WTF is... WiGig It's now more than two years since the Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WGA) released the first full version of its 7Gb/s would-be next-gen Wi-Fi technology. There's been some activity in the intervening 26 months, including the first big multi-vendor interoperability test, but the second of these "plugfests" has only now taken place …
Or the ones that mean I have to sit cross-legged in front of my TV if I want to share my desktop from the laptop. Or make sure that I'm located near a projector in a meeting etc.
Wires are still my preferred network medium due to the relatively poor speed of wireless, but not having to worry about display cables would be a godsend.
...so maybe the ideal home roaming setup will be to have a "base station" in each room where the light fitting would be in the centre of the ceiling and to network these base stations together with wired gigabit (or faster). This would allow very high speed links for devices roaming between rooms and the placement of the base station outside of the general clutter should be good for links - as in when there's no direct link because of a sack of water in the way, it can still bounce off a wall.
Why do I get the feeling the tinfoil headgear brigade are gonna have a(nother) feeding frenzy? Tumors... Mind control... Zombie apocalypse?
Personally, and you can call me old fashioned if you wish, I *like* cables, big fat masonry drills and knowing a mate with his or her laptop can just sit down, plug in and be sorted in mere seconds. Wireless certainly has its place, and WiGig will be a very handy tech to have in the networking arsenal, but I do not see it as preferable as far as my home is concerned.
/me braces for a volley of "-1 Luddite".
I felt the same up to a couple of years ago. Now though, wireless is reasonably hassle free. My home network is named reasonably sensibly and the password, whilst a bit long, is simple to communicate and type in.
That being said, all my fixed devices are cabled and I can't see that changing any time soon.
This post has been deleted by its author
Dunno .. apparently, with sufficiently sensitive antennas, and enough power you can extend the range of wifi into 100s of meters, maybe even kilometers.
As long as your receiver is sensitve enough to pick up the signal from the ambient noise, and your sender is powerful enough.
it's a bit like people saying they dont need to put a password or encryption on their home wifi setup, because it has too limited a reach. It might have too limited a reach for their laptops, but a bit of custom sending and receiving gear will prove them wrong.
So all it needs is a hacker with a bit of a mcgyver skill
When ever wireless technology tries to replace a wire it will fail. If however it is there to make connecting up easier when we move about it will be successful. How many desktop machines have Wi-Fi? Not a lot, you can pay $3500 and get the number if you like from iSuppli. It has taken over 12 years for the 5GHz band to start to be used, it is called 80211a after all and now we are now discussing 802.11ad. Don't hold your breath waiting to buy a Wi-Gig dongle pair for less than $200.
This post has been deleted by its author
hate wireless
I started out with wireless all over my home a few years ago which was great but I've slowly noticed an increase in the number of networks within range of mine and ever decreasing performance of my own. I've now wired the house instead for the bulk of devices and its pretty much only visitors that use the wireless and occasionally my kids on their net books.
On another note I think most of the sales staff that try to sell you wireless equipment should be given a slap, I recently saw a young probably commissioned based sales idiot flogging an old couple wireless N because its faster, no mention of the fact that they would still be limited by internet speed, would need wireless N adapters or compatible hardware etc etc. I'll give you a hint which shop...... Begins with a P, its got a C in it and World and they screwed that couple out of nearly £150
Once again it seems that they have completely missed the boat.
Why is nobody looking at distributed wireless networking?
Every wireless device will become a local router so if your tablet moved out of range, if would send it's packets to the TV which would forward them to the Satellite receiver which is cabled to the ISPs router.
Yes, it adds latency so not ideal for gaming but if latency matters to you then plug the games console in.
For most other net uses it would be ideal and could give decent coverage to most households.
You could even buy plug into the mains/light socket devices that would act as fixed routers.
Even 802.11n is pointless, does your client support all the features your access point claims, multiple streams?, no, very unlikely if your using a phone or tablet or any other built in wireless. Speeds of 300mb @ 2.4 and 450 @ 5ghz, lies unless your client is physically built like the access point with multiple aerials etc. Check the speed you get on your phone or tablet, 65mbps or 72mbps at best. John.w said it best, wireless is about mobility not replacing a high speed cable. Wireless is about wandering into an area, browsing email, web, semi low bandwidth youtube videos.
2.4ghz is dead, 802.11n / channel bonding is unusable with it being everywhere. Client adapters need to embrace 5ghz and multiple streams faster. 5ghz allows the channels and throughput.
Dont forget that wireless is a shared medium, its still a HUB, with each additional client the speed is cut in half again for every client.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
