bit more. MIMO != 802.11n, just like SATA 3Gbps!= SATA-II. Both of the latters incorporate the formers, but there's more to it than just that. As it currently is, I think most devices labelled MIMO are simply multiple-antenna devices so you can run that old laptop at 802.11b and keep everthing else at .11g. And, of course, 802.11a needs it's own antenna as it runs at 5GHz rather than the 2.4GHz of absolutely anything else that's wireless. I'm sure there are exceptions, though. Speaking of which, is .11n at 2.4GHz as well? Or are they going to piss me off by moving that to 5.8GHz (which our very expensive phone system runs at, solely so it doesn't interfere with our 2.4ghz 802.11g) or use some other overpopulated frequency. __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

23rd Jan 2006, 21:57	#3
Hybr1d Bаnned Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 883	802.11n - "Stealing broadband just got a whole lot easier!" But that's sweet having the hooge range and hooge speed ramp up. :cool:

23rd Jan 2006, 22:31	#5
Arkuden mow? Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Under a rock. Posts: 931	any idea on when these devices are going to be available? I see there are mimo routers out now but are they truely 802.11n standard?

23rd Jan 2006, 23:59	#9
customh conflagration. Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,590	Im curious about the same firehed, and of course ethernet aint dead, never guaranteed that 600mbps and gigabit is faster than it so ha!!

24th Jan 2006, 01:52	#11
customh conflagration. Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,590	True story, im just a wired guy, guaranteed fast and no range issues easier to troubleshoot, plus im just not one that needs wifi

24th Jan 2006, 03:20	#12
LoneArchon Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Waldorf,MD Posts: 422	Sound nice 600mbits would be nice over air but right now i am still using 802.11b and that is more than enought to surf the internet in the living room or outside the house. For current use i don't see a true need for it but maybe in 2007 i may if i can get fios internet from verizon then then it may be worth it. __________________ .:NEED MORE ENERGY:. A64 x2 4800+/eVGA Geforce 8800gtx with dangerden Water Block/2GB Corsair 3200/250gb Western Digital/Asus A8N32-Sli Deluxe/24" Acer LCD

24th Jan 2006, 16:46	#15
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,622	Hmm, this is good news, because the speed is fantastic(roughly the same bandwidth a single hard disk can manage) and the extra range will be great, because, lets face it, 802.11G range sucks. Bad news because these things aren't out for at least a year, and even in early 2007 they're no doubt going to cost silly money, so they'll probably not really be an appropriate option for most untill mid to late 2007, thats a long time away __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

25th Jan 2006, 03:40	#16
customh conflagration. Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,590	FYI lazlow you could say 1000 seeing as there IS gigabit

25th Jan 2006, 09:04	#17
Risky Mod Master Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Wiltshire....for a few days more Posts: 2,276	Well I won't upgrade in a rush, my house is very old in part with collosally think walls so I'm concentrating on running cable for the time being. Wireless can be handy but if you can wires are a better solution for anything that isn't mobile. __________________ As a rule watercooling can be simple, affordable and effective... I guess I just like to break the rules.