Ieee 802.11n Support?

[timofonic]

Hello.

What about supporting IEEE 802.11n too and not but b and g ones? There are wifi cards and chips that already support it and this could make the device more future proof.

Sorry if mentioned before, but the search function didn't showed results about this.

Regards.

 

[RHCA]

my point is: why a bigger range???
I mean if I find a hotspot and connect to it is enough ur if I can use my own wireless network

 

[Chip]

What about supporting IEEE 802.11n too and not but b and g ones?

Considering power consumption, part size, part cost, part availability, limited benefit (how often would the additional speed be an issue?) and fact that the n standard STILL isn't finished, I'd say it was left out for several good reasons.

 

[Gilrad]

Here you go: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/18/eye-fi-...racked-splayed/

 

[timofonic]

Here you go: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/18/eye-fi-...racked-splayed/



That thing not supports 802.11n and is designed for sharing photos directly to the computer, not for using the wifi on the host system.

 

[nubie]

The Wifi is a module, it can be replaced later (probably not by your end-user, but the service shouldn't prohibit you.)

I don't know what you would do with that bandwidth either, G should be plenty fast for a system this small. Except moving large files obviously.

 

[javaJake]

As mentioned (and I'll repost just to be obnoxious) the Wireless-N technology is currently in Draft v1.1, and each manufacturer has their own implementation. I hear that if you get a Linksys Wireless-N card, it won't work well with a Netgear Wireless-N card.

 

[Game_over]

Hell......the PSP just uses b and it can download fairly large files directly to it (albeit, only one at a time).

 

[Shiny]

Hell......the PSP just uses b and it can download fairly large files directly to it (albeit, only one at a time).

The fact that it can and the transfer speed are not the same ;P

 

[sephiroth111]

Hell......the PSP just uses b and it can download fairly large files directly to it (albeit, only one at a time).

The fact that it can and the transfer speed are not the same ;P


unless you want to transfer files from the computer to the pandora, g is just fine. unless you have a SERIOUSLY fast internet connection.

802.11g 7MBYTES per second.
802.11n 11MBYTES per second.
USB2.0 60MBYTES per second.

if you want something transfered fast, just use the usb2 ports and forget the wifi. 4 more mbps isn't really worth the additional cost. plus unless your router was N, it really wouldn't make a bit of difference anyway. In addition, it's pre-N draft. so who knows if it'd be future compatible. not to mention that using encryption (which wifi requires, if you don't want to be an ass), can slow things down as much as 75%

Edit: i showed the speeds in megabytes per second instead of megabits, since it can be a bit confusing.

 

[Shiny]

Not to mention that file transfers to the pandora will be bottlenecked by SD's low write speed anyways. But I think thread is more about downloading more quickly to RAM (for faster Web browsing, etc.), and not to the SD card.

 

[timofonic]

I'm reading about 802.11n and is very interesting, not just about speed. It features lots of tweaks and improvements that makes it considerably better. The final version will feature stuff like "“smart antenna systems” and “mesh networking.”.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/wireless...amp;tag=nl.e048

 

[javaJake]

Wow, that link was a very interesting read. No doubt Wireless-N will be worth all the work it took when it is finalized, but I have to say, no matter what benefits are involved, Wireless-N won't be worth it until they get all the manufacturer's to work together