Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

802.11g... It's Official 192

Posted by CmdrTaco from the why-can't-we-all-get-along dept.
JoeBuck writes "This article in CommsDesign reports that the IEEE has officially approved the IEEE 802.11g standard, as well as another standard (802.15.3) for shorter-range, very-low-power operation. Two other standards designed to improve compatibility between different vendors' access points were also approved."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

802.11g... It's Official More

802.11g... It's Official

Comments Filter:

  • Sup dogs (Score:4, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:09PM (#6184442) Journal
    It sounds like a rap song.

    I triple E, 8 Oh 2 point eleven, G.

    Yeeaa. Fo shizzle my wi'ahless using nizzles, wi-fi all day players.

    Fizzle pizzle

  • Good news and bad news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by NumberField ( 670182 ) * on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:10PM (#6184448)
    802.11g operates at the same frequency as 802.11b. The good news: existing antennas and other range extension techniques should work fine (Pringles can, anyone?). The bad news: interference is going to be a nightmare. In heavily-populated areas, it's common to have a dozen or more legacy 802.11b signals, which tend to hog the bandwidth that would otherwise be available for .11g. Add in microwave ovens (which interfere massively on the same band), and many people will be lucky to see even 20 Mbits/sec. The security is also a mixed bag: although the WEP mess is improved, security is still going to be a headache, particularly for people who want to roam safely.

    • Re:Good news and bad news... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:24PM (#6184564)
      not only that, but as it states in the article:

      The 802.15.3 standard for High Rate WPANs also operates in the 2.45-GHz band and at similar rates, from 11 to 55 Mbit/s, but is designed for shorter-range (1 to 50 meters), very-low-power operation. It also uses time division, multiple access (TDMA) protocol.


      To me this only spells out the death of bluetooth as mentioned here [slashdot.org] and here [zdnet.com]
      And I quote:

      Bluetooth's focus on eliminating wires means still having the limitations of wires in that you can only connect between nearby devices. 802.11 on the other hand takes advantage of the Internet and allows you to connect to any device, anywhere


      I seem to smell something burning... anyone else??

      • Yeah, like a wireless headset really needs an IP address. (or a keyboard or mouse)
        • Yeah, like a wireless headset really needs an IP address. (or a keyboard or mouse)

          Wireless ethernet != wireless IP. There are dozens of other addressing schemes available.

          That said, wireless attached peripherals would be a clever use of the extra space in 127.0.0.0/24, so long as devices were guaranteed to only see one PC.

      • How can it be the death of bluetooth. I think they will have completely different uses. Headphones, and remote controls don't really need IP's as someone else pointed out.

        Furthermore, I see 802.11g(lite) as more useful for things like an iPod, albiet it will have slower transfer rates, but there's no wires!

        I wouldn't consider bluetooth dead by a longshot, unless the low power .11g has a cooler name.

        • Re:Good news and bad news... (Score:5, Funny)

          by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @04:08PM (#6184926)
          Headphones, and remote controls don't really need IP's as someone else pointed out.

          Hi, we're from the Slashdot Geekness Enforcement Group. We've determined that your inability to see the rationale for IP connectivity to headphones and remote controls violates our standards. We've even recieved some complaints that this attitude "goes against the GPL" and helps to enforce "MPAA/RIAA restrictions on content use".

          Please turn in your Slashdot ID by the end of the day, otherwise we'll be forced to blog you into oblivion. Thanks.
          • Speaking of IP addresses for wireless headphones, has anyone heard anything on the progress of ZigBee [zigbee.org]? ZigBee (IEEE 802.15.4) was supposed to be the low-cost/low-power/low-bit-rate Bluetooth clone which was supposed to cost ~$0.50-$1.00.

          • Hi, we're from the Slashdot Geekness Enforcement Group. We've determined that your inability to see the rationale for IP connectivity to headphones and remote controls violates our standards.

            Specifically, if your TV remote does not have an IP address, how in the world can you:

            1. Run Linux on it?
            2. Use it as part of your household appliance Beowulf cluster?
            3. Have the thing wirelessly H4x0r'ed by an attacker who has already defaced your neighbor's blender's web site?

            (Sigh.) The kids these days...

      • I work with the 802.11 and 802.15 standards quite a bit. In fact the group I work with had a PHY proposal for the 802.15.3 standard, that got beaten by TI at the last minute, ours was 5GHz.

        The fact is that even TI is no longer supporting their own 802.15.3 standard. There are only a few start-ups that are. So I don't expect to see too many 802.15.3 products out there.

        What is now happening is that the 802.15.3a group is working on a replacement PHY using the 802.15.3 MAC using UWB technology. In fact there

    • Re:Good news and bad news... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:28PM (#6184605) Homepage

      802.11g is designed to interoperate with 802.11b, although the presence of "b" users in the same area does slow "g" down. Still, everyone is confusing effective rate (say, 20 Mbits/sec actually transmitted) with theoretical peak rate (54 Mbit/sec). "b" users are not getting 11 Mbits/sec; if they are lucky they are getting 5, and if they are surfing the web through DSL or cable modem they aren't even getting 2. When lots of people are using the same access point, the bottleneck isn't

      In a year or two, most folks will ditch their "b" equipment for "g" and it won't matter.

    • Tests show that 802.11g devices mixed with 802.11b devices reduces the maximum speed from about 20Mbps to 10Mbps (this assuming that we want to have .11g and .11b devices connected to the same network) and .11b devices continue to operate their normal 2-5Mbps speeds.
    • any post that mentions pringles cans as a "usable technology" should be ignored. the gain you get from a pringles can is less than what you'd get with putting a properly sized coat hanger.

      Pringles cans get you around 3db of gain, which is only slightly less laughable than the antenna that comes on the pcmcia cards.

      most of the linksys/d-link etc AP's I've seen come with 5-6db antennas. If you want real high gain to do anything usefull, go buy a reasonably cheap antenna from fab-corp, or demarctech. they
    • How was WEP fixed? Can airsnort still crack the key within minutes? :)
  • The best thing about standards is... there's so MANY of them!

    -Zipwow

    • Very true, so many 802.x standards lately. It's hard for anyone to get a brief summary on all of those standards compared together. Does anyone know of a site where they are all compared, along with possible uses, frequency ranges, power ratings, trivial names, etcetera? It would be a nice and handy reference for both the uninitiated (like yours truly) and a spiffy cheat sheet for those who are already knowledgable about all this.

    • The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Subtle but important difference. IHTH.

  • Start the hype engines (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by spacey ( 741 )
    So, pretty soon we're going to be able to pay more for equipment that's moderately faster, doesn't go as far, and costs more. Oh, and doesn't have jack in terms of linux/*bsd support.

    F33r! Terra! The hype is coming!

    -Peter

  • IEEE Page (Score:5, Informative)

    by acherrington ( 465776 ) <acherrington@@@gmail...com> on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:14PM (#6184486)
    Here is the link to IEEE

    http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/80211gfina l.html [slashdot.org]

    ENJOY
  • I remember an article on slashdot a while back stating that they were considering reducing 802.11g's bandwidth to something in the range of 10 - 15Mbps. I guess this stamp of approval has discarded this?

  • compatability with current products? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EyeSavedLatin ( 591555 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:15PM (#6184490) Journal
    An important question that I didn't see adressed in the article is what about products that are out now? Is the standard significantly different than, for example, apple's airport extreme? Being involved in the communications industry I know standards basically come down to which company wins the "no let's do it my way" fight (e.g. the cat 6 cable standard). Who was the winner in this case?

  • Promiscuous mode (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Domino ( 12558 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:15PM (#6184495) Homepage
    Does anybody know if the new 802.11g chipsets support promiscuous mode? Or do we need to keep an old PrismII card around to go wardriving?
  • We have had 802.11g gear on the market for nearly a year, if not longer? TAlk about the tail wagging the dog! Now if only we can get the vendors to release the specs for the registers for these 802.11g cards we can start to have OSS drivers made. Apparently the gear is all capable of being tuned with control for power, and frequency adjustments, so the FCC doens't want home users using 802.11g gears as the next-generation of HAM radio. Not to mention the ability to interfear with existing radio licenses gra

  • So... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Threni ( 635302 )
    ...does this mean more articles about Bluetooth...or less?

  • News reporters (Score:3, Informative)

    by chiph ( 523845 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:19PM (#6184525)
    For those reporters out there who will write stories about this for "joe consumer":
    The "g" in 802.11g stands for "gamma", and no, the IEEE did not skip over proposals 802.11c, d, e, & f before settling on "g".

    Chip H.
    • Also for Joe Consumer, why would he want this? Sure, it's moderately faster than b, but not as long range, and as has been previously stated in the slew of comments, will crowd the bandwidth.

      This is not like the transition from 10BaseT to 100BaseT, it's like the transition from x86 to ia64. We've already become too far entrenched in 802.11b for a transition to g to be effective, with respect to cost or practicality.
      • "Sure, it's moderately faster than b, but not as long range"

        That's easy to say in theory. In _practice_ I find the Linksys 802.11g card get s auseable signal a good 30% further than my Orinoco gold card. (I'm assuming due to improvements in firmware)

    • The "g" in 802.11g stands for "gamma", and no, the IEEE did not skip over proposals 802.11c, d, e, & f before settling on "g".

      To the best of my knowledge, the "g" in 802.11g stands for "g". As you said, they're going through the letters sequentially. It's much the same as the "4" in "Linux 2.4" standing for "4"...the number following "3".

      I bet I know the source of your confusion, though. People often use phonetic alphabets [soton.ac.uk] to say letters over radios, telephones, or whenever it's difficult to hear.

      • I think the American military uses "gamma" for "g", as do some other people (It's better than "golf" because it's two syllables.)

        Nope, at least when I was in we still used "Golf". Remember, a lot of people who think the Army is a good paying job might not comprehend two syllable words. :) I have been lead to believe that most of *that* type find their way into the USMC.
  • The first website I tried from my portable through my new 801.11g equipment (D-Link 624) was slashdot - and the top story as about the ratification of 802.11g .. now .. how long until D-Link provides updated software? (The one I have is way newer than the latest on their web - but no WPA still ..)

    • Hope your 624 works better than mine. The computer I have directly connected to the router keeps getting disconnected from the internet, to say nothing of the wireless computer. If you have newer firmware than they have on the web, you may be in better shape than I am.

  • We need a name, fast (Score:3, Funny)

    by hprotagonist0 ( 312387 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:20PM (#6184540)
    Ok, 802.11g is bad enough to pronouce, but I am not saying "eight-oh-two-dot-fifteen-dot-three" all the time, dammit!

    I gather that 802.15.3 is supposed to compete directly with Bluetooth; does anyone have any idea how they compare (in terms of speed/power consumption/security/etc.)? If it's a Bluetooth-killer, we should call it Redtooth.

  • Cold hearted bluetooth killa yo... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by malakai ( 136531 ) * on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:25PM (#6184574) Journal
    802.15.3 last I heard wasn't really "approved" by the Bluetooth SIG. In fact, the whole 802.15 working group was trying to take over engineering aspects of Bluetooth from the Bluetooth SIG and leave the SIG to handle marketing, compliance, branding..etc.

    But that didn't apparently happen because Bluetooth didn't want to wait X years for the next standard. Also, IEEE has a nasty habbit of ignoring backwards compatability when taking over a standard (we didnt design it, so who cares).

    So, now we have this new, high rate, low power, WPN, that is supposed to be backwards compatabile with 802.15.1 (which is IEEE code word for Bluetooth. They built the 802.15.1 around the existing Bluetooth spec, but _changed_ it a bit).

    Yet, no where, have i seen, an engineer say " 802.15.3 IS COMPATIBLE WITH Bluetooth". Maybe i missed that somewhere. Anyone know if this WPN will work with the present day number 1 WPN on the market?

    Either way, this is really cool technology. High bandwidth, cheap, low power WPN means wireless KVM switchs among lots of other cool gadgets.

    -malakai
    • IEEE has a nasty habbit

      I read as:

      IEEE has a nasty hobbit

      <Gollum>Nasty Hobbitses!</gollum>
    • IEEE has a nasty habbit of ignoring backwards compatability when taking over a standard (we didnt design it, so who cares).

      A good example of this is DIX ethernet vs. 802.3 ethernet- the idea is that if IEEE just rubber stamped DIX ethernet and said "This is the standard" the playing field would have been sharply tilted towards Digital,Xerox and Intel.

      So my understanding is that inevitably IEEE standards a changed just a little bit to put all vendors on an even playing field for product conformance.
      • For those that don't know- 802.3 ethernet made a minor change from DIX- they just changed the MAC header format, nothing big! [sarcasm]

        DIX had a header layout of: [destination mac address][source mac address][frame type].... [crc]

        where 802.3 has [dest mac addr][src mac addr][frame length]....[crc] ( combine with 802.2 and you don't need a type field, you have SAPs!)

        Now both formats are compatible by mutually exclusive Length/type field values: Since the ethernet frames are limited to 1500 bytes, all Ty

    • The original IEEE plan for 802.15.3 was to make it backwards compatible with 802.15.1 (i.e., Bluetooth). However, the IP agreement between the Bluetooth SIG and the IEEE specifically limits the use of Bluetooth IP to 15.1, and the Bluetooth SIG was unwilling to allow its use in other IEEE standards. Ergo, no backwards compatibility.

      I really can't blame the IEEE in this case; they tried.

  • great... (Score:1, Informative)

    by zonker ( 1158 )
    now we are going to hear another wave of uninformed folks complaining [wifinetnews.com] about the supposed speed limitation of 24Mbps... heheh

    from the same site: also, here's his announcement [wifinetnews.com] on 802.11g's ratification today. anyway, great news. :)

  • Any prism chipset 802.11g cards? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now, are there any 802.11g Prism chipset based cards? (read -- supported by Linux). How about wireless sniffer support? (read -- war driving).

  • Then it is also truly official... (Score:3, Funny)

    by praedor ( 218403 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:26PM (#6184586) Homepage

    that there are now officially no drivers for ANY 802.11g devices out there for linux. Now we can officially be ignored and spat upon by all the device manufacturers inspite of our growing numbers, homeuser and corporate user alike.


    • "Now we can officially be ignored and spat upon by all the device manufacturers inspite of our growing numbers..."

      Let's see - linux users who will actively purchase this equipment for usage under linux over the next 2 years - maybe 5% of active linux users, which amount to about 1-2% of total first adopters in all areas...

      See, they can't actively ignore and spit on you if they can't find you.

      When their little warranty cards start coming back with more than 10% linux usage, then they may start to t
      • When their little warranty cards start coming back with more than 10% linux usage, then they may start to think about putting together a committee to study the profitability of providing native linux drivers.

        This assumes two things: 1. that the cards will either have a slot recognizing Linux as an operating system. 2. that the marketing dweeb that recieves the registration cards keeps track of the operating systems other than Windows varients and MacOSX, and reports the numbers.

        Considering that nearly ev

      • First of all...who the hell sends in warranty cards? It is for setting yourself up for junk mail. Second, what's the point of buying the card in the first place and then filling out that your OS is linux when it is not usable in linux in the first place? "I bought this neato wireless card that doesn't work with linux! Ain't it cool?"

        Really, you think people are going to buy the device in the first place and fill out a warranty card and state that they are using linux? They will state that they are us

  • Another standard (Score:3, Informative)

    by Boing ( 111813 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:29PM (#6184616)
    Importantly, one of the two other standards was for decreasing conflicts between WLAN and WPAN devices operating on the same part of the spectrum (802.11(b|g), 802.15.3, and Bluetooth, for example). Hopefully some vendors will include the collaborative mechanisms (where the interfering devices work together to minimize the problem), so the issue of legacy 802.11b signals won't be such a big deal.

    More information here:
    http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/TG2.html [ieee.org]

  • Device makers are too quick to market? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:33PM (#6184647)
    Does it strike anybody else that sometimes device manufacturers are just a little too quick to market?

    How is it that I can go down to Fry's and buy a wireless router which supports a standard which hadn't even been approved? Or a DVD writer that may or may not be supported tomorrow, and which may or may not work with my DVD player? Or a graphics card which I may be able to be heard over if I scream loud enough, or which may play my games without crashing me to the desktop every two seconds.

    Sure, competing standards a A Good Thing, but only if the companies that espouse them are willing to stand by them until the consumer has gotten their money's worth out of them. I constantly worry that my growing DVD collection will only be useful as a set of dinner plates in the near future, because of some new and exciting standard which the industry wants to force on me.

    Growth, prosperity, innovation, yakkety yak. All I want is to pay some money and have something useful for a number of years. How many people are getting rich suckering us into the latest and greatest technology every year?

    • However, people (like myself) who want to take a gamble on buying technology that could shortly be obsolete should be able to. It's called capitalism, and such first adopters are the primary reason technological innovation is profitable.
    • Does it strike anybody else that sometimes device manufacturers are just a little too quick to market?

      I think this is the first time I have *ever* heard anyone claim this.

      Maybe it isn't that the hardware manufacturers are too fast, maybe the standards groups are too slow.

    • If people stopped going down to Fry's and buying wireless routers which utilize unratified almost-standards, manufacturers would stop trying to sell them because there'd be no profit potential.

      Which is also to say that if everyone stopped buying non-standard gear, only standardized gear would exist.

      Meanwhile, your DVDs are safe. With the massive investment people have in the software, which they'd presumably like to keep using, it would be foolish for manufacturers to stop selling players, because the mo
    • Dude, you were SUCKED IN BY MARKETING.

      "Wireless G" is not the same thing as 802.11g.

      They were counting on your braining making ASSUMPTIONS. And you did, like many others.

      They thank you for your support.

  • New pseudonym? (Score:4, Funny)

    by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @03:40PM (#6184712)
    The only remaining question regarding 802.11g: what are the marketroids going to call it? Super-Wi-Fi? Ultra Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi II? X-Fi?
    • We've had too many Supers and Ultras lately. It is time for: Hyper Wi-Fi!.

      New Hyper Wi-Fi with super speed and ultra spiffy powers is destined for greatness.

      Ok. I'm done.
    • Damn marketroids. Eight-oh-two-dot-elevent-gee is a perfectly memorable name AND it rolls off the tongue so nicely!

    • The only remaining question regarding 802.11g: what are the marketroids going to call it? Super-Wi-Fi? Ultra Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi II? X-Fi?

      If they're marketing on the internet, they'll call it "wi fi", "wireless ethernet", "wireless internet", etc. The day is coming when marketing droids can no longer exaggerate too much, or else nobody will find their stuff (Thanks Google!).

  • I don't care about linux drivers, someone will make them, about microwave interference, it can be dealt with, 802.11b interferance be dammed, there are not really that many people that have wireless networking, all I want is my fricking Standardized fast wireless networking with backwards compatability!
  • OK, my first beef is with the term WIRELESS you hear two nerds talking about wireless stuff and it makes you think that you've regressed back to the 1950's style of wireless. Which is kind of the point of this post, I think that too many people blinkered by the fact that there are no wires. It must've been amazing to see sound coming out of a box that was "wireless" but should we have the same enthusiasm today?

    I can see a whole new generation of kids using the phrase "ere come an' 'ave a look at mi nu-fan

    • 300 feet (Score:3, Insightful)

      by poptones ( 653660 )
      300 foot wireless range is abysmal? As a rural dweller I agree it ain't gonna do much to help me pull in broadband from the nearest town, but - how many houses do you presently have wired together with cat5?

      • Re:300 feet (Score:3, Funny)

        by thynk ( 653762 )
        but - how many houses do you presently have wired together with cat5?

        As of last week, 164. Of course, none of them know it and I'll get busted by the police if they catch me. Hrm... who's that knocking on the door?

  • Rhyme or Reason (Score:4, Funny)

    by radiumhahn ( 631215 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @04:10PM (#6184956)
    Eight Oh Too Eleven Gee What does the future have instore for thee? Is it good? Is it bad? Will it make Bill Gates mad? Does it route and will it ping? Will it help find porn for my ding-a-ling? Eight Oh Too Eleven Gee What does the future see? - Ra Hahn - Where Ends the Sidewalk
  • Does this mean I might actually get new firmware for my WAP54G? It hasn't been updated since February!

  • 802.11a Second Generation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xannik ( 534808 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @04:17PM (#6185021)
    While looking into the differences of 802.11 a|b|g I found this [tomshardware.com] article over at tom's hardware. It appears that the second generation 802.11a protocol devices now have much better range than the previous first generation 802.11a devices. This can also be seen by a recent whitepaper [atheros.com] by Atheros (The company whose chipset is used in most widely available wireless devices from such companies as Netgear, Linksys, and D-link). With better bandwidth performance than most 802.11 b|g devices on the market and equivalent range to b|g devices, all while operating in the 5 ghz range, perhaps 802.11a will make some what of a comeback. The potential really comes from the fact that right now you can buy wireless APs now from Linksys (WAP55AG) and D-Link(DWL-7000AP) and wireless cards from linksys,netgear,and d-link that do all 3 protocols. I know that right now I will be looking at running my AP in 802.11a mode and not worrying about interference coming from the 2.4ghz range.
  • Wonderful - now the WEP vulnerabilities will be even faster!

    Hey, AIEEEEEEE.... How's about getting 802.11i finalized sometime this century, so we can be fast and resonably secure?
  • Didn't we recently read that 802.11g was to cut it's speed from 54Mbps to 10-20Mbps? What happened to this?

    • No, you didn't recently read that. What you read was that the real effective data rate over "g" is more like 20 Mbps, and that in a network with a lot of "b" devices it might be more like ten. The raw speed is still 54 Mbps, the real speed is less because of the signaling overhead. There is similar overhead in 802.11b, you only get about 5 Mbps, and if there are any Bluetooth devices around you'll get a lot less because of interference.

  • 802.11g Power Requirements... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by craenor ( 623901 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @04:27PM (#6185140) Homepage
    The great thing (to my thinking) about 802.11g is not the 54mpbs (which realistically is a throughput of only about 20-25mbps at best) but rather the power requirements.

    Portable users are and always will be the mainstay of the Wireless Networking market and as performance machines come out the fight to keep battery life up is also going strong.

    The Pentium-M and it's chipsets help this a great deal (but don't get me started on Centrino, that's just a marketing scam). However, one of the big winfalls for portable users will be the prevalence of 802.11g networks. They require half of the power of an 802.11b network and transmit data about 4 times faster.

    This is the real prize you earn for switching to 802.11g.

  • Sometimes, you gotta say.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by chriso11 ( 254041 ) on Thursday June 12, 2003 @04:37PM (#6185232) Journal
    OK, once again.

    802.11a: 5.4GHz operating frequency, 54MBPS data rate. Uses OFDM modulation, similar to DSL and HDTV VSB.
    Good things about a:
    -more channels than at 2.4HGz=more users simulataneously
    -less interference from bluetooth and microwaves
    -more advanced modulation standard=more data in less BW.
    Bad things about a:
    -a lot harder to manufacture: you can't even use the common FR4 substrate. Testing is more of a pain
    -the modulation standard requires higher quality (more linear) transmitters
    -5.4GHz experiences more attenuation, so less range

    802.11b: The old reliable: 2.4GHz operating frequency (the same as a P4!), with 11MBPS data rate. Uses CCK, which is a massaged QPSK modulation method
    Good things about B:
    -most commonly avaliable type
    -WiFi certification for interoperatiblity
    -can use lower cost ic and materials. Testing is easier.
    -longer range than A with less power (better for laptops)
    Bad things about B:
    -lower data rate
    -more 'congested' spectrum
    -CCK is less effecient in spectrum usage
    -less channels available

    802.11b+: Almost nobody has it: TI's PBCC modulation that gives 22MBPS on normal B. PBCC is an optional capability for G.
    Good things about B+:
    -it is/was available earlier
    -Was cheaper
    -Pretty much B, only a $10 more expensive.
    Bad things about B+:
    -I bought it because I couldn't wait for G
    -Nobody except TI made chips that support PBCC
    -Really, think of it as G-, not B+

    802.11g: Same frequency as b, same modulation as A
    Good things about G:
    -backwards compatable
    -easier/cheaper to get more linear transmitters for 2.4GHz than 5.4GHz.
    Bad Things about G:
    -no WiFi interoperability certification yet

  • Netgear (Score:2, Interesting)

    by khalido ( 601247 )
    I just ordered a Netgear WRG614 802.11G wireless router and a WG511 pcmia access card from Amazon... Does anyone know whether this and all the other older models are software upgradeable to the final standards? Or a year later when I want to use 802.11G somewhere else I'll need to buy a pcmia card supporting the final specs instead of the only the draft? Aside: When are all the cool gadgets like 802.11G wireless cameras coming out? I want a camra which I can put anywhere then log into it from a wifi pocket
  • I don't see how 802.11g helps anyone unless it is a new install, and even then your screwed because of your neighbors 802.11b access point causing your speed to ramp down.

    Frankly I'm tired of my MP3 player dropping out when I'm microwaving burritos, I'm gonna go 802.11a after I buy that new disk array for my wife.

    -- Jack
  • Damn it - they add many for dots to these standards people will be trying to ping them.

    Pleeeease could we try to think of real names for things that are memorable - Bluetooth isn't going anywhere for now, simply because people can remember it's name to ask for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Close