Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 23, 2012, 09:58 AM   #51
Cappy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
If I were a betting man, I would say that Apple will look at this spec and determine if it's realistic that it gets ratified this year. If so, they'll implement early and provide an firmware upgrade once it's ratified.

Also I'd guess that a new AppleTV product is possibly waiting for this and for Apple to implement it into their base station. Once done we'll likely see 1080P content as well.

I'd speculate that since learning about 802.11ac now that a new AppleTV won't be around until late this year just in time for xmas.

Of course I'd be happier to see 5Ghz 802.11n on an iphone.
__________________
<insert clever, witty saying here>
<insert some certification here to sound superior>
<insert hardware owned here to sound, well, uh cool>
Cappy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 10:09 AM   #52
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobydoo99 View Post
Not at all. It will be YEARS before the standard is officially set.
The current target is december 2012. You'd have been right about "YEARS" about 13 months ago.
__________________
"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, 10:14 AM   #53
adder7712
macrumors 68000
 
adder7712's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Anywhere
Great, I want more range.

I could use a new router though, have to find a way to make a 3rd party router work with my ISP's fibre modem.
__________________
Custom PC (Windows 8.1), MacBook Aluminium (OS X Mavericks), iPad 3, Sony Xperia Z3, Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4
adder7712 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 10:31 AM   #54
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Does this variant actually do much with RANGE? Or is it all about speed only?

Which variant offered something like 63 miles of (theoretical) range?
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 10:32 AM   #55
Gemütlichkeit
macrumors 65816
 
Gemütlichkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
This is def a big platform boost for future apple technology. It could easily get side stepped by saying "oh big deal faster file transfer".
__________________
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God." -Thomas Jefferson
Gemütlichkeit is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 10:37 AM   #56
GenesisST
macrumors 65816
 
GenesisST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where I live
Since my TC is next to my 1.83GHz iMac in order to wire it in, this is totally unneeded... fail!

/sarcasm: making fun of those who think that since they don't encounter an issue, then there is no need to fix it.
__________________
Kenmore microwave, Frigidaire oven, Fisher & Paykel fridge, LG washer & Dryer and Crane toilet
GenesisST is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 11:09 AM   #57
ipoppy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
As much as I am happy with that progress but then again I see problems rising between devices compatibility and different wifi structures. Now I got Time capsule which I cant set on N-profile only because some of Apple hardware which supposed to work with it simply don't "sometimes".
More chaos on the way!!!
__________________
Failure is not an option - it comes bundled with Windows.
ipoppy is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 11:26 AM   #58
hamlin
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Well considering that 5-10 mb/s is going to be around 0.5-1 gigabit/ s speeds the answer is no because you are bumping against the max speed of the network that having on 20% overhead is being nice as local laws and wifi tend to not care about having extra overhead as they have space to burn.
What are you talking about? 500megabit connection would go 50mb/s and a 1 gig connection would go 100mb/s
hamlin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 11:33 AM   #59
mrxak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Drifting through space in a broken escape pod
Heh, great. I don't really follow much with wifi standards, so I had no idea this was in the pipeline so soon. I just updated my whole wireless network hardware a few months ago. Oh well, I'm sure it'll be a while before I have any wireless devices can use 802.11ac, so it would only give me a boost transferring files between a handful of devices that are plugged into my routers. For media streaming, 802.11n is plenty, and I don't do a lot of file transfers anyway.
__________________
Phones Will Kill You
mrxak is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 11:34 AM   #60
jwdsail
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by adder7712 View Post
Great, I want more range.

I could use a new router though, have to find a way to make a 3rd party router work with my ISP's fibre modem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Does this variant actually do much with RANGE? Or is it all about speed only?

Which variant offered something like 63 miles of (theoretical) range?
As I understand it, no, 802.11ac will have better range than 802.11a and 802.11n running 5Ghz, but worse range than 802.11g/n 2.4GHz... If it's range you're looking for, 802.11ac is not likely going to make you happy.

It seems that 802.11ac omits 2.4GHz entirely, like 802.11a, so any gear that doesn't support 802.11 a or n (5GHz) will be unable to use it..

I suppose Apple could make an AirPort Extreme with multiple radios, one 802.11n, one 802.11ac.. for backwards compatibility.. Then have 802.11ac in things like the AppleTV (where range won't matter as much) and 802.11n in computers/iPhones (where you're often in situations where range is important)...

Shrug.
jwdsail is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 12:13 PM   #61
ks-man
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Will having 802.11n devices on an 802.11ac network slow down the whole network like when you have g devices on an n network?
__________________
iMac-3.06Ghz/NV130/1TB|MBA-1.86Ghz/128GB/4GB and 1.6GHz/80GB|iPhone 4-32GB|iPad1 32GB|iPad3 64GB|iPTouch 8GB|iPod Classic 120GB|Nano 4GB|Time Capsule 500GB|AEBS Dual Band|AEX
I surrender Apple!
ks-man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 12:26 PM   #62
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
jwdsail, thanks for the info. I was afraid of that.

I recently saw something about a standard with a theoretical range of something like 62 miles. The discussion was how enough of these in place with "guest" (free) access might prove to a big threat to the cell phone industry. 62 miles range (maybe proving to be 15-20 miles in the "real world") + voip software seems like it could be a conceptual alternative to 4G/3G/2G.

If such a standard exists or nears existence, I wonder if the 4G/3G powers will crush it to protect the cellular cash cow?
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 01:22 PM   #63
kiljoy616
macrumors 68000
 
kiljoy616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Considering Apple tend to be a bit conservative at bringing out new things, this is actually impressive how fast they are implementing this.
__________________
AppleTV 2 + Ipad 2 64 GB (My jukebox) + iMac 27" i5 2.8Ghz 256GB SSD + 1TD HD + Macbook Air 2011 13" SSD 128GB iPhone 4S White
kiljoy616 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 01:24 PM   #64
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamlin View Post
What are you talking about? 500megabit connection would go 50mb/s and a 1 gig connection would go 100mb/s
that would be sleep deprivations for you.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 01:27 PM   #65
JohnDoe98
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
I recently saw something about a standard with a theoretical range of something like 62 miles. The discussion was how enough of these in place with "guest" (free) access might prove to a big threat to the cell phone industry. 62 miles range (maybe proving to be 15-20 miles in the "real world") + voip software seems like it could be a conceptual alternative to 4G/3G/2G.

If such a standard exists or nears existence, I wonder if the 4G/3G powers will crush it to protect the cellular cash cow?
The only thing I can think of with that range is IEEE 802.22, and that was standardized in July 2011. IEEE 802.11af will have a theoretical range of something like 1.2 miles, and will be standardized (expected) by March 2012. Why no one has invested? Beats me. People typically don't like changing the way things are done.
JohnDoe98 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 01:36 PM   #66
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Yes, I think that's (IEEE 802.22) the one. I didn't immediately find another reference to the "approx. 62 mile range" though wikipedia offers: " ...to bring broadband access to hard-to-reach, low population density areas, typical of rural environments, and is therefore timely and has the potential for a wide applicability worldwide. It is the first worldwide effort to define a standardized air interface based on CR techniques for the opportunistic use of TV bands on a non-interfering basis." which somewhat implies that weak memory.

Imagine that reach of wifi via "guest" (free) access in new routers all over the U.S. Mix in some Voip software and 3G/4G could be challenged by those willing to accept whatever compromises would come with it (if any). I wonder if it could function in motion (jumping from wifi source to source as someone moves about) just like 3G. But even if it couldn't, for those that want to make/take a (Voip) call without being in motion (beyond- say- walking), maybe there would be something there?

Just think what could happen if adoption came with a mandated requirement for an Apple Airport Express-like "guest" option (some wifi made available for free to anyone). Especially in cities, it seems like that could make the Internet broadly available to nearly everyone.

(which is why iEEE 802.22 will probably be crushed by those who like things (particularly 3G/4G subscription revenues) as they are).
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 02:11 PM   #67
JohnDoe98
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Imagine
I do so all the time. I dream of the day when we will only have to pay one, very modest, "telecommunication" bill, i.e. one bill for all our television, phone, internet, etc. I don't know if I'll be alive when that day rolls around though. The current state of affairs regarding copyrights and intellectual property worries me greatly; they are aimed more toward corporate welfare than the creativity and proliferation of technology, which is why too much technology is being held back and only gradually being offered, at exorbitant prices. Why release new tech when they can gradually get to you transition into it, increasing the price each time along the way to ensure their profits remain steady. If you think technology will make communicating easier and cheaper into the future, I fear you may be living in a fairy tale as I am.
JohnDoe98 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 02:30 PM   #68
alksion
macrumors 65816
 
alksion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Send a message via Skype™ to alksion
I know this is stupid question because no one really knows. But does anyone think they will implement this in a update very soon, whether devices can even take advantage of it yet?

I just bought an airport extreme (newest gen) like two weeks, so this makes me curious.
__________________
When life gives you lemons, eat an apple.
alksion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 03:26 PM   #69
JohnDoe98
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by alksion View Post
I know this is stupid question because no one really knows. But does anyone think they will implement this in a update very soon, whether devices can even take advantage of it yet?

I just bought an airport extreme (newest gen) like two weeks, so this makes me curious.
I doubt any devices can, and for the most part, other than when you transfer large files, the speed boost would be useless. The bottleneck for the overwhelming majority of uses will always remain with the speed of your internet connection; in fact this last point will probably become even more pronounced with time given the fact that everything is transitioning to the cloud. Internet connections aren't even close to maxing out on the 802.11n standard, so there really isn't much point in paying to upgrade everything (when that becomes possible).
JohnDoe98 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 03:59 PM   #70
alksion
macrumors 65816
 
alksion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Send a message via Skype™ to alksion
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDoe98 View Post
I doubt any devices can, and for the most part, other than when you transfer large files, the speed boost would be useless. The bottleneck for the overwhelming majority of uses will always remain with the speed of your internet connection; in fact this last point will probably become even more pronounced with time given the fact that everything is transitioning to the cloud. Internet connections aren't even close to maxing out on the 802.11n standard, so there really isn't much point in paying to upgrade everything (when that becomes possible).
Thanks for the information! I'll be getting a few years out of my new Airport Extreme that's for sure!
__________________
When life gives you lemons, eat an apple.
alksion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 05:03 PM   #71
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiljoy616 View Post
Considering Apple tend to be a bit conservative at bringing out new things, this is actually impressive how fast they are implementing this.
They way they adopted thunderbolt, this could be a possibility.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 09:59 PM   #72
scoobydoo99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: so cal
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
The current target is december 2012. You'd have been right about "YEARS" about 13 months ago.
Of course. The target date tends to change. We can check back again in December, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
__________________
scoob
scoobydoo99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 10:01 PM   #73
jettredmont
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammich View Post
You clearly haven't used 802.11b have you?

[...]

802.11b...my good lord, that was freaking slow.
Always depends on what you did with it and the specific hardware you got. We had 1.5Mbps internet and 802.11b maxed it out (ie, downloading on a wireless computer or hardwired got the exact same bitrate), and yes that was a "real" 1.5Mbps (fluctuating up to 1.7 or so but rarely below 1.5).

That having been said, 1.5Mbps is really slow compared to "average" internet speeds coming into well-populated areas. Even my inlaws in Idaho have 3Mbps internet. Can't say if 'b' does well against that with its theoretical 11Mbps, but it sure did just fine back in the day.

Coming back to the present, even at 10% efficiency - which would be a sign of massive interference and/or crap hardware - 'n' should outperform the average home broadband speeds. Until you start hitting 15-25Mbps speeds from your provider, you're not going to saturate an 'n' network. Even if you have three people using the Internet at the same time: they share the ISP connection's bandwidth just like they do the local network.

That said, extra local-area bandwidth is nice, because for Apple to sell hardware people need to do things at home that go beyond downloading stuff from the Internet. Layer on top of that sending video from your server to your TV while a couple of laptops are doing Time Machine backups while your iPhone is synching the latest podcasts and your iPad is acting as remote control. That's where the extra bandwidth in the home is going to have an effect: letting people do "local" stuff while still getting ISP content at full-bore. That and being ready for the eventual increases in home internet service bandwidth.
jettredmont is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 10:06 PM   #74
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by jettredmont View Post
Always depends on what you did with it and the specific hardware you got....
All true, but after putting Cat6 and structured cabling RJ45 jacks throughout my home I'm a firm believer in


It's nice to transfer the .ISO images of BDs to the HTPC at 110 MB/sec over CIFS shares, and to have it simply not matter whether a 40 GB file is local or on the home server. (The HTPC has a mirror of the .ISO images on the home server, normally all videos are played from the server - the mirror is just a backup for when the fraking disks on the server fail. The .ISO images are too big to include in the 4 times per day backups of the server.)

No more WiFi for me, except out on the patio....

(Actually, I was a firm believer in Cu before, which is why I put in the Cat6! )
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
nul

Last edited by AidenShaw; Jan 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM.
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2012, 08:51 AM   #75
potatis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
OffTopic: Is 10 gigabit ethernet as fast as Thunderbolt? If so, why is it not more common for file transfers?
potatis is offline   0 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 07:20 AM
802.11ac and Apple devices Damstas Mac Peripherals 2 Dec 3, 2013 09:02 AM
Photos of Likely 802.11ac 'Gigabit Wi-Fi' Card From Next-Generation iMac Surface MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 64 May 23, 2013 02:48 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 10:16 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 11:52 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.

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

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