First 802.11n Products Breaking Out

capt turnpike writes "If you're hooked up to a fat pipe, but want mobility, it looks like the new 802.11n standard might have some promise. eWEEK.com got their hands on some of the upcoming products and put the new devices through their paces." From the article: "The 802.11n task group is aware of the current draft's issues with legacy wireless LAN devices (specifically with how 802.11n shares bandwidth with attached legacy clients), and representatives from Cisco and Motorola broke off to look into the issues before the next meeting of the draft subcommittee, which is scheduled for May. Expectations vary widely, depending on whom you talk to. In previous conversations with Dave Borison, Airgo's director of product marketing, we leaned that Airgo is not making chip sets based on the draft standard because the company thinks the issue of legacy interoperability is significant enough to necessitate small modifications to the silicon."

Re:Lowest common denominator?

[Anonymous Coward]

When mixing & matching 802.11b devices on an 802.11a or g network, the faster a and g devices are often slowed to b speeds.

Not so. 802.11a works at a completely different frequency and couldn't give a rat's backside about the presence of b or g. It's only g that's had performance issues when b got involved precisely because it is backward compatible.

Let the new 802.11n operate up at 5GHz with 802.11a so that b and g don't slow it down and can continue to operate as they are and I'd be a happy camper. I already use 802.11a where I have the choice precisely because it avoids the traffic snarls at in the 2.4GHz spectrum by b and g as well as microwave ovens and wireless phones.

Re:Can you host a LAN party with ONE 802.11n route

[3-State Bit]

I realize I'll probably get modded down for suggesting this, but why don't you guys just set up a wired LAN?

Um, because a wired LAN is like a horsed carriage?

Damn the speed

[DebianDog]

I am actually pretty satisfied with the speed of my 'G' system I would rather they would have focused their efforts on 'reliable speed at a DISTANCE' (without having to erect a GIANT antenna, boosters, etc...)

A.K.A I want 'G' speeds 5-15 miles out.

It's all Airgo FUD...

[galimore]

Uhhh...

The "Pre-N" stuff floating around is all Airgo manufactured. The Airgo design differs from the 802.11n draft, and I suspect that's what this is really all about.

Airgo has a *LOT* to lose by not getting the standard changed in their favor. They put all their eggs in one basket on this one... and the IEEE didn't go with their solution.

I'd take anything that comes out of an interview with somebody who works for Airgo with a healthy dose of salt...

It sounds like they're spreading FUD about the IEEE draft because they're upset that their gear isn't compatible with it... I doubt the real concern is of backwards compatibility with existing gear.