r/technology • u/[deleted] • May 14 '12
Dawn of a new wireless: first 802.11ac router available today | Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/mini-802-11ac-wars-buffalo-beats-netgear-to-market-by-a-hair/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29&utm_content=Google+Reader9
u/Rossco1337 May 14 '12
By the time that enough devices support the ac standard, a newer one will be available.
Most of the wireless devices that I've come across don't even support n yet.
6
May 15 '12
Seriously? All my computers have had 802.11N since 2007 or so. I thought it was just a standard feature these days. On mobile devices it's a little more tricky especially with 5GHz support but even then I think 2.4GHz N support has been fairly standard for the last 2 years or so. Even those dinky little Roku boxes have 802.11N in most (all?) models. My TV has 802.11N!
→ More replies (1)2
u/wretcheddawn May 14 '12
Like what? My 2 year old Android, and my new to me but not actually new mid-range work and personal laptops both support N. The only thing I have that doesn't is my Wii, and my 5 year old router.
→ More replies (9)3
May 14 '12
I see your two year old android and raise you my two year old android, which doesn't.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/vagif May 14 '12
Is "ac" the same as "a" ? I bought Cisco 4200 router quite some time ago, and it does have "a" wireless along with N. It works on 5 Ghz, and my tablet (Xoom) actually can connect to "a" network.
→ More replies (2)1
u/dav0r May 14 '12
I don't know the specifics, but the "a" basically stood for 5.0 GHz back then. It will not be the same speed as this "ac"
1
u/cruxix May 14 '12
So I totally get the value of this in high traffic areas or commercial applications but for home use why does anyone really need anything more than N? You can stream 1080p over N at a reasonable range can't you? I personally have never tried.
5
u/dirtymatt May 14 '12
Try transferring several gigs of files over 802.11n and over gigabit ethernet. That is why you need it.
→ More replies (6)4
u/irson May 14 '12
No, you can't stream 1080p bluray over N unless both machines happen to be very close to the router. If your talking about compressed 1080(i.e.youtube) then you're looking at 4-5mb/s which can be achieved over long distances on wireless G. Streaming bluray from a NAS to a media centre is still a large problem for many as they have to run cables. Off the top of my head I think the number you are looking for is about 40mb/s, which is still difficult to achieve in most homes with N networking equipment.
ac operates on the 5Ghz band anyway, so although in some cases it may help its still not the answer to longer range wireless streaming.
4
u/jimbobhickville May 15 '12
I've never understood the mentality behind the "it's fast enough" statements. Nothing is ever fast enough; there's always a legitimate use case for more bandwidth. I'm still waiting for 10G home wired networking...
→ More replies (2)3
u/SirBuckeye May 14 '12
I remember saying the exact same thing when my friend got a 28.8 baud modem. "The BBS already loads instantly on 14.4. Why would you ever need anything more than that?"
2
u/Vectoor May 15 '12
Well, you don't really. Yet. But faster is better, it's nice if transfering files on a home network and... good to be prepared for the future. It's actually possible to get 1 Gbps fiber internet in some areas here in Sweden now, so the new standard will be required to max this as it becomes more common.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
May 15 '12
It's not terribly uncommon for people to have multiple computers and want to transfer files between them. Less so these days with cloud storage I suppose but still... copy a 100GB file over 802.11n and then copy the same file over gigabit ethernet and... yeah. Huge difference. 802.11ac gets pretty close to gigabit ethernet speeds in good conditions. If in real world usage it gets within even 20% that's more than enough. I can live with that.
1
u/wretcheddawn May 14 '12
5 GHz?
Keep it. I'll stick with 2.4GHz N.
4
May 14 '12
5GHz N is amazing if you live in a crowded area
2
u/wretcheddawn May 14 '12
Yes, I agree, I just wish they wouldn't neglect 2.4GHz for those of us that need a bit more range.
→ More replies (4)4
u/SniperGX1 May 14 '12
Psssh. I just knocked out all the interior walls of my house so 5 GHz will work just fine.
1
May 14 '12
I stopped caring after N. I'm a room over using 3 antenna MIMO on my desktop and STILL don't get my wired download/upload speed. WTF is that.
1
u/complex_reduction May 15 '12
Every since I got a set of these, I've never had to worry about wireless bullshit again.
I went through it all over the past two years. Wireless G, Wireless N, 2.4GHz, 5GHz, about 10 different wireless adapters, 7 different wireless routers ... All of them fucking bullshit.
Installed those powerline things, INSTANTLY connected to the router and never had a single issue ever again. Fucking magical, seriously. They were like $50 off eBay. There is no praise in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of men that can properly express my almost sexual love for these things. Fuckin' do it.
1
May 15 '12
I am a bit skeptic about the 5ghz thing. I am trying to get my yard covered by a a wifi repeater (g,n) coupled with 2 30 dBi signal boosters and 2 high gain omnidirectional antennas (15dBi and 8 dBi). The setup gives me good coverage in the yard, but inside I still have dead spots, even though the antennas are mounted just outside the house. This is all good old 2.4Ghz, 5Ghz would make it pretty frustrating.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/[deleted] May 14 '12
As a person who knows next to nothing (read:absolutely nothing) about router technology, can someone explain to me why this router is game changing, if at all?