Firmware Updates ..................
Firmware updates never seem to materialise.
If you've been jonesing for faster Wi-Fi performance – not that you have any client devices that can yet take advantage of next-generation wireless networking technology – your wait is over: Buffalo has begun shipping the industry's first 802.11ac router and bridge. Not only do Buffalo's new Wi-Fi devices promise impressive …
Firmware updates never seem to materialise.
With Buffalo maybe. Netgear are usually very prompt with theirs.
Hah! Netgear?! My WGR614v7 (admittedly old) router still has broken Dynamic DNS and a habit of crashing at the first whiff of BitTorrent, and has done since I bought it - despite the "prompt" two updates I got afterwards.
Nowadays I just make sure my networking hardware can run OpenWRT or similar so I'm not tied to the manufacturer's fickle support strategy.
Intels 1.13ghz fiasco. How long until we find out that this wireless speed is only possible in ideal conditions with very specific hardware and firmware versions? And before you remind me that its only Buffalo kit that can reach this speed remember it was only Intel kit that could reach that speed "reliably".
But does it support IPv6?
...to keep up with my <1Mbps "broadband" DSL....
WAN in slower than LAN shocker
A friend of mine spent rather a lot of money to buy a router, a card for his laptop, and even a card for his PC. It took him a full week to get the network running, and he constantly had problems, but he was optimistic. "It's the wave of the future! I have problems now, but only because I'm a first adopter!" he said. And then weeks turned into months turned into years, and 'a' never caught on. He was left with a very expensive mistake, and no compatibility with other networks.
About the same time, I bought a b/g router; not terribly expensive, fast as I needed it to be, and worked well. He laughed at me for investing in an "old" system, one that would never be able to keep up with modern networks, but I must say... my network is still in use. I get close to the speeds promised by the 'g' standard, and everyone that visits can connect. And that is why I refuse to buy the next-best-thing as soon as it comes off the line; his expensive investment is nearly worthless, now, while mine still works just fine. I'm going to wait to see if this ever takes off before I invest anything in it - though to be fair, I'll probably just upgrade to 'b/g/n' instead.
I think 'a' came before 'b'.
The problem with 'a' is the 5GHz frequency does not travel as well as as the 2.4GHz. However if you do get a good signal then 'a' is a lot faster in practice than the same speed of 'b' or 'g'.
In the home you want a signal that can get through walls. In open space you want a signal that can't get through walls. These days there is so much 2.4 noise that you do better if your access point can't work too far. Beam shaping things like Ruckus work far better since they can ignore interference and direct their eyes and ears to who they are communicating with.
Ah, yes, you're right. Time must be compressing my memory... by the time I bought a router, 'b' had been out for at least a year. Still, I do remember him making fun of my purchase... maybe it was just sour grapes by then.
I know several people who invested in 'n' right when it first came out, only to realize that the various manufacturers all thought 'n' was something a little different... that's gotten a lot better by now, at least.
'b' is a simplified version of 'a' without the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (and at a different wavelength). 'b' didn't need as much processor power, hence it was more popular in the early days, but 'a' has good support on Macs and enterprisey PCs. It's useful in offices because the greater number of channels and shorter range means you can cram access points closer together and support more simultaneous users. I used it at home for several years: all of my kit supported it, other than an iPhone, so compatibility really isn't that big an issue.
'g' was an update of 'b' with OFDM: an improvement, but still not as fast as 'a' and you still had to work with one of three congested channels. So prior to 'n' being widely available, 'a' could be a pretty sensible choice.
Considering the draft is still not a standard and everyone that happened in previous years with standards changing, etc. Don't see any reason to waste money on this.
Buffalo promise a lot of things but can they deliver this time?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017