Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:11 AM   #26
LeandrodaFL
macrumors 6502a
 
LeandrodaFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Wont matter unless TC comes with SSD
LeandrodaFL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:14 AM   #27
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolius View Post
Because I want my wireless local network to be available on my entire property... 20 acres.
We already have provisions to do this over 802.11. 20 acres is not the kind of access 802.22 is for, way too small an area.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:15 AM   #28
ChristianJapan
macrumors Demi-God
 
ChristianJapan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: 日本
I guess too late for iPad 3 ? but maybe in time for iPhone 5 ...
Anyway: just got an AP Express and happy with; so I can wait ...
__________________
Member of MacRumors.com Folding@Home Team (#3446) & developer of the F@H Mobile Monitoring app
ChristianJapan is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:16 AM   #29
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeandrodaFL View Post
Wont matter unless TC comes with SSD
WDs Caviar Black drives can sustain read/write speeds of around 112 MB/sec for a single drive. That's way over even N600 which I don't think Apple supports.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:42 AM   #30
Risco
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: United Kingdom
What we need is not necessarily faster wireless, but better range and penetration through walls etc. Currently 2.4ghz is ok, but prone to interference with other wireless devices. Whereas 5ghz does not suffer intereference but it does have range limitations.
Risco is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:43 AM   #31
k1121j
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North East USA
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

yay wonder how many users this can support at one time
k1121j is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:47 AM   #32
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1121j View Post
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

yay wonder how many users this can support at one time
Depends what the users are doing. We use to run hundreds of users over 10 Mb/s networks in half duplex on hubs (not switches... think collisions).
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:49 AM   #33
SimonTheSoundMa
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDAVE View Post
It's effectively 90MB/sec with overhead. That's slow for you?

Unless you're using GbE for pro use, then that's another issue. Fiber is good for that kind of stuff.
10Gb Ethernet will give you that, 10Gb.

802.11n may say 150Mb, but in reality, even if you have two computers and a router next to each other, you get 20-30Mb. I have never seen files transfer any quicker than 3MB/s between my wired iMac and wireless MacBook Pro.
SimonTheSoundMa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 06:53 AM   #34
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonTheSoundMa View Post
10Gb Ethernet will give you that, 10Gb.
Depends on a multitude of factors really (we have moved to 10GE over Fiber or copper on most of our bigger hosts this past year).
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:05 AM   #35
Ca$hflow
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London, ON
Two Questions.

1) Will apple need to move away from usb 2.0 for external hard drives. I take it they will still keep the USB port for printers and add a thunderbolt port?

2)There was no indication on range. Do you know if there is an increase to wireless n?
__________________
15" Unibody MacBook Pro, 3.06 GHz, 8GB RAM, 750GB HD; 20" iMac, 2.0 GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, iPad 2 64GB 3G, 64GB 3rd Gen iPod
Ca$hflow is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:11 AM   #36
SactoGuy18
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
Send a message via Yahoo to SactoGuy18
If Apple were to implement this, it would be for now only limited to the AirPort Extreme router, iMac, MacBook Pro (maybe MacBook Air) and possibly the next-generation Apple TV, and all must be able to be updated to the final 802.11ac specification. Just the power consumption of the new 802.11ac chipset would rule it out using it on the iPad, let alone the iPhone!
__________________
3G iPod nano (8 GB teal blue case), 7G iPod nano (16 GB blue case), 4G iPod touch (32 GB), iPad Air "Silver" (32 GB)
SactoGuy18 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:14 AM   #37
Ries
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonTheSoundMa View Post
10Gb Ethernet will give you that, 10Gb.

802.11n may say 150Mb, but in reality, even if you have two computers and a router next to each other, you get 20-30Mb. I have never seen files transfer any quicker than 3MB/s between my wired iMac and wireless MacBook Pro.
There's about 10-14 wireless access points arround me (counting the accesspoint list), 2 doors between my macbook pro and accesspoint+nas. Got 3 devices on wireless and get about 70-80mbit/s (~7-7.5 MBytes/s)
Ries is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:30 AM   #38
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...6&postcount=27

"The plethora of frequencies could be dealt with by an exterior antenna band similar to iPhone 4 or the cosmetic ring on iPhone3, but with 2-3 tracks of antennas to deal with length differences so whatever frequency you need at that moment is supported. "

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...&postcount=104

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...2&postcount=42

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...7&postcount=58

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...rders-incoming

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...reless-devices

Rocketman
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.

Last edited by Rocketman; Jan 23, 2012 at 10:03 AM.
Rocketman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:38 AM   #39
andiwm2003
macrumors 601
 
andiwm2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
in my area there are at any time 15 routers in range.

would this reduce the interference between them? or is it enough with the 5GHz band that apple is using right now?
andiwm2003 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:49 AM   #40
syan48306
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by macduke View Post
Will this standard support the bandwidth capable of wireless video mirroring of a hypothetical retina iPad 3 using a hypothetical Apple TV 3?

Another thing—is it too much to ask that the numbering system for these “standards” go “a, b, c, d, e…” instead of “a, b, g, n, ac”? Because in 15 years we’ll end up with something stupid like 802.11no.

I know people like my grandma will ask “is n newer than ac?”

And another thing—I wish USB updated this often. Make everything backwards compatible like it is now but just update the speed every few years instead of waiting. Then most computers today would have at least a fairly speedy USB port compared to 2.0.
Actually there is quite a bit of sense when you look at how they're naming these things. All the letters are almost used already so they're just going aa, ab, ac etc.


Taken from wiki.


IEEE 802.11a: 54 Mbit/s, 5 GHz standard (1999, shipping products in 2001)
IEEE 802.11b: Enhancements to 802.11 to support 5.5 and 11 Mbit/s (1999)
IEEE 802.11c: Bridge operation procedures; included in the IEEE 802.1D standard (2001)
IEEE 802.11d: International (country-to-country) roaming extensions (2001)
IEEE 802.11e: Enhancements: QoS, including packet bursting (2005)
IEEE 802.11F: Inter-Access Point Protocol (2003) Withdrawn February 2006
IEEE 802.11g: 54 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz standard (backwards compatible with b) (2003)
IEEE 802.11h: Spectrum Managed 802.11a (5 GHz) for European compatibility (2004)
IEEE 802.11i: Enhanced security (2004)
IEEE 802.11j: Extensions for Japan (2004)
IEEE 802.11-2007: A new release of the standard that includes amendments a, b, d, e, g, h, i & j. (July 2007)
IEEE 802.11k: Radio resource measurement enhancements (2008)
IEEE 802.11n: Higher throughput improvements using MIMO (multiple input, multiple output antennas) (September 2009)
IEEE 802.11p: WAVE—Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment (such as ambulances and passenger cars) (July 2010)
IEEE 802.11r: Fast BSS transition (FT) (2008)
IEEE 802.11s: Mesh Networking, Extended Service Set (ESS) (July 2011)
IEEE 802.11T: Wireless Performance Prediction (WPP)—test methods and metrics Recommendation cancelled
IEEE 802.11u: Interworking with non-802 networks (for example, cellular) (February 2011)
IEEE 802.11v: Wireless network management (February 2011)
IEEE 802.11w: Protected Management Frames (September 2009)
IEEE 802.11y: 3650–3700 MHz Operation in the U.S. (2008)
IEEE 802.11z: Extensions to Direct Link Setup (DLS) (September 2010)

[edit] In process

IEEE 802.11mb: Maintenance of the standard; will become 802.11-2011 (~ December 2011)
IEEE 802.11aa: Robust streaming of Audio Video Transport Streams (~ March 2012)
IEEE 802.11ac: Very High Throughput <6 GHz;[22] potential improvements over 802.11n: better modulation scheme (expected ~10% throughput increase); wider channels (80 or even 160 MHz), multi user MIMO;[23] (~ December 2012)
IEEE 802.11ad: Very High Throughput 60 GHz (~ Dec 2012) - see WiGig
IEEE 802.11ae: QoS Management (~ Dec 2011)
IEEE 802.11af: TV Whitespace (~ Mar 2012)
IEEE 802.11ah: Sub 1Ghz (~ July 2013)
IEEE 802.11ai: Fast Initial Link Setup (~ Sep 2014)
__________________
2012 rMBP 15: 2.6 QM i7, 8 GB RAM, 512G SSD
syan48306 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:55 AM   #41
Ibjr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eastern seaboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macman45 View Post
In actual fact. the 5GHZ band takes you AWAY from congestion. The 2.4 band is where the interference is at present. My TC operating at 5GHZ and 2.4 (it auto switches) gives a far better connection on my IOS devices than the older standard ever could.
Interesting because as far as i know, the only only iOS that supports 5ghz is the iPad2.
Ibjr is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 07:57 AM   #42
frosted1030
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Not what you expect...

Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC. Yes, it's faster but you can't even max out B with your average broadband connection here in the USA. YOUR INTERNET WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. Yes, the 5 GHz spectrum is less cluttered and will give you more range, but how many of us are actually so hooked on transferring large files from computer to computer that this would matter??
frosted1030 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:02 AM   #43
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by frosted1030 View Post
Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC.
Well, that's a pretty big advantage right there when you think about it.

A lot of us have home built infrastructures with centralized storage and streaming of different data types to multiple clients (I have a NAS box that stores all my video/music/pictures for access by my GF's and my laptop, the PS3 downstair, the DLNA compatible Blu-ray player upstairs, the TouchPad, the iPhones... etc..).

So yes, this is exactly what I expect.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:09 AM   #44
sammich
macrumors 601
 
sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sarcasmville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frosted1030 View Post
Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC. Yes, it's faster but you can't even max out B with your average broadband connection here in the USA. YOUR INTERNET WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. Yes, the 5 GHz spectrum is less cluttered and will give you more range, but how many of us are actually so hooked on transferring large files from computer to computer that this would matter??
You clearly haven't used 802.11b have you?

Do you also understand what the meaning of the 'bandwidth' as stated 'on the box' for the standards? For example: 802.11g has a 'maximum' of 54mbit/s. That is the maximum burst speed any communication can achieve with that standard. There are things the communicating devices must contend with like interferences, retransmissions due to bad send, among other things, but most importantly, this bandwidth is shared among all other 802.11g devices nearby. You cannot transmit while someone else is transmitting on your frequency. So if you have 2 people transmitting on your frequency, both of your will be doing round robin sending (one sends, then lets the other send etc.). That will, in simplest terms, halve your transmission speed. Of course, there are other frequencies to be used, but really, in any decent area, you will have another one on your frequency...unless you're in the 5GHz band.

802.11b...my good lord, that was freaking slow.
__________________
Official MR IRC
Look at me, I'm own a bunch of things and everyone must know about every single one.
sammich is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:11 AM   #45
scott911
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by macduke View Post

I know people like my grandma will ask “is n newer than ac?”
you got one cool speed thirsty grandma.
scott911 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:20 AM   #46
alent1234
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
If this means faster transfer speeds to an external hard drive connected to an Airport Extreme via USB port, I'll easily make the purchase.

I have 1.3TB of data on my shared drive, and on a weekly basis about 20-40gb of data is transferred to the drive. Watching files copy at 5-10mb/s is pretty sad.
USB is still way slower than 1gbps so no, it won't increase the speed. now if the new airport station uses thunderbolt then it will be faster

also depends on the protocol OS X uses. years ago when MS first updated SMB to version 2 i did a test of copying my itunes library and it was literally twice as fast as using an older version of Windows
alent1234 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:50 AM   #47
velocityg4
macrumors 68040
 
velocityg4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by frosted1030 View Post
Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC. Yes, it's faster but you can't even max out B with your average broadband connection here in the USA. YOUR INTERNET WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. Yes, the 5 GHz spectrum is less cluttered and will give you more range, but how many of us are actually so hooked on transferring large files from computer to computer that this would matter??
I get 15mbps with the introductory cable internet package and can get up to 105mbps. My actual speed is 20mbps.

Even if 802.11g can hit 54mbps that is a theoretical maximum not real world. In the best of conditions I have managed 15 to 20mbps sustained transfer between computers on a network. As soon as any interference from other devices, distance, obstacles, &c come up that speed drops. Best of circumstances being transfer of large video file with one computer hooked up to 802.11g within a few feet of the router and the other being hard wired via gigabit Ethernet.

Heck with the lauded 802.11n I have never even come close to hardwired 100mb Ethernet. I'd expect 802.11ac to achieve an actual 100mb performance at best.
__________________
Quadra 650 040 33MHz 72MB RAM, 2GB HD, 2x CD
Macbook C2D 2.0Ghz; 3GB RAM, 500GB HD
Home Made i5 4.0Ghz, GeForce 560 Ti, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD RAID 0, 3TB HD RAID 0 in a G5 Case.
velocityg4 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:51 AM   #48
snakebitesmac
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat View Post
Waiting for 10Gbs ethernet myself.

1Gbs ethernet is getting a little slow for moving media over a LAN.
+1

10GB ethernet has been around since 2002. Why isn't it cheap and available everywhere yet? Lets just make faster, more powerful wireless so we can all get cancer faster. I have my airport set to 802.11n only and 10% transmission power which caps it to around 100mbps.
snakebitesmac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:53 AM   #49
CplBadboy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
These are coming sooner than you think.

The UK Apple store has been out of stock of TC 2TB, 3TB and the AEBS for over a week now and has has 1-2weeks shipping time. My guess is they will be silently updated in time for the iPad3.
CplBadboy is online now   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 08:55 AM   #50
scoobydoo99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: so cal
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmCortexA8 View Post

As usual the trick of this is to hold back till 802.11ac is fully ratified.
Not at all. It will be YEARS before the standard is officially set. In the meantime, the chance of changes that would materially affect Apples implementation (and NOT be fixable by firmware update) is remote. Most of the delay is just due to the cumbersome process and not to major tech changes. I was using .n for years before the standard was official. Why hold yourself back and suffer with outdated tech while you wait for some insignificant stamp of approval?
__________________
scoob
scoobydoo99 is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
802.11ac vs gigabit adapter AppleHater MacBook Pro 12 Feb 17, 2014 06:20 AM
802.11ac and Apple devices Damstas Mac Peripherals 2 Dec 3, 2013 08:02 AM
Photos of Likely 802.11ac 'Gigabit Wi-Fi' Card From Next-Generation iMac Surface MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 64 May 23, 2013 01:48 PM
Code in OS X 10.8.4 Suggests Future Macs Will Offer 802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi Support MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 67 Apr 22, 2013 09:16 AM
Apple Reportedly Strikes Deal with Broadcom to Add 802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi to 2013 Macs MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 125 Jan 12, 2013 10:52 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC