before you jump the 802.11g bandwagon

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by roy_g_biv, Jan 20, 2003.

  1. roy_g_biv macrumors newbie

    Jul 17, 2002
    San Francisco
  2. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus


    Nov 28, 2001
    down in Fraggle Rock
    that is a very ignorant and round-about article showing the limitations of the authors intelligence rather than any limitation of 802.11g
  3. jaguarx macrumors regular

    Jan 5, 2003
    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

    Who pays people to write this crap?
  4. LethalWolfe macrumors G3


    Jan 11, 2002
    Los Angeles
    That was the longest article about nothing I've ever read.

  5. rainman::|:| macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    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.

  6. john123 macrumors 68020


    Jul 20, 2001
    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...
  7. rainman::|:| macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    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.

  8. yosoyjay macrumors regular

    Nov 20, 2002
    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.
  9. OSeXy! macrumors regular

    Jan 17, 2002
    London (or virtually here)
    This article gives some interesting background on AirPort Extreme... (Link found on arstechnica)
  10. -hh macrumors 68020


    Jul 17, 2001
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    Credibility = f(omissions, errors)

    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.


Share This Page