Specifications

MAXIMUMPC JANUARY 200538
Today, 802.11g Wi-Fi networks are com-
monplace, but they’re plagued by the same
shortcomings that plagued earlier 802.11b
networks—namely poor performance
and high overhead. Even though 802.11g
networks are rated at 54Mb/s, we rarely
achieve data transfer rates faster than
25Mb/s in real-world test conditions. The
upcoming 802.11n spec aims to remedy
these problems and promises performance
equivalent to wired 100baseT Ethernet.
There are two radically differing tech-
niques being considered to reach these
high performance goals: using larger
chunks of the radio spectrum, and using
multiple transmitters and receivers for
each connection.
Right now, you’re probably thinking
you’re not going to see 802.11n-based
hardware in 2005, and you’re right. What
you will see is “pre-N” hardware. Be-
cause we don’t expect the IEEE (Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
to deliver a fi nal 802.11n spec until late
2005, at the earliest, a few hardware ven-
dors are jumping the gun and releasing
hardware based on one of the competing
but incompatible specs.
Unlike the pre-spec 802.11g hardware,
which could be upgraded to the fi nal spec
with a simple fi rmware update, the pre-N
hardware is unlikely to be fi rmware up-
gradable to the fi nal spec. This means that
anyone who purchases pre-N hardware
could be left in the cold when the offi cial
802.11n hardware arrives in 2006.
(We review the fi rst Belkin Pre-N rout-
er on page 81 of this issue.)
tECH pREVIEW
802.11N
Will an early debut taint next-gen Wi-Fi?
Let’s face it, Wi-Fi is great for wireless ac-
cess inside your home or offi ce, but it just
doesn’t have the range to cover major met-
ropolitan downtown areas or large subur-
ban areas. If you want wireless Internet
access anywhere and everywhere, the best
you can hope for is a super-slow cellphone
connection. WiMax promises widespread
wireless broadband for everyone.
Current over-the-air broadband is a
mess. There are dozens of proprietary
specs in use around the world, and few of
them interoperate with each other. Many
of them even require line-of-sight with
the transmitter, prohibiting their use in
hilly areas or for mobile users.
WiMax, on the other hand, delivers
high-speed connections over a large area—
we’re talking a three mile radius—using
open hardware standards, and without
any line-of-sight requirement. This means
that one day soon, you’ll be able to plop
down on a park bench, open your laptop,
and have a blazing-fast, DSL-speed connec-
tion any time you want.
Currently being tested in Seattle, WiMax
should see wide release in late 2005.
WiMax
Wireless broadband works
toward widespread adoption
Mesh Networks
Buzzword or buzzworthy?
We’ll fi nd out in ‘05
Every day, you connect to dozens of
networks. You connect to web serv-
ers, e-mail servers, file-sharing serv-
ers, print servers, and FTP servers.
All of these connections are client/
server based, meaning you (the cli-
ent) connect to a centralized server
that contains your information. Even
peer-to-peer file-sharing services like
Kazaa and Bittorrent rely on a central
server to get all the clients talking to
each other.
But there’s another way. Mesh
networks are wireless networks that
use special protocols to connect
computers and other devices in close
proximity to each other without re-
quiring any kind of central server.
Mesh networks are being considered
for everything from highway safety
projects—say, a driver’s airbag de-
ploys on the freeway, the car sends
a signal to all other vehicles nearby
warning the drivers to slow down—
to eradicating dead spots in home
wireless networks.
Sensing, perhaps, that Bluetooth implementa-
tion on the PC hasn’t been an overwhelming
success, Intel has formed a working coalition to
create a specifi cation for a Wireless USB stan-
dard. This group’s intention is to begin with the
full 480Mbps bandwidth of USB 2.0 at up to 10
meters distance. That’s 60 megabytes per sec-
ond—plenty of headroom for your keyboard,
mouse, portable hard drive, and webcam (if
you’re still into that).
But get this: There’s a competing stan-
dard developed by Cypress Technologies
called WirelessUSB (no space between
the words), which operates in the familiar
2.4GHz band and provides less bandwidth
than Bluetooth— 217.6Kbps, to be exact.
That’s enough for your keyboard and mouse,
but not the webcam or portable hard drive.
Cypress Technologies may have a head
start on the hardware, but would it be rude
of us to say we’d rather wait for Intel’s take
on the wireless PC? Perhaps, but we’ll take
either protocol over Bluetooth.
Wireless
USB
And that spells curtains
for Bluetooth