Newer, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean that it will also be better for their usage.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wi-Fi Alliance Simplifies Wi-Fi Naming Scheme With Upcoming 'Wi-Fi 6' Release
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most likely the receiver has hidden antennas in a metal enclosure, like all current desktop Macs, iPads, MBPs, ...
The problem is not the signal.
802.11n and 802.11ac have been known 'longer" Wi-Fi 6 are "current", and no one knows what that means.. Everyone knows what 802.11n means. But i would not have a clue of these new methods, unless i looked up what "Wi-Fi 6" covered.
True, but you would inevitably face the problem where manufacturers didn't bother to update their labeling, and you're stuck with more standards to explain
.So basically now they have to write both Wi-Fi 6 and 802.11ax .True, but you would inevitably face the problem where manufacturers didn't bother to update their labeling, and you're stuck with more standards to explain
Gets better when you include Ghz...
So I want WiFi 6 on 802.11ax, is that on 2.4 or 5? I think i want a WiFi 4 on 2.4, is WiFi 6 better than 2.4? What happened to WiFi 3.4?
Yeah... This'll clear everything up nicely won't it.
802.11ad is 60GHz, so it would be better... until you are out of range, or your device does not have it.
Products also came after Wi-Fi 5 and before Wi-Fi 6. But the standard came before Wi-Fi 5.
Last edited:
It's seriously about time they came up with consumer-friendly naming for wifi. Not everyone understands the technical details.
The thing is that with WiFi, I am able to use around 75-80 percent of advertised cable internet speed, while when connected directly into the modem via Ethernet cable, I am getting 98-99 percent of speed.
Yeah, switching to 5 GHz can be a solution, but even that is not gonna last long, before almost everyone switch to 5 GHz, too.
Singapore already has 10Gbps internet. South Korea got 2.5, and 5 and 10 are planned for before the end of the year.
Asrock is introducing 2.5GbE Phantom Gaming motherboards. They already have others with 5 and 10.
Last edited:
Certainly pretty much the opposite of everyone, which is basically one of the drivers behind this it seems.
That's a good point, but I see it going away in future iterations of hardware.
For example, in my house I have a 2.4 band and a 5 band with different SSIDs ... the 5 has weak signal but much higher speed. This is typical for most ... the 2.4 band can reach the farthest corners of the house, but the speed is weak. So with this configuration I manually set up each device depending on its location to be appropriate. For example, my computer at the far end of the house has a 2.4 connection because it needs reliability and doesn't require high speeds.
But all of that is very low-tech. Newer devices - especially routers - can have 2.4 band and 5 band SSID bridging, meaning they can share the same SSID and be considered "same network", and the client devices can intelligently pick the best channel to use.
< Insert obvious eyebrow raised look here >
Clearly devices aren't all ready for this, there are numerous reports of people for example driving home and their phones connect with the 2.4 band (it's signal is stronger, but speed is weaker) first, since it's the first band to reach the phone, then never readjust for the 5 band later.
This is pretty much how mesh networks work, they allow you to go short-range high-speed and use the lower speed channels for intermesh communications.that need to cross distances. I'm way oversimplifying here, but...
The point here is that devices for the most part are getting more intelligent at handling multiple signals and for the most part even if "Wi-Fi 8" had 2.4ghz, 5ghz, 8ghz, etc channels available to it, I'd expect the devices that "work with Wi-Fi 8" to be able to hop appropriately. Right now we have to specifically pick stuff.
Having said that, going back to look at my earlier post in this thread, if a fictitious "Wi-Fi 8" supported all those bands and the client also supported all those bands, even if the new spec was only a speed increase and not a power/distance increase, it still is a net-positive for the industry. The key is backwards compatibility. They'd just sell it by saying something like "Wi-Fi 8 now allows speeds up to 10TB* (*as long as you're within 10 feet of a router)" and it would also be able to do everything 802.11n, 802.11b, etc can do, so you can drop in "Wi-Fi 8" on any new infrastructure and all is well.
Thank you. I just got off the phone with them and they said the modem is set for the average house and they changed some settings for me. Ill see over the next few days if that helped.
Because WiFi isn't niche anymore. It's simplifying enough where you can assume that a higher number equates to a better experience, as is standard. The protocol types do not do that, and they weren't aligned to a user experience.
It is as simple as assuming that WiFi 6 is better than Wifi 5 - consumers will understand that, where the average consumer has no idea that 802.11ax is better than 802.11n.
Newer isn't necessarily better. Newer specs are faster but lack range. Some older hardware (e.g. my child's Nintendo's 3DS) only work on older protocols. The new naming scheme does nothing to help the end-user understand the unique characteristics of each spec. This is simply a marketing ploy.
[doublepost=1538686408][/doublepost]
No. Consumers will care when they replace their routers and they don't understand why the new router's signal doesn't travel as far as the older router. This new naming scheme doesn't achieve anything substantial for consumers.
That's what I said, yes.
Also, the distance thing is overrated. At weaker signal strengths, 802.11ac is far and away faster than 802.11n on 2.4GHz could ever hope to be. If the signal really gets too weak for the 802.11ac amendments to work, 802.11n on 2.4GHz is going to be unbearably slow anyway.
In fact, some wireless installations prevent stations from operating at the lower MCS indices (which are required for weaker signals), because a single slow node can dramatically decrease everyone else's performance.
Last edited: