Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Puts WiFi Back Into Next Gen Chipsets

Comments Filter:
  • Intelligent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kc0re (739168) on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:40PM (#10756853) Journal
    I hope all the feedback from the slashdotters got back to Intel. It was a misguided and dare I say non-intelligent decision to remove it. Wi-fi is a part of all things now, and Intel needs to stay with the times. While money could be made from a marketing perspective to release one chip, then release another chip with wi-fi. People would buy both, or buy one and then the other.. People are dumb.
    • Re:Intelligent (Score:3, Insightful)

      I'm not as informed on this subject as many others here, but didn't Intel's first integrated wireless chipset run 802.11b? And didn't it become a problem as soon as 802.11g hit the shelves? I'm not an Intel user, so maybe this is solved with some other mechanism (I dunno what, though).

      Personally, I like the fact that I can upgrade my individual components and customize my machine. I'd rather my CPU not lock me into its integrate features when they might become obsolete.
      • You know you can probably just disable the wireless functionality in the BIOS, and add in your own card? That's what PCMCIA is all about. :P
      • Re:Intelligent (Score:3, Informative)

        by sglane81 (230749)
        didn't it become a problem as soon as 802.11g hit the shelves?

        B and G work together as it should (mostly). They're both on 2.4 Ghz. 802.11A is on 5.4 Mhz. G is backwards compatible with B, so either B or G will work on B or G. From what I've seen, if you have a heterogeneous B & G network, you will experience B speeds, whereas if you had a homogenous G network, you can expect the full 54. You probably meant 802.11A in your statement.

        I'd rather my CPU not lock me into its integrate features when
        • Intel support Linux. They took longer to release drivers to support it, but actually there is support on at least 3 Intel chipset (Intel 2100, Intel 2200BG, Intel 2915ABG).
          Check drivers homepage:
          - http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/
          - http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/
          or this other driver comparison page:
          - http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/LinuxDriv ers
    • Re:Intelligent (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Not_Wiggins (686627)
      It was a misguided and dare I say non-intelligent decision to remove it. Wi-fi is a part of all things now, and Intel needs to stay with the times.

      From a populist POV, you're absolutely correct.

      But, I'm not all that excited to see WiFi making its way "back" into a mainstream product without there being significant (enough) strides to securing the communication.

      Wireless is still not easily secured enough for the general populace, and making it even more pervasive before an intelligent solution to our c
  • Wot's next? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by adsl (595429)
    Back to an ADSL chipset? Back to a LCoS HDTV Chipset? The future is encouraging again..well maybe? "I am Intel, believe what I do NOT what I say I will do"
  • by Anonymous Coward
    If they knew what they wanted to be doing?

    I have yet to see AMD have these poor planning issues (also thinking of those TV chips that could have cut costs for consumers that were cut recently).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:45PM (#10756907)
    "The next generation of chips are also expect to include 1066MHz frontside bus Intel introduced this week and support 667MHz DDR 2 SDRAM."

    Still not as fast as AMD's 1600mhz FSB which has been around a while now. And who cares about quadruple pumped ram when we (AMD fanboys) have 64 bits and DDR4 to playwith!?
  • "Wi-Fi" meaning... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealProgrammer (723725) on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:46PM (#10756922) Homepage Journal
    Do they mean 802.11a, b, or g? Certainly not 'a', I hope not just 'b'.

    I bet they're struggling with heat dissipation and power consumption.

    Probably they see that 'g' is commoditized and ripe for inclusion on the motherboard, and that the practical concerns over heat and power will be solved..
    • Isn't 802.11n on its way as well?
      • >Isn't 802.11n on its way as well?

        Yes, but it's not commoditized and flatline stable yet. They don't want anything in their chipset that might change or have security problems.
    • You forgot 802.11n, which is their eventual goal. Yes, I'd expect it to have at least b/g support.
    • Last I read, they were looking to but a, b & g in the same chip. You don't seem to like a, but IIRC, it has eight non-overlapping channels, and b/g only have three, meaning less RF congestion and interference.
    • Do they mean 802.11a, b, or g? Certainly not 'a', I hope not just 'b'. I bet they're struggling with heat dissipation and power consumption.

      Intel already has a tri-mode (802.11a/b/g) mini-PCI card for notebooks: the Intel PRO/Wireless 2915ABG [intel.com].

      If Intel can get a tri-mode wireless card into a Centrino notebook, why would it be difficult to include their tri-mode wireless chip in a desktop chipset? Is it more difficult to deal with heat dissipation and power consumption when the wireless chip is in the

  • Speeds? 802.11? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VE3ECM (818278) on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:48PM (#10756946)
    Okay, the article is a little light on details.

    What 802.11 protocols is this going to support?
    The article claims Intel's main reasoning for this is to make the PC "...act as a Wi-Fi access point."

    Okay, if they're not going to put in the new protocols (ie 802.11n, etc.) what's the point?

    Anyone have anymore details?

    • They'll probably use Pre-N... when it gets any market share whatsoever. I mean, really, no one is using it yet, Intel isn't going to attempt to set trends in a market they aren't even that interested in. Wireless-G currently dominates, that is bound to be what they use.
  • Anyone noticed that the original story has dissapeared? (The one linked to in the old slashdot story.)

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/zd /20040924/tc_zd/135947
  • WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zemplar (764598) on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:50PM (#10756976) Journal
    I'm still waiting for Intel to put WTF back in their chipsets.

    Perhaps it's been delayed until after the RTFA implementation?
    • I heard it was scheduled for after the STFU release targetted at its more advanced users :) L
    • Re:WTF? (Score:3, Funny)

      by johnalex (147270)
      Honestly, I read too much /. The seminary I attend has a Women's Theological Fellowship, which the participants always abbreviate "WTF" in their e-mails and memos to the students. I can't tell anyone why I always break into spasms when I get a message from WTF. They just wouldn't understand.

  • New Slogan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arbin (570266) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:56PM (#10757029) Journal
    "Insecurity Inside! Now 150% easier to hack!" I've had bad experiences with integrated systems that include everything on the motherboard. Back when, it was so nice to just replace the bad component, and not just the entire bloody motherboard.
    • Or do what I do whenever I discover inadequate integrated peripherals. Turn them off at the bios and buy my own cards. Thus, business continues as normal. Real hard concept, isn't it?
      • That works if you have a decent amount of available slots. Many of these all-in-one motherboards have two or three slots at most. On some of the cards with integrated video, they lack an AGP slot. Gets rather difficult to replace / upgrade. Also consider, I've had a couple boards fail because of some dead add-on that caused everything else to die. I would rather a motherboard with nothing but the basics (ala 1994 basics) loaded up with PCI/AGP slots.
        • Unless you're looking at those mini-sized motherboards, I haven't seen a motherboard with less then 3 PCI slots in a while. Your NIC, Sound, and Firewire/USB is all integrated. That is 3 cards you don't have to have. If you nic dies? Add a PCI nic. Someone seems stuck in 1994.
    • Nuh-huh. Just wait until version 14.89, and you'll be safe as sounds.
    • Re:New Slogan (Score:4, Interesting)

      by timster (32400) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:02PM (#10758967)
      I know I won't buy a CPU unless the ALU is a separate component. I hate to replace a whole CPU just because it blew its multiply circuit.

      Everything on the motherboard is not so great, but as technologies become more stable they tend to migrate there. If I'm just building a business PC and I don't need stellar graphics I'm just fine with integrated video. If I don't have any special networking needs I'm happy with integrated Ethernet.

      I remember when your IDE interface was a card, and your serial port was on a card, and your sound was on a card... that wasn't so great, either.
  • Wifi Access Point (Score:5, Informative)

    by Denis Lemire (27713) on Monday November 08, 2004 @03:00PM (#10757071) Homepage
    If I recall correctly, it was pointed out in the last article along this line that Intel was NOT removing WiFi from their laptop chipsets. The new chipset under developement were to have a built in access point. This is what was being removed. There was NEVER any intention to remove WiFi client support.
    • A built-in access point? Isn't that more a matter of software? All an access point is, after all, is a wireless card connected to a embedded system, which runs software that allows the device to act as a layer 2 bridge. I know many people that have turned old laptops, or PCs with wireless cards, into access points.
      • Agreed, I have myself built PC based access points out of a wireless card. Thats definately a valid point. I just recall reading in the original article that it was only AP functionality that they intended to remove.
      • Just like their "built-in RAID" is software RAID. They draw no distinction between what is implemented in hardware and what is in the driver.
  • Nothing changed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @03:06PM (#10757131)
    no, nothing changed. The original interpretation of Wi-Fi having been "dropped" was a misinterpretation.

    The original decision was to remove *soft AP functionality* from the chipset. Not to drop Wi-Fi entirely. Go back and read what was said back then.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @03:07PM (#10757139)
    Put your Wi-fi in you take your Wi-fi out
    you put your Wi-fi in and you shake it all about....

  • Well,

    I don't have anything interesting to say. I just thought that that was a witty subject for someone that might have something clever to say.
  • by drewzhrodague (606182) <drew&zhrodague,net> on Monday November 08, 2004 @03:11PM (#10757182) Homepage Journal
    Hooray! More fodder for us wardrivers! More units made = more units sold = more units wardriven! Game ON!
  • ...build a new MAME cab. Because let's face it, what could be cooler than MAME?
  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Monday November 08, 2004 @03:24PM (#10757353) Journal
    I hear Intel is integrating WiMAX into a chip to go on the laptop motherboard - and that this chip/core/whatever is also capable of WiFi.

    WiFi(b, g) could be viewed as a slightly degraded version of the OFDM/OFDMA PHYs of WiMAX, operating just adjacent to one of WiMAX's several bands, with a somewhat different MAC. So it's easy to do with the same hardware. The DSP has more than enough capacity and runs much the same algorithms, the radio can tune the band, and the MAC logic is related but simpler, and well-debugged. 802.11a isn't that much different either, and also in range of the radio. So once you have working designs for each it's pretty trivial to do both WiMAX and WiFI in the same chip (at least if you're not trying to do them at the same time).

    Perhaps this release thrash is related to that.

    What I want to know is when WiMAX becomes a standard part of the laptop support chip line.
    • For WiMAX you need a relatively large, outdoor antenna that is pointing towards the tower. It physically won't fit in a laptop.

      Now 802.16e is a different story, but it's also vaporware.
      • For WiMAX you need a relatively large, outdoor antenna that is pointing towards the tower.

        If that were true you'd need the same for your cellular phone - and your WiFi card.

        An outdoor antenna pointed toward a tower is more efficient. But in the 2-11 GHz low-bands used by the SCa, OFDM, and OFDMA PHYs it's NOT necessary.
        • Wi-Fi usually operates at much smaller distances than WiMAX; that's why you can get away with a smaller antenna. Cellular operates at much lower speed than WiMAX; that's why you can get away with a smaller antenna.

          Look at all the pre-WiMAX equipment out there -- it's all got large antennas. I suspect WISPs will need all the efficiency they can get if they want to be competitive.
          • Wi-Fi usually operates at much smaller distances than WiMAX; that's why you can get away with a smaller antenna. Cellular operates at much lower speed than WiMAX; that's why you can get away with a smaller antenna.

            Nope.

            Antenna size (beyond a half-wave dipole or a quarter-wave whip above a relatively large ground - such as a handset) doesn't give you any more power. It just lets you direct the power you have more selectively, making your signal stronger in some directions by stealing power from other dir
  • Intel and Broadcom will stop selling Wi-Fi chips in China at the end of May because of an encryption standard being imposed by the Chinese government, as trade tensions between the United States and China heat up.

    The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies.

    Intel spokesman Chuck Mull
  • Intel decided to put the WiFi back because of flip-flop problems in their systems were resolved.

    Sorry - its just monday
  • Home netwroking can be a pain the ass. I don't want to open up someone's computer to put in a Wifi card, I hate USB devices that really should be PCI devices. I love when a laptop has the Wifi built in. What is the drawback? $10 more for a new computer is well worth it when you don't have to go to the parts store, get a Wifi NIC, install it, troubleshoot it, and maintain it. That makes sense to me.
  • http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bayeux.htm I think this is foreshadowing some kinda tech war... Intel invades AMD's corporate offices? More on this story as it unfolds...
  • Who cares? Their firmware isn't even free enough to be redistributed in binary form making it unsuitable for use any any o/s but Windows.

What this country needs is a good five cent microcomputer.

Working...