Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

before you jump the 802.11g bandwagon

that is a very ignorant and round-about article showing the limitations of the authors intelligence rather than any limitation of 802.11g
 
That guy is an idiot. I'm sorry but that is the most stupid article i've seen in a while.
I mean WOW, you mean when i'm utilisting less than 80% of the bandwidth in the first place, adding more doesn't speed up my connection?!!!! Well clearly that proves...er..

Who pays people to write this crap?
 
what a complete ****ing moron.

and i don't use that term lightly, considering all the morons in the world.

this guy made an excel spreadsheet that managed to poorly graph outside network traffic/interferences. brilliant. not much into the theory of "one variable at a time", eh? and he doesn't even realize it.

he points out the obvious as if he's uncovering some deep, dark secret. i've never seen such a bloated, ignorant pile of words in my life. and i read the clinton deposition.

i can sum up that entire article in just a couple of sentences, and not lose anything: 802.11b is too fast for your internet connection, so 802.11g won't speed it up. big file transfers will be sped up, however. even smaller ones but it will be less noticable. And your old equipment won't speed up unless you upgrade it.

42 words. much easier to read. someone give me a job doing this monkey work.

pnw
 
You people are pretty harsh. Lighten up.

Most folks don't understand (or care to understand) the technical explanations for why stuff works or doesn't work. They just want it to work.

The article admittedly made a simple argument, so I guess your only gripe is that it was too long.

Apparently, he kept your attention throughout the entire thing, so I guess he did something right...
 
Originally posted by john123
You people are pretty harsh. Lighten up.

Most folks don't understand (or care to understand) the technical explanations for why stuff works or doesn't work. They just want it to work.

The article admittedly made a simple argument, so I guess your only gripe is that it was too long.

Apparently, he kept your attention throughout the entire thing, so I guess he did something right...
Click to expand...

My problem is that he makes claims that are backed up only by his own testing which is completely flawed. he should have been trying file transfers to test the speed; not testing webpage loads. that, combined with the way he presented the other information, leads me to believe the guy has almost no technical knowledge whatsoever--

mostly, tho, he's trying to paint 802.11g as a technology that is not and never will be useful, and that we should all start adapting 802.11a instead. he doesn't mention that it has almost all of the same problems and issues, just that it's a ratified standard so it's OK. i don't know why but he's purposefully misleading.

pnw
 
Originally posted by paulwhannel




mostly, tho, he's trying to paint 802.11g as a technology that is not and never will be useful, and that we should all start adapting 802.11a instead. he doesn't mention that it has almost all of the same problems and issues, just that it's a ratified standard so it's OK. i don't know why but he's purposefully misleading.

pnw
Click to expand...

Do you have any reading comprehension skills?

Granted the part about 802.11g in actual use being slower than 802.11b should be ignored for obvious reasons.

However, he does have a point about the standard for 802.11g not being finalized yet. It will not be standardized by IEEE until this summer after which I'm sure all stuff will be built to spec. Until that point however, stuff will be built upon what is most likely to be standard. All he is saying is be cautious about buying crap that is based on standards that have not been finalized yet and try to buy stuff of the same brand so you won't run into any problems. I see no problem with this argument.
 
Credibility = f(omissions, errors)

Originally posted by yosoyjay

However, he does have a point about the standard for 802.11g not being finalized yet. It will not be standardized by IEEE until this summer after which I'm sure all stuff will be built to spec. Until that point however, stuff will be built upon what is most likely to be standard. All he is saying is be cautious about buying crap that is based on standards that have not been finalized yet and try to buy stuff of the same brand so you won't run into any problems. I see no problem with this argument.
Click to expand...

The problem is its holes in conjunction with his obvious errors, and they hurt his overall credibility.

He may as well have done an experiment whre he ripped a beloved old 20M hard drive out of a 20MHz '386 and drop it into his 2.5GHz Pentium4, and then rip the P4 a new one, because he found out in his tests that his disk I/O speeds didn't drastically change.

On the actual issues he raises, he missed two big ones.

First, he misses the fact that sometimes Standards are finally signed-off only by people shipping real hardware.

Second, even if his "worst case" scenario happens, namely that this stuff doesn't meet some new 802.11g standard, that also requires a second failure that it can't be software-refitted. Under such a "sky is falling" scenario, these devices will still continue to work, but they will only be compatible with themselves. Furthermore, their backwards capability to the entire installed base of 802.11b is proven today, and it will not go away.

As such, the buyer's downside risk really isn't all that dire.

-hh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back