![]() I live in a farmhouse that has enough devices that I am thinking about going to a 255.255.0.0 network but I already have multiple Ubiquiti access points and found they work in a way that seemed counter intuitive to me at first but turns out to be right. "Wi-Fi 6" is just another layer of - useless - abstraction you have to dig through before you can get down to anything that actually means anything at all. Yeah, it kinda sucks navigating the 802.11 alphabet soup, but at least you know what it means. ![]() You could at least take a stab at boiling it down to three numbers - one for coverage area, one for "typical" healthy link transmission rate, and one for number of devices comfortably supported - but that's about as close as you can get, and how are you going to get manufacturers to be honest about it anyway? You really can't boil Wi-Fi performance down to a single consumer-friendly number. Which one of these is "faster", for Granny to pick out while staring at boxes in Staples or whatever? Yeah. A Plume superpod is "Wi-Fi 5" on two radios, and "Wi-Fi 4" on another radio. A Netgear X10 is "Wi-Fi 5" on one radio, "Wi-Fi 4" on another radio, and "Wi-Gig" on a third radio. A "Wi-Fi 6" router is probably "Wi-Fi 6" on both spectra, but in reality will almost certainly be talking "Wi-Fi 5" and "Wi-Fi 4" most of the time. oh who am I kidding.Ī "Wi-Fi 5" router is actually "Wi-Fi 5" on 5 GHz and "Wi-Fi 4" on 2.4 GHz. If dear Aunt Polly is sifting through routers on the store shelf, a "WiFi 4 vs WiFi 6" comparison *might* be clear enough to save her tech-savvy younger relations a tortuous phone call. The WFA is primarily (only?) concerned about WiFi consumer adoption so it makes sense that they would focus on renaming only the standards people would care about (as they did with 802.11i, aka "WPA2"). It seems to me that the public could greatly use the new marketing terms, as using IEEE standard names in the retail space is crazy - what other product does that? When you say "(they) not-so-helpfully decided to replace some-not all!" of the standards with the new terminology, you do go on to mention exactly why, as many of the standards have very specific applications that a typical consumer has no need to know of. When the time comes, I know I've got a big (but exciting) remodel in my future.īut I wouldn't mind that being another 10-15 years (I'd love to see Paps hit 100, and I think there's an excellent chance for that.he's a ox).Nice article, but no mention of 1024 QAM? Mostly an in-room rate, but nice, particularly for 2GHz. ![]() The conversation just came up recently between him, my mom and uncles and myself.and it's nice to know that house will be staying in the family, in the hands of someone who practically grew up there and who knows every inch of it (except for the wall material ). Well, hopefully all the above is something I won't have to deal with or think about for a long, long time. I'm used to having my stuff just work without a trip to Radio Shack or Best Buy to "enhance" it. Yikes.was hoping to avoid any sort of NASA-level set-ups of antennas, repeaters, etc. And I know they've never done any sort of wall work, so whatever's there has been there for 40-something years. But it has a bump/texture to it that doesn't strike me as straight drywall (might just be "less than ideal paintjob" ). It's not that thick, textured plaster like you'd see in some houses. It's a small house too, not a sprawling, multi-story place at all (single store, two bedrooms, one bath, etc.). The house was built in the 40's, I believe, but they bought it in 1963. I'm not entirely sure, now that I've seen them again, they're plaster. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |