What is Digg?37 Comments
- almighty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Technology moves to fast for my wallet to keep up .
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's faster than most wired ethernet BUT you can buy routers/switches which have Gigabit ethernet which is definately faster. Anyways, this is great but I just wish Internet speeds would catch up to this kind of technology.
- MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well it's based on an incomplete spec, so it's pretty useless unless you plan to buy exclusively netgear stuff...
- diggtard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Lets hope my neighbor upgrades soon!
- tupuli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"and it’s actually faster than 100Mbps wired Ethernet"
I'd wager it won't be faster in practice. In my experience the 54Mb/s of 802.11g has at best 10-20Mb/s of useful bandwidth, which isn't much better than 10Mb/s Ethernet. This is with the router 5 feet away with no obstructions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am more concerned with having a broad range so that more hotspots can be added in schools and what not
- jllogan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Technology moves to fast for my wallet to keep up"
Actually, what becomes the penultimate technology becomes quite affordable, in my experience. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Do you want your amazingly large access point to block and obliterate every other b/g access point that has the audacity to come into your SPHERE OF DOMINANCE?
- smarusich, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4sorry, but i just can't see this being faster or more stable than wired ethernet. Besides, i'd rather have a few wires and a gigabit router. It's good though to see the technology progessing for those instances where a wireless system is most realistic, ie. airport, etc. digg.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This means 150 Mbps to 200 Mpbs of actual throughput.
Still folks, rocking fast for RF networking. All those little data packets flyin' thru the air. Kinda reminds me of Willy Wonka's matter transmission. - kramit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to work for netgear in L2 tech support, you have to trust me when i say that it will never even touch that. The marketing men are always talking out of thier ass when it comes to speed and range. And who the hell needs a wifi connection that fast?? you only use it for surfing the net on your laptop or streaming some tv to the lounge. And if you argue what about if you want to use it on a server, then you need to be shot if you even think that wifi is a good idea for servers.
- expo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6If you want to correct peoples spelling and grammar, become a school teacher. It's a pain in the ass coming across comments where people have nother better to say than you spelled such and such wrong. Unless you have a comment related to the topic, don't comment. Get off your high horse and get a life, definately.
- duncantuna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Holy crap the Netgear 802.11n router is expensive. $350 from TigerDirect.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?sku=N100-1702 - dark_helmet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2At about 100ft, with minor obstructions I can get about 20-22Mb of useful data on 802.11G, still that's only 54Mb, this is 300Mb. 300Mb is 5.5x 54Mb, so that is still over 100Mb therefore faster, or about the same as wired 100Mb.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's *possible* that the new Netgear and D-Link hardware won't be compatible with the final version of the 802.11n standard. Then again, it might. Also they can push out a new firmware if the standard changes.
- klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2this article implies the new routers will support the most current draft of the 802.11n standard that will go the full 300Mbps, as opposed to the belkin pre-N that was released last year that supports 54Mbps or at most 108Mbps (with channel bonding). Other improvements should also be found in the N standard that the pre-N psudo-standard does not have.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's great for accessing other computers in the same network, but how fast is your cable/dsl connection?
- klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1802.11N also promises much greater range (3-10x farther depending on who you listen too), which wasn't mentioned in the article. Also by working on the bandwidth they do increase the range. If you have 95% signal loss on 54Mbps you will lose you connection, on a 300Mbps bandwidth it is more likely you will maintian you connection.
- VSKBadCRC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1At least when the new 802.11n comes out we'll see a sudden, I'd imagine, decrease in the cost of 802.11g equipment - not like some of the wireless routers available today aren't cheap enough. But it should definitely get more wireless connections in more homes.
- alloneword, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Faster than 100Mbit/s Ethernet, but still a longway to go for GigaBit ethernet.
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Its going to take a while before the 802.11n spec works itself out. I expect that in a year or two it should be mature enough to get switch over from g. Right now, it is still not worked out, and way too expensive.
- Axim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2ya i think past 100Mbps why work on more bandwidth when the big issue right now is distance. It is the year 2006, the fact that ubiquitous wifi isn't available is pretty sad..
- jimbo92107, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This will help my 1.2 Mb/s internet connection go much faster!
- hakujin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, so that made you a tier 2 gimp eh?
To answer you question:
1. Lots of people would like a wi-fi connection that fast. HD streaming (especially higher bitrate mpeg2) takes up a lot of bandwidth. Add in time shifting and it's more.
2. I wouldn't expect to saturate my internal speeds for surfing the external internet. That doesn't even sound logical.
3. I guess I need to be shot. Using Wif-Fi on a home file server with "i" spec WPA2 (or WPA for ther matter) is perfectly secure and quite frankly overkill but should satisfy even the most secure minded, provided they know how to harden a network. - sarusa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Now what they're not telling you is that 802.11n will STOMP CRUSH DESTROY any 802.11b/g connections in the area. Of course you could consider that a feature, and a sales incentivizer.
- CooLSpoT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So 802.11F-M where did those go?
- ChrispyTheRed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Woo Hoo! 'incentivizer' (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incentivizer)
Thumbs-up for using a Bush-ism! Very nice strategery! - veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1yes all wireless 802.11 specs are half duplex and they add the speed in each direction together. It funny to see people compare 802.11 half duplex rates to Ethernet full duplex rates.
also 802.11n will top out at 400Mbps.
I only need my WiFi to be as fast as my WAN connection so I'm in no hurry to upgrade, unfortunately. Maybe if I lived in certain Asian countries I'd be excited by 802.11n. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It'd be nice to have much more coming out, however this has to be supported by all computer manufacturers
- doushanes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1300Mb/s over the air rate, not throughput. Oh, isn't that half duplex too?
- blackmath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I dont think id buy any of this until the spec was finalized. Sure the firmware could be updated but what if something is done to the final spec where it couldnt be updated, then youre stuck with some bad hardware. Around where I live I did pick up a belkin pre n router so they do exist but probaly not worth the money.
This will probaly be fast enough to stream live hdtv signals around the house. - memodude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Netgear probably wouldn't update the firmware anyway, even if the final standard didn't require any hardware changes.
- haumschd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Belkin had pre-N out last year...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Can't wait!
http://westoncampbell.googlepages.com/diggtools.html - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1My FiOS says 1Gigabit per second when connected directly to connection. Wierd, but when connected to a router, it gots to 108Mpbs. This also supports Home Networks.
The Wireless is 108mbps enabled. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0you can clearly read...or maybe you can't
- SeanCK, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5It's "definitely," not "definately." Use spellcheck. There is a "check spelling" button right next to the "submit comment" button.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is