Apple Hiring for Wireless 802.11ac System Test Engineers

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    Messages:
    7,175
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Adding to existing rumors that Apple is planning to add high speed 802.11ac wireless networking to its lineup later in 2013, AppleBitch notes that Apple has posted a job listing for a System Test Engineer with expertise with 802.11ac network environments.

    [​IMG]
    802.11ac should roughly triple the speeds seen with the current 802.11n standard, supporting up to 450 Mbps on one antenna and up to 1.3 Gbps when used with three antennas as on Apple's latest Macs.

    There is no indication of when Apple will begin introducing the new standard into existing products.

    Article Link: Apple Hiring for Wireless 802.11ac System Test Engineers
     
  2. macrumors G3

    mattopotamus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    8,668
    #2
    could someone put those speeds in laymen terms? Would an average user notice any difference when surfing the web?
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    #3
    Well it looks like I am holding off.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    4,476
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    Surfing the web will probably stay the same. However, downloading and uploading... :eek:
     
  5. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #5
    Only if your ISP's link is more than the current 802.11n speeds of 150/300/450/600 mbps.

    Which it probably isn't.

    ----------

    No, downloading and uploading either, unless again, you're one of the few lucky guys to get an Internet connection at more than the 802.11n bandwidth ratings.

    This is for home networking improvements. Your ISP is most probably your current bottleneck to the Internet.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    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!
     
  7. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #7
    Multiple streams is right. A Blu-ray disc's bitrate is what ? 40 mbps ? 50 mbps ?

    This is more for network backups/transfer of large files in your home, basically replacing your Gigabit Ethernet.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    D.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    3,596
    Location:
    Vilano Beach, FL
    #8
    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 :)
     
  9. macrumors member

    Builddesign

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    87
  10. b0fh, Jan 7, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2013

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    #10
    Think of it in terms of pipes :D:D:D

    You have one pipe coming in (DLS/Cable/FIOS/whatever). That's usually between 1Mbps to 30Mbps.

    Now, inside the house, you have a giant hose, capable of 150/300/450 Mbps and now 1.3 Gbps.

    Will your uploads and downloads go any faster? Why? Why not?

    However, if you had multiple wireless devices in the house, and assuming they all support the new standard, then where you were not able to wirelessly stream (from your media server inside the house) 1080p under 802.11a/b/g, but you could with 802.11n, now you can stream it to multiple devices...
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Corrode

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #11
    They should add a couple USB 3.0 ports while they're at it.
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    282
    #12
    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
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,617
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #13
    This is kinda what I was assuming. It'll be like getting a super duper wide hose, but your faucet size/water pressure stay the same... you aren't getting any more water out.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    This...will help a lot with your internal network if you transfer a lot between computers or a home NAS for example. 802.11ac may also have a broader range/penetration and handle other signal noise better.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Kaibelf

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    806
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #15
    http://fiber.google.com/about/
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    282
    #16
    Sorry - the people who have google Fiber know it, and it's limited to like 50 people in Kansas. Irrelevant response
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,579
    #17
    I'd like to see what the real speeds end up being cause even with N wireless file transfers are still slower than they would be on fast ethernet (100mbps) and way slower than gigabit. The real rates are never anywhere close to what they say in the specs.
     
  18. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #18
    I want to make no assumptions about people's internet connection. There is 1 Gbps connections offered by ISPs (Google Fiber) to some limited number of markets.

    Of course, if you don't know, you most likely don't have a 1 Gbps connection to the Internet, but again, let's not make assumptions. Likely is not a weasel word, it's simply indicating that the responses applies to the vast majority, but not the totality of users.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Michigan
    #19
    No, you will not notice the difference while surfing.


    It will make a huge difference for backups and large file transfers though. It should be about 3 times faster I'd guess. Today, when I have to move more than a few GB of data around on the network, I actually go plug into a Gigabit ethernet port because it is 4 times faster than wireless.
     
  20. macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    35,587
    #20
    This seems to only serve a purpose if you're one of the many who stream digital content on your home network. I can see this being pretty awesome for that. My ISP isn't going to allow those speeds for upload/downloading, ever.
     
  21. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    Messages:
    255
    #22
    Three words: local area networking. Internet speeds won't be affected for most people, but computer to computer or computer to local server could be faster with this tech.
     
  23. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #23
    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. ;)
     
  24. macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    4,675
    Location:
    Canada
    #24
    If you want a comparison, my cable modem downloads things at around 2 Mbps.

    Please no comment about my connection being slow, I'm choosing the lowest monthly bill and that gives me 2 Mbps.
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page