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 7, 2013, 01:56 PM   #26
needfx
macrumors 68020
 
needfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sizing things up, or down
wifi-enabled-wands at the ready
needfx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 01:57 PM   #27
Jetson
macrumors 6502a
 
Jetson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Mo' Speed Equals Mo' Betta!

This is great news.

I'm happy to see devices, especially connection devices, continuing to get faster.

True, the internet experience may not improve, mainly because of the pitifully slow data rates provided by our bloated, greedy ISPs.

But if you frequently copy large files (hundreds of MB or gigabyte size) across your network, from your iMac to your MacBook for example, then this will be an extremely welcome development.
Jetson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 01:59 PM   #28
jav6454
macrumors G5
 
jav6454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Yet this only signals the improvement of Mac to Mac wireless connection as our lovely broadband speeds have plateaued over the past 5 years....
__________________
Al MacBook 2.4GHz Late '08 | 5 S⃣ | Macross Click Me
jav6454 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:01 PM   #29
rdlink
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.T. View Post
Like [WRX] pointed out above, the external link speed to your ISP is likely far less vs. even your current gear. Generally internet access is limited by your internet speed not your local network speeds.

This is great for someone moving large files between computers on the same network, backing up (to a local network resource), etc.

[edit]

My reply was a little late since another couple of posts snuck in while I discussed hot chocolate with my 4 year old
Hot chocolate in Florida? What the...?
__________________
Desktop, Desktop, Laptop, Phone, Tablet
rdlink is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:01 PM   #30
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradox22 View Post
Yes, you will notice a difference. Previous routers limit the connection because of their wireless nature. Because "ac" uses different technology, the limitations that come with a wireless connection will nearly be eliminated and would be equivalent to hooking your connection up directly in terms of speed and available bandwidth. It also caries a better signal which eliminates dead spots. So while you may notice a difference, that difference may vary. Needless to say, your overall connection will be improved.
Please, explain to us how this improvement will occur over his Internet connection ?

Unless you has enormous latency in the 2.4 GHz frequency band (and 802.11n supports the same 5 GHz band that 802.11ac uses), latency that dwarfs that of his Internet uplink, anywhere in the route between him and the server he's querying, what improvements to you expect to see from your 30 mbps Internet uplink when using a 1.3 gbps local link vs a 600 mbps one ?

Seems to me, the 30 mbps will be 30 mbps, no matter the wireless link in the case of 802.11n vs 802.11ac.
__________________
"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 7, 2013, 02:02 PM   #31
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Why is Apple just now hiring for these engineers ? When 802.11n was in it's infancy Apple already had 802.11n draft wireless cards in some of their machines and a simple update brought us 802.11n

You're slacking off Apple.
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:03 PM   #32
unobtainium
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Again folks, unless we're talking streaming multiple Blu-ray disc's, this isn't even going to help really. Bitrates are not that high for digtal content, especially not the kind you download.

(and for music ? completely unnoticeable. A 256 kbps AAC file does not require 150 mbps of bandwidth to stream).

----------



Check the last line of the post you quoted.
But what about backing up to a Time Capsule? That takes much longer over Wifi than via gigabit Ethernet currently, so this might help there. Same for if you're streaming something big (ie 1080p) to the Apple TV at the same time that a wireless time capsule backup is being made AND someone is downloading something from the net. I think it's going to be a welcome improvement even if it doesn't fix the ISP bottleneck.
unobtainium is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:04 PM   #33
cclloyd
macrumors 68000
 
cclloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Alpha Centauri A
I'm happy with my current 802.11ac netgear router. I just need a network card that has it too. That said, I want faster wifi on the 5S, iPad Mini 2, and updated macbooks, especially since the university I'm going to has ac.
__________________
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 7, 2013, 02:05 PM   #34
D.T.
macrumors 68030
 
D.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdlink View Post
Hot chocolate in Florida? What the...?
Hahaha, I know right? We were up in PA for Christmas, so her temp sensors haven't totally reset. I think it's mostly about the chocolate, and not so much about the hot.

Yeah, it's barely cold here ... heck, I'm thinking about tossing on a wetsuit and hitting up the surf
D.T. is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:10 PM   #35
absurdamerica
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Again folks, unless we're talking streaming multiple Blu-ray disc's, this isn't even going to help really. Bitrates are not that high for digtal content, especially not the kind you download.

(and for music ? completely unnoticeable. A 256 kbps AAC file does not require 150 mbps of bandwidth to stream).

----------



Check the last line of the post you quoted.
Tell that to the people who can't stream 1080p content over AppleTV without it stuttering constantly.
absurdamerica is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:13 PM   #36
HarryKeogh
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.T. View Post
My reply was a little late since another couple of posts snuck in while I discussed hot chocolate with my 4 year old
This put a smile on my face.
HarryKeogh is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:14 PM   #37
Mike MA
macrumors 6502a
 
Mike MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany, Europe
Let's just hope these will be some masterminds - will all the recent wifi and airplay issues
__________________
Macbook Air 13" (late 2010) - Apple TV2 - Time Capsule - Galaxy S4
Mike MA is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:18 PM   #38
stridemat
Moderator
 
stridemat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southampton, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by skate71290 View Post
YES In Layman's terms this will not improve the speed of web browsing, but it will seriously improve Home Sharing (and related uses) when streaming to multiple devices simultaneously and streaming high bit-rate (high quality) and high resolution videos please include QoS when this is incorporated into your router product line!
That's what I am looking forward too! My wireless N network seems to take ages to copy HD files to my NAS box. If I buy a new Mac and a new router then this would solve my problems. Time to speak to the boss about potential future purchases...
__________________
Does size matter?
stridemat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:19 PM   #39
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by unobtainium View Post
But what about backing up to a Time Capsule? That takes much longer over Wifi than via gigabit Ethernet currently, so this might help there. Same for if you're streaming something big (ie 1080p) to the Apple TV at the same time that a wireless time capsule backup is being made AND someone is downloading something from the net. I think it's going to be a welcome improvement even if it doesn't fix the ISP bottleneck.
From your scenario, only the Time capsule backup is improved (and even then, if you look at the bandwidth usage during a Time Capsule backup, you'll notice that the actual sustained transfer is way below your Wi-fi treshold, Time Capsule backups are bursty as most activity is analyzing which files require updates vs which don't).

1080p streams ? Again, Blu-ray, 40/50 mbps. That's even under 802.11g speeds. I don't know of many people who stream Blu-ray quality video/audio to their Apple TV, most of it is much lower bit-rate (10-20 mbps).

And we've covered the net.

Anyway, without QoS, the Time Capsule backup will crush both your stream and download, no matter how much bandwidth you have. You'll just suffer it for a shorter amount of time on a 802.11ac connection vs a 802.11n one.
__________________
"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 7, 2013, 02:20 PM   #40
easy4lif
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southbay CA
at this point, my internet speed (20Mbps) is less then the throughput of my time capsule so i think I'm gonna skip these offerings.
__________________
worthless, just worthless
easy4lif is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:20 PM   #41
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
There is no indication of when Apple will begin introducing the new standard into existing products.
You know, except this news.

ac and ad may be a software upgrade on systems that are built with hardware that support both and have three antennas. Since the prior Broadcom announcement (without mentioning Apple) and the financial industry announcement that mentioned the Apple purchase of Broadcom chips that support ac, it's pretty clear by now.

These sorts of announcements are made post facto to suit public announcement standards set by SEC. These are public companies. So much for secrecy.

BTW streaming needs cache. Deal with it Apple. It will cost $8 more per unit and improve the consumer experience 1000%. BTW I told you so.

We have to live in a world where internet speeds are uber-crippled and the local network is all that matters to the user. Local storage is mandatory in that world. Our world.

Fusion drives in all media servers please.
__________________
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 7, 2013 at 02:26 PM.
Rocketman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:29 PM   #42
powers74
macrumors 68000
 
powers74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: At the bend in the river
'Noog

Quote:
Originally Posted by iRCL View Post
What's all this "Likely" weasel word crap? Name a single ISP who has a commercial line even purely downstream above 150-600mbps. Nobody asking about whether or not it will affect them at home has that kind of connection, so give them the right answer.

The answer is no, this isn't going to improve your Internet experience one bit
"Our packages start at 50 Mbps, delivering super-fast performance for everything you do online. And we built our network so it will easily meet your bandwidth demands in the future--even up to 1,000 Mbps!"

https://epbfi.com/internet/

So, 'Nooga does if you want to pay for it.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."
powers74 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:32 PM   #43
Neodym
macrumors 6502a
 
Neodym's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
This is more for network backups/transfer of large files in your home, basically replacing your Gigabit Ethernet.
While I appreciate the improved signal coverage coming with wireless "ac" at least as much as the higher speeds, I try to have my devices (computers, NAS, printer, AppleTV etc.) on cabled Ethernet whenever possible, as the 2.4GHz band is already overcrowded and the 5GHz band is catching up already.

I somehow doubt "ac" can be a real substitute for Gigabit Ethernet, unless one lives pretty lonesome without neighbors crowding the wireless bands from all sides.

I also dislike transmitting too much private information over wireless, as it can be tapped much easier than cabled communication - WPA2 notwithstanding.

Not to mention that cabled will probably allow for decent priced 10Gbit components by the time "ac" is widely adopted...
Neodym is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:44 PM   #44
Nermal
Moderator
 
Nermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Whakatane, New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRCL View Post
What's all this "Likely" weasel word crap? Name a single ISP who has a commercial line even purely downstream above 150-600mbps.
Over here, Gen-i and FX both offer 1 Gb/s services.

Having said that, most residential users won't be seeing more than 100 Mb/s any time soon.
Nermal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:47 PM   #45
fastlanephil
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Builddesign View Post
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/...6953&ctx=topic

I want to see what fiber optic will bring.
I've had fiber at my house for several years when our local PUD began a fiber back bone project in selected areas with your choice of a local ISP retailer. It was originally 12Mbps download speed and is now 20 Mbps download speed. The upload speed seems to be about 2Mbps. I had Comcast at another residence which showed 24 Mbps download speed but I think that was their "Boost" speed which is not sustainable.

It's running me about $72 total per month which includes a VOIP business line but not long distance calling. A residential VOIP would be $10 less per month.
fastlanephil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:49 PM   #46
rmatthewware
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattopotamus View Post
could someone put those speeds in laymen terms? Would an average user notice any difference when surfing the web?
If any of the ISPs in the US actually had fiber service like they should have ten years ago, this might matter for surfing. The only place this might make a difference is in Kansas City where Google is starting to put in gigabit fiber, but they have a pretty fast router they're including.
rmatthewware is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:56 PM   #47
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by powers74 View Post
"Our packages start at 50 Mbps, delivering super-fast performance for everything you do online. And we built our network so it will easily meet your bandwidth demands in the future--even up to 1,000 Mbps!"

https://epbfi.com/internet/
I clicked around for a while and it refuses to let you select internet only. I set up a house in CA to 30mbps for $40 a month internet only. It has unlimited free (3.50/mo taxes) ooma VoIP, Roku TV (other boxes later), and of course internet itself. In conversation with technical the provisioning is the same for 30 and 100 mbps so the guaranteed access is not real, as I expected and believe. I had cable internet in another CA location and at times my speed was astounding. Download porn now and fast! Or in my case rocket videos.
__________________
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.
Rocketman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:58 PM   #48
nickn
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRCL View Post
What's all this "Likely" weasel word crap? Name a single ISP who has a commercial line even purely downstream above 150-600mbps. Nobody asking about whether or not it will affect them at home has that kind of connection, so give them the right answer.

The answer is no, this isn't going to improve your Internet experience one bit
In 2005, the Hong Kong ISP HKBN, started offering gigabit fiber service for $26 a month. By 2012, 85% of homes in Hong Kong had subscribed to the service. For businesses, even earlier in 2004, competing ISP Cyberport started installing 10Gigabit fiber lines. Notice, i'm not just naming a single ISP, i'm naming an entire country that could benefit from this technology...
nickn is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 03:06 PM   #49
unplugme71
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattopotamus View Post
could someone put those speeds in laymen terms? Would an average user notice any difference when surfing the web?
You can surf the web fine on 802.11b. Going to 802.11g is not that much quicker, if even noticeable for surfing. The bigger difference between b/g/n/a/c is the range for web surfers.

For downloading, file transfering, etc - yes it does make a big difference going with the faster wireless tech.

I'd like to get a dedicated line to Apple's servers, so when I want to use my Apple TV, I get a solid stream going. Plus if one day I can convert myself into bits, I can take a sneak-peak inside Apple's datacenters.

Last edited by unplugme71; Jan 7, 2013 at 03:13 PM.
unplugme71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 03:10 PM   #50
blackhand1001
macrumors 68030
 
blackhand1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
On my base 150 mbps 802.11n wireless (I have a 20$ AP), I get about 8 MB/sec transfer, vs 10 MB/sec transfer over 100 Mbps Ethernet to my NAS.

So it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
Yeah but they advertise it as 150/300mbps, so its should at a minimum get faster than fast ethernet. Its not slow by any means but I doubt that even AC will provide anything close to gigabit. Maybe it will handle multiple users better.
__________________
Macbook 2008
HP Dv7t - 2.53 ghz, 9600m GT, WSXGA+, 120gb ssd, 250 gb 7200rpm
Core i7 3770k, 8gb ram, 2x 120gb sdd raid0, 500gb hdd, GTX 460
Moto X Dev Edition (VZW) Nexus 7

Last edited by blackhand1001; Jan 7, 2013 at 05:08 PM.
blackhand1001 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
How do I test speeds of 802.11ac? hakr100 Mac Peripherals 2 Dec 2, 2013 11:03 AM
Wireless 802.11ac in Bootcamp Win 7 with 2013 MBA? rittchard MacBook Air 1 Jul 16, 2013 10:48 PM
Wireless 802.11ac Setup Help njtransit215 Mac Peripherals 1 Jun 16, 2013 07:50 PM
Apple Hiring Chip Engineers for 'Orlando Design Center' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 25 Apr 17, 2013 07:48 PM
Apple Hiring Former Texas Instruments Engineers in Israel MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 70 Dec 7, 2012 08:23 PM

Forum Jump

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

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

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