Apple Expected to Adopt 802.11ac 5G Gigabit Wi-Fi This Year

What we need is not necessarily faster wireless, but better range and penetration through walls etc. Currently 2.4ghz is ok, but prone to interference with other wireless devices. Whereas 5ghz does not suffer intereference but it does have range limitations.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

yay wonder how many users this can support at one time
 
k1121j said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

yay wonder how many users this can support at one time
Click to expand...

Depends what the users are doing. We use to run hundreds of users over 10 Mb/s networks in half duplex on hubs (not switches... think collisions).
 
SDAVE said:
It's effectively 90MB/sec with overhead. That's slow for you?

Unless you're using GbE for pro use, then that's another issue. Fiber is good for that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
10Gb Ethernet will give you that, 10Gb.

802.11n may say 150Mb, but in reality, even if you have two computers and a router next to each other, you get 20-30Mb. I have never seen files transfer any quicker than 3MB/s between my wired iMac and wireless MacBook Pro.
 
Two Questions.

1) Will apple need to move away from usb 2.0 for external hard drives. I take it they will still keep the USB port for printers and add a thunderbolt port?

2)There was no indication on range. Do you know if there is an increase to wireless n?
 
If Apple were to implement this, it would be for now only limited to the AirPort Extreme router, iMac, MacBook Pro (maybe MacBook Air) and possibly the next-generation Apple TV, and all must be able to be updated to the final 802.11ac specification. Just the power consumption of the new 802.11ac chipset would rule it out using it on the iPad, let alone the iPhone!
 
SimonTheSoundMa said:
10Gb Ethernet will give you that, 10Gb.

802.11n may say 150Mb, but in reality, even if you have two computers and a router next to each other, you get 20-30Mb. I have never seen files transfer any quicker than 3MB/s between my wired iMac and wireless MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...

There's about 10-14 wireless access points arround me (counting the accesspoint list), 2 doors between my macbook pro and accesspoint+nas. Got 3 devices on wireless and get about 70-80mbit/s (~7-7.5 MBytes/s)
 
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12946196/

"The plethora of frequencies could be dealt with by an exterior antenna band similar to iPhone 4 or the cosmetic ring on iPhone3, but with 2-3 tracks of antennas to deal with length differences so whatever frequency you need at that moment is supported. "

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11896062/

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12950742/

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13246477/

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...antenna-created-hand-held-tricorders-incoming

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-wilocity-demoes-first-60ghz-wireless-devices

Rocketman
 
Last edited:
in my area there are at any time 15 routers in range.

would this reduce the interference between them? or is it enough with the 5GHz band that apple is using right now?
 
macduke said:
Will this standard support the bandwidth capable of wireless video mirroring of a hypothetical retina iPad 3 using a hypothetical Apple TV 3?

Another thing—is it too much to ask that the numbering system for these “standards” go “a, b, c, d, e…” instead of “a, b, g, n, ac”? Because in 15 years we’ll end up with something stupid like 802.11no.

I know people like my grandma will ask “is n newer than ac?”

And another thing—I wish USB updated this often. Make everything backwards compatible like it is now but just update the speed every few years instead of waiting. Then most computers today would have at least a fairly speedy USB port compared to 2.0.
Click to expand...

Actually there is quite a bit of sense when you look at how they're naming these things. All the letters are almost used already so they're just going aa, ab, ac etc.


Taken from wiki.


IEEE 802.11a: 54 Mbit/s, 5 GHz standard (1999, shipping products in 2001)
IEEE 802.11b: Enhancements to 802.11 to support 5.5 and 11 Mbit/s (1999)
IEEE 802.11c: Bridge operation procedures; included in the IEEE 802.1D standard (2001)
IEEE 802.11d: International (country-to-country) roaming extensions (2001)
IEEE 802.11e: Enhancements: QoS, including packet bursting (2005)
IEEE 802.11F: Inter-Access Point Protocol (2003) Withdrawn February 2006
IEEE 802.11g: 54 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz standard (backwards compatible with b) (2003)
IEEE 802.11h: Spectrum Managed 802.11a (5 GHz) for European compatibility (2004)
IEEE 802.11i: Enhanced security (2004)
IEEE 802.11j: Extensions for Japan (2004)
IEEE 802.11-2007: A new release of the standard that includes amendments a, b, d, e, g, h, i & j. (July 2007)
IEEE 802.11k: Radio resource measurement enhancements (2008)
IEEE 802.11n: Higher throughput improvements using MIMO (multiple input, multiple output antennas) (September 2009)
IEEE 802.11p: WAVE—Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment (such as ambulances and passenger cars) (July 2010)
IEEE 802.11r: Fast BSS transition (FT) (2008)
IEEE 802.11s: Mesh Networking, Extended Service Set (ESS) (July 2011)
IEEE 802.11T: Wireless Performance Prediction (WPP)—test methods and metrics Recommendation cancelled
IEEE 802.11u: Interworking with non-802 networks (for example, cellular) (February 2011)
IEEE 802.11v: Wireless network management (February 2011)
IEEE 802.11w: Protected Management Frames (September 2009)
IEEE 802.11y: 3650–3700 MHz Operation in the U.S. (2008)
IEEE 802.11z: Extensions to Direct Link Setup (DLS) (September 2010)

[edit] In process

IEEE 802.11mb: Maintenance of the standard; will become 802.11-2011 (~ December 2011)
IEEE 802.11aa: Robust streaming of Audio Video Transport Streams (~ March 2012)
IEEE 802.11ac: Very High Throughput <6 GHz;[22] potential improvements over 802.11n: better modulation scheme (expected ~10% throughput increase); wider channels (80 or even 160 MHz), multi user MIMO;[23] (~ December 2012)
IEEE 802.11ad: Very High Throughput 60 GHz (~ Dec 2012) - see WiGig
IEEE 802.11ae: QoS Management (~ Dec 2011)
IEEE 802.11af: TV Whitespace (~ Mar 2012)
IEEE 802.11ah: Sub 1Ghz (~ July 2013)
IEEE 802.11ai: Fast Initial Link Setup (~ Sep 2014)
 
Macman45 said:
In actual fact. the 5GHZ band takes you AWAY from congestion. The 2.4 band is where the interference is at present. My TC operating at 5GHZ and 2.4 (it auto switches) gives a far better connection on my IOS devices than the older standard ever could.
Click to expand...

Interesting because as far as i know, the only only iOS that supports 5ghz is the iPad2.
 
Not what you expect...

Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC. Yes, it's faster but you can't even max out B with your average broadband connection here in the USA. YOUR INTERNET WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. Yes, the 5 GHz spectrum is less cluttered and will give you more range, but how many of us are actually so hooked on transferring large files from computer to computer that this would matter??
 
frosted1030 said:
Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a pretty big advantage right there when you think about it. ;)

A lot of us have home built infrastructures with centralized storage and streaming of different data types to multiple clients (I have a NAS box that stores all my video/music/pictures for access by my GF's and my laptop, the PS3 downstair, the DLNA compatible Blu-ray player upstairs, the TouchPad, the iPhones... etc..).

So yes, this is exactly what I expect.
 
frosted1030 said:
Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC. Yes, it's faster but you can't even max out B with your average broadband connection here in the USA. YOUR INTERNET WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. Yes, the 5 GHz spectrum is less cluttered and will give you more range, but how many of us are actually so hooked on transferring large files from computer to computer that this would matter??
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't used 802.11b have you?

Do you also understand what the meaning of the 'bandwidth' as stated 'on the box' for the standards? For example: 802.11g has a 'maximum' of 54mbit/s. That is the maximum burst speed any communication can achieve with that standard. There are things the communicating devices must contend with like interferences, retransmissions due to bad send, among other things, but most importantly, this bandwidth is shared among all other 802.11g devices nearby. You cannot transmit while someone else is transmitting on your frequency. So if you have 2 people transmitting on your frequency, both of your will be doing round robin sending (one sends, then lets the other send etc.). That will, in simplest terms, halve your transmission speed. Of course, there are other frequencies to be used, but really, in any decent area, you will have another one on your frequency...unless you're in the 5GHz band.

802.11b...my good lord, that was freaking slow.
 
wikus said:
If this means faster transfer speeds to an external hard drive connected to an Airport Extreme via USB port, I'll easily make the purchase.

I have 1.3TB of data on my shared drive, and on a weekly basis about 20-40gb of data is transferred to the drive. Watching files copy at 5-10mb/s is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

USB is still way slower than 1gbps so no, it won't increase the speed. now if the new airport station uses thunderbolt then it will be faster

also depends on the protocol OS X uses. years ago when MS first updated SMB to version 2 i did a test of copying my itunes library and it was literally twice as fast as using an older version of Windows
 
frosted1030 said:
Aside from computer to computer performance, there is no advantage to N let alone AC. Yes, it's faster but you can't even max out B with your average broadband connection here in the USA. YOUR INTERNET WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. Yes, the 5 GHz spectrum is less cluttered and will give you more range, but how many of us are actually so hooked on transferring large files from computer to computer that this would matter??
Click to expand...

I get 15mbps with the introductory cable internet package and can get up to 105mbps. My actual speed is 20mbps.

Even if 802.11g can hit 54mbps that is a theoretical maximum not real world. In the best of conditions I have managed 15 to 20mbps sustained transfer between computers on a network. As soon as any interference from other devices, distance, obstacles, &c come up that speed drops. Best of circumstances being transfer of large video file with one computer hooked up to 802.11g within a few feet of the router and the other being hard wired via gigabit Ethernet.

Heck with the lauded 802.11n I have never even come close to hardwired 100mb Ethernet. I'd expect 802.11ac to achieve an actual 100mb performance at best.
 
OriginalMacRat said:
Waiting for 10Gbs ethernet myself.

1Gbs ethernet is getting a little slow for moving media over a LAN.
Click to expand...

+1

10GB ethernet has been around since 2002. Why isn't it cheap and available everywhere yet? Lets just make faster, more powerful wireless so we can all get cancer faster. I have my airport set to 802.11n only and 10% transmission power which caps it to around 100mbps.
 
These are coming sooner than you think.

The UK Apple store has been out of stock of TC 2TB, 3TB and the AEBS for over a week now and has has 1-2weeks shipping time. My guess is they will be silently updated in time for the iPad3. :)
 
ArmCortexA8 said:
As usual the trick of this is to hold back till 802.11ac is fully ratified.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It will be YEARS before the standard is officially set. In the meantime, the chance of changes that would materially affect Apples implementation (and NOT be fixable by firmware update) is remote. Most of the delay is just due to the cumbersome process and not to major tech changes. I was using .n for years before the standard was official. Why hold yourself back and suffer with outdated tech while you wait for some insignificant stamp of approval?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top