Limitations of ad-hoc network?

[Cubytus]

Hi to all,

not sure if this is the right place to start this topic, but here it is.

A few days ago I needed to transfer a large file between a MacBook Pro (802.11n) and a MacBook Air (802.11ac), so I created an Ad-Hoc network between the two, no security (I expected this to be brief, and all shares require a password).

What I expected was it would be running at close to maximum 802.11n speed since they were very close together, but instead I found it was limited to 54Mbps, or 802.11g speed. As a result, the transfer took much longer than necessary, and there was no backup solution since I didn't have my USB key.

Is the low speed an OS X limitation, or is there a way to make this kind of network run at the highest commonly supported speed?

 

[Fishrrman]

I realize I'm a knuckle-dragger, but this sounds like one instance where a USB flash drive and some sneakers will do the job just as well, or even better…

 

[jbarley]

It's cases like this where "DropCopy" a small free utility really shines.
Just select and drag, it's just that easy.
I have DropCopy installed on all my systems just for the ease of use.

 

[satinsilverem2]

do your macs not support airdrop? that may have worked better

 

[simonsi]

Not sure why but there is plenty of comment that ad-hoc mode will run at slower speeds than infrastructure mode (as a wifi router would use). Probably the result of using the minimal client hardware in the macs to emulate a router.

Best result would be a Thunderbolt cable I would have thought, if you needed to plan ahead for a possible repeat...
[doublepost=1486378540][/doublepost]

It's cases like this where "DropCopy" a small free utility really shines.
Just select and drag, it's just that easy.
I have DropCopy installed on all my systems just for the ease of use.

But the wifi won't run any faster just because you install that app, easy of use isn't the issue. So in cases like this its actually useless.

 

[jbarley]

Not sure why but there is plenty of comment that ad-hoc mode will run at slower speeds than infrastructure mode (as a wifi router would use). Probably the result of using the minimal client hardware in the macs to emulate a router.

Best result would be a Thunderbolt cable I would have thought, if you needed to plan ahead for a possible repeat...
[doublepost=1486378540][/doublepost]

But the wifi won't run any faster just because you install that app, easy of use isn't the issue. So in cases like this its actually useless.

Faster no, but the highest commonly supported speed, which is all the OP was asking for yes, and DRopCopy does this smoothly.
Small files it sends right off, larger files it first compresses the file and then sends it at the highest possible connection speed, which in my case 802.11n speed.

 

[simonsi]

Faster no, but the highest commonly supported speed

I get that, any app will use the highest negotiated speed that the OS provides, my point is the OP is getting g speed and the app won't change that.

 

[Cubytus]

Not sure why but there is plenty of comment that ad-hoc mode will run at slower speeds than infrastructure mode (as a wifi router would use). Probably the result of using the minimal client hardware in the macs to emulate a router.

I would have thought the Mac had more than beefy enough specs to emulate not one, but multiple routers at the same time :-D

Best result would be a Thunderbolt cable I would have thought, if you needed to plan ahead for a possible repeat...

Interesting, but 1- tens of $ for a seldom-used cable seems a bit much and 2- My TB port is fried due to a coffee spill accident anyway.

Faster no, but the highest commonly supported speed, which is all the OP was asking for yes, and DRopCopy does this smoothly.
Small files it sends right off, larger files it first compresses the file and then sends it at the highest possible connection speed, which in my case 802.11n speed.

How would this app achieve such a feat? Does it bypass the OS framework for negotiating speed?

 

[freediverx]

This is particularly annoying in light of Apple's abandonment of SD card slots. Carrying and using wires sucks. Apple's implication seems to be that local file transfers should be performed wirelessly. But there is no convenient or efficient solution for transferring photos from a wifi-capable digital camera to a Mac, especially if you're nowhere near a wifi router.

With modern Canon cameras, it's possible to easily transfer photos to an iOS device wirelessly using Canon's Camera Connect app. But there is no comparable solution to perform the same task with a Mac.