[Cialug] OT: Wireless protocols

[n.d]

heh. 2 managers. that reminds me of office space. god i love that movie


Nathan C. Smith wrote:

>The story I heard was that it was supposed to give greater range too.  That
>just sounds like a recipe for more speed only.
>
>There seems to be a common theme these days to double up on things for
>greater speed.  It reeks of "synergy".  Somebody should tell Microsoft that
>all the programmers working on Longhorn need two managers so they can
>develop faster.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Pohl [mailto:tom at tcpconsulting.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:31 AM
>To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>Subject: Re: [Cialug] OT: Wireless protocols
>
>
>
>802.11n is the equivalent of the old days where you'd combine 2 dial-up 
>modems into a bigger pipe.  It uses a MIMO (multiple-in-multiple-out) 
>technology utilizing multiple radio's and antennas to achieve more 
>throughput.  I think it's a dirty hack especially if you've already 
>constructed a network that efficiently uses all available spectrum 
>already.  Personally, I think it's a cheap way out of actual innovation 
>to achieve higher speeds :)
>
>-Tom
>
>On Jun 16, 2005, at 12:13 AM, Nathan C. Smith wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I heard about 802.11n just today for the first time.  I wondered if it
>>was
>>different still from WiMax.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Neal Daringer [mailto:admin at c0wzftp.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:56 PM
>>To: cialug at cialug.org
>>Subject: Re: [Cialug] OT: Wireless protocols
>>
>>
>>
>>i use g and tweaked wireless switches/routers. give em a bit higher Tx 
>>power and a damn good antenna. i've heard that g routers can do the 
>>up-coming wireless "n"
>>protocol (i think thats what its called). anyone know anything about 
>>the new
>>wireless protocol?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Quoting Tom Pohl <tom at tcpconsulting.com>:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The choice for me is simple.  In the same family of products, B has 
>>>always tested with greater range than G products.  Even at the 
>>>slowest connection, B connected at 1Mb/s (the other rates are 2.5, 5, 
>>>and 11).  Since I aim for an access point density that will give a 
>>>minimum connection of 5Mb/s I don't really see a problem with using B 
>>>equipment since the broadband coming into the location tends to 
>>>always be 1Mb or less, if all of the traffic is destined for the 
>>>internet, B or G really makes no difference.
>>>
>>>I got a phone call in the middle of that so sorry if it doesn't make 
>>>much sense.
>>>
>>>-Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jun 15, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Nathan C. Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Does anybody out there care whether they use 802.11g or 802.11b?   I
>>>>        
>>>>
>>would
>>    
>>
>>>>normally pick 'b' because it is the lowest common denominator.  Is 
>>>>it no longer true that using an 802.11b device will ratchet down 
>>>>everyone's speed on an 802.11g access point?  What are the wireless 
>>>>hotspot operators using? Do they cater to 'g' and 'b'?
>>>>
>>>>-Nate
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Cialug mailing list
>>>>Cialug at cialug.org
>>>>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Cialug mailing list
>>>Cialug at cialug.org
>>>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Cialug mailing list
>>Cialug at cialug.org
>>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>_______________________________________________
>>Cialug mailing list
>>Cialug at cialug.org
>>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cialug mailing list
>Cialug at cialug.org
>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>_______________________________________________
>Cialug mailing list
>Cialug at cialug.org
>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>  
>