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 2, 2013, 11:31 AM   #51
sfrancis928
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2012
My network hard drive likes this post.
sfrancis928 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:31 AM   #52
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodcrest64 View Post
Yeah you are correct. Its going to be a while till that standard is picked up by the majority. Heck, even wireless N is rarely seen where I am in terms of cafes and etc. Its usually 802.11G in most cases that I see used in public places.
What does it matter ? If their outgoing pipe to the ISP is less than 54 mbps, there is no value in investing in 802.11n equipement as no one really uses the local wireless to do local things in a restaurant or cafe.

You're getting bottlenecked at their Internet uplink anyhow.
__________________
"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 2, 2013, 11:32 AM   #53
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
What, 802.11n isn't fast enough now?
iMikeT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:33 AM   #54
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
What, 802.11n isn't fast enough now?
600 mbps if you have a proper multi-channel router and a client radio that supports it (150/300 mbps if you don't). And you're lucky to achieve those speeds at all anyway.

Anyway, with growing media files and reliance on bandwidth, I don't know why anyone would want to stop progress. If 802.11n is fine for you, then no one forces you to upgrade really.
__________________
"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   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:34 AM   #55
Sodner
macrumors 68000
 
Sodner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
There you have it. The 2012 iMac I have yet to receive is now antiquated.
__________________
27" iMac, Late 2013 MacBook Air iPhone 5s 64GB AT&T iPad Air 32GB
"I believe in the six colors."
Sodner is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:36 AM   #56
Quu
macrumors 65816
 
Quu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
What, 802.11n isn't fast enough now?
In my opinion, no. On 802.11n you got what, 450Mb on the high end stuff? Some manufacturers offered 600Mb but I'd say 300Mb and 450Mb were most popular for 5GHz 802.11n operation.

But that is their theoretical speeds, in reality even with only being 2-3 meters from my router with direct line of sight I'd get about 112Mb/s in file transfers. Keep in mind that is Mb not MB. For doing Time Machine backups that's about 14MB/s

This is slow to me and it's the reason I do initial Time Machine backups over Gigabit ethernet because you get a constant 120MB/s with that. And that is actual reality and not just theoretical.

So if they are quoting 1.3Gb/s on 802.11ac maybe we will actually get closer to 300Mb/s - 500Mb/s and that would be nice.
__________________
Notebook: 17" C2D MBP, 2.93GHz, 4GB RAM, SSD+HDD, Mavericks
Desktop: Three 30", Ci7 3930K, OS X Mavericks, 32GB RAM, 2xGTX780 SLI, 840 Pro SSD
iOS Devices: iPhone 5 64GB | iPad Air 16GB WiFi
Quu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:38 AM   #57
JHankwitz
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to JHankwitz
Quote:
Originally Posted by KramRevilo View Post
I believe the 5G in the original quote refers to 5 GHz ... which is the only spectrum where 802.11ac operates (as opposed to 2.4 & 5 GHz for 802.11n). Comments about G meaning 'generation' are meaningless (but fun to read).
Not to be confused with a 5G iMac, or 5G rocket launches, or Kinetic 5G, or a John Deere 5G tractor, or the Red Bull 5G games.
JHankwitz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:40 AM   #58
carlgo
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Apple's entire future seems to be dependent on hoping, evidently, that the carriers get with it and provide us with decent internet speeds.

Hope that Apple has a secret plan that truly will be the Truly Big Thing that deals with this infrastructure problem. Our devices are very capable, 90% of us really don't require more power or speed, but the internet is really lagging far, far behind and is limiting everything.
carlgo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:48 AM   #59
potatis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Why not 802.11ad?
potatis is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:51 AM   #60
KdParker
macrumors 68020
 
KdParker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
I will just hold off on the upgrade until this is finalized.
__________________
16g iPhone5s Space Grey; 16g iPhone5 White;
15" retina - MBP 2.6 GHZ 16 RAM;
iPad4 retina
KdParker is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:51 AM   #61
MikhailT
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjhonny View Post
Don't get your hopes up. That 1.3 Gb/s is only theoretical. Real life ~ 150 Mb/s (18 MB/s)

comparison to n: Netgear promo video
That's probably an epic fail on Netgear and the video for not explaining the details correctly, not the standard.

You can get ~18MB from current N routers now with the MIMO antenna technologies, which is what 802.11ad will include by default.

My guess is that video is showing off the working early drafts of the 802.11ad standard at an expo to show the technology work now and not a performance review. The video is from early '12, they were still developing and optimizing 802.11ad technologies.

To get the best speed from 802.11ad, you have to have three antennas in both ways to get 1.3Gbps, which is ~160MBps theoretical. Considering you lose 20-40% for overhead from the wireless side and another 20% from the computer's side, expect about 65MBps transfer speed at high quality stuff.

For most people, that'll be as fast as they can transmit from their hard drives nowadays.
MikhailT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:59 AM   #62
TallManNY
macrumors 68000
 
TallManNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Isn't N already fast enough to stream live HD video? It seems to be working just fine for me. I'm happy for more speed and reliability, especially since this will presumably be at no extra cost. But will this produce any real difference for the average consumer? Isn't the real bottleneck now the internet itself and the servers hosting the site's we visit?

Anyway, to take advantage of this I'd need a new time capsule router and a new Apple TV. And since I'm years from getting new computer. I guess I won't see this in my home for a long time.
__________________
Mid-2011 3.1GHz i5 iMac (6970m); Late-2007 Macbook; HP Spectre (Win 8.1)
BBRY Q10; iPhone 5; iPad Mini-R
Apple Stockholder (a nice dividend, stock buybacks and cutting edge innovation? yes please!)
TallManNY is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:00 PM   #63
Nanasaki
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian.h View Post
Macbook Air Retina with super fast Wifi? Yes please!
I am wondering how much would that cost? Current 13 inch Macbook Air with 1400x900 screen already good enough... At least I don't see how retina gonna make big different. I do hope Apple retains non-retina option for their laptop line up... I am not going to pay extra $$ for non-essential stuffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hleewell View Post
The Best News Ever !!!
I am wondering if we can put this wifi card into older Macs... If yes, then it is best news!
__________________
MacBook Air 2012, Mac Mini 2011, iPad Mini 1&2, iPad 4, Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Moto G
Nanasaki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:02 PM   #64
puckhead193
macrumors G3
 
puckhead193's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NY
this will fit nicely in a new mac pro...
__________________
nMP - 6 core, D700s, 32 gig, 1 TB, NEC PA272W
20" iMac C2D
17" MBP i7
iPod Touch, 64 GB iPhone 5, 64 GB iPad 3
puckhead193 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:05 PM   #65
pimentoLoaf
macrumors Demi-God
 
pimentoLoaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The SimCity Deli
Excellent news!

Now... I'm wondering when AT&T will upgrade my DSL service to 450mbps for the same thing I'm now paying for 6mbps, which is about $20/month?
__________________
Porkchops and bacon, my two favorite animals....Homer Simpson
pimentoLoaf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:13 PM   #66
absurdamerica
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
What, 802.11n isn't fast enough now?
No, I'd like to easily stream 1080 content from once device to another.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlgo View Post
Apple's entire future seems to be dependent on hoping, evidently, that the carriers get with it and provide us with decent internet speeds.

Hope that Apple has a secret plan that truly will be the Truly Big Thing that deals with this infrastructure problem. Our devices are very capable, 90% of us really don't require more power or speed, but the internet is really lagging far, far behind and is limiting everything.
There is no infrastructure problem, it's a marketplace problem, at least in the United States. The lack of a competitive telecom market in the United States alongside the fact that most of Europe and Asia has partially or wholly nationalized their telecom infrastructure means the US lags way behind everybody else speed wise

Now I'm all for being able to stream and sync wirelessly as fast as humanly possible. it would be nice to see more symmetrical fiber type services offered on a widespread basis, but I'm not holding my breath...
absurdamerica is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:19 PM   #67
kjs862
macrumors 65816
 
kjs862's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Nice but if you really need the speed just hard wire your computer. Otherwise, 802.11n should be fast enough.
kjs862 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:30 PM   #68
dBeats
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post
What about LTE for the laptops? I think this seems likely but not guaranteed.
Not with Samsung claiming they own LTE and only people they like can use it....
dBeats is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:31 PM   #69
adrian.h
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanasaki View Post
I am wondering how much would that cost? Current 13 inch Macbook Air with 1400x900 screen already good enough... At least I don't see how retina gonna make big different. I do hope Apple retains non-retina option for their laptop line up... I am not going to pay extra $$ for non-essential stuffs.



I am wondering if we can put this wifi card into older Macs... If yes, then it is best news!
Well, when I look at the 13 inch Macbook Pro retina and non retina i see a big different. Itīs like the ipad, when you get used to the amazing retina display going back to non retina isnīt an option.
adrian.h is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:43 PM   #70
cclloyd
macrumors 68000
 
cclloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Alpha Centauri A
I was hoping that 802.11ac would be in the mac I get for when I go off to college, since my first choice uses that for their routers. I'd have top priority wifi on campus
__________________
iPhone 5 Sprint w/ iOS 7.0.4 Jailbroken
iPad mini Retina w/ iOS 7.0.4 Jailbroken
MacBook Pro Retina Early 2013
cclloyd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:46 PM   #71
heisetax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolspot18 View Post
Yeah, I won't be surprised if Apple did... but it would reinforce once again the iMac is turning into an iToy...
I've been repeatedly told at the Apple Store that Apple is a "consumer electronics store' & not a "professional computer store" that many of us want. This would mean that the iMac is the high end iToy.

My local Apple Store doesn't have a Mac Pro on display. This makes the Mac Mini the new Mac Pro that is to come out in 2013 as the rumors say that is promised by Mr Cook. Compared to the full sized Mac Pro, which is over 2.5 years old design & processor wise, the Mac Mini with its sometimes 1 or 2 generation old processor & at best the current generation with a much slower processor than in the iToy iMac, is a weak computer to be called a Mac Pro model. But in an otherwise iToy market the Mac Mini could stand out. Apple has done all that it can to make the Mac Mini Pro a weak computer.Thus further confirming that Apple is just an iToy company. No wonder they had to take computer out of their name.
heisetax is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:48 PM   #72
bearda
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germantown, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by unplugme71 View Post
Apple needs to update their Airport Extreme with this and USB 3.0 so transfers are faster. Time Machine backups are just so slow with the USB 2.0 interface.
Backups with a Time Capsule are about the same speed with it's internal non-USB drive. The problem isn't the USB interface. The USB 2.0 bus should be able to just about saturate an 802.11n link, but don't come close on an Airport Extreme/Time Capsule. I don't know if the protocol stack needs work, or if the processor in the router just can't keep up but switching to USB 3.0 alone isn't going to help.
bearda is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:52 PM   #73
newdeal
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
...

I hope its actually good and doesn't drop to N speeds as soon as you are behind a wall or further than 10 feet from the router or something
newdeal is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:53 PM   #74
bearda
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germantown, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by cclloyd9785 View Post
I was hoping that 802.11ac would be in the mac I get for when I go off to college, since my first choice uses that for their routers. I'd have top priority wifi on campus
Really? That's kind of surprising. I haven't heard of any wide scale 802.11ac deployments yet. Everyone I know of has stuck with 802.11n (and in 2 cases, g) rather than risking buying draft spec ac hardware. A campus wide ac deployment seems kind of silly, at this point.
bearda is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:53 PM   #75
petsounds
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
The biggest problem with 802.11n is the short functional range and susceptibility to interference indoors, as compared to 802.11g. I hope 802.11ac operates at longer ranges and is more robust indoors.
petsounds 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
Broadcom Announces New 5G 802.11ac Wi-Fi Chip for Smartphones MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 109 Mar 1, 2014 09:39 PM
802.11ac vs gigabit adapter AppleHater MacBook Pro 12 Feb 17, 2014 06:20 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
TC, now or 2013 with 802.11ac? Panini Mac Peripherals 17 Sep 12, 2012 01:36 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:28 PM.

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

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