Pre-802.11n Offers 4x the Speed

An anonymous reader writes "Belkin said on Monday that they'll be releasing a wireless network card and router that uses pre-802.11n multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology created by Airgo Networks. Belkin said the new pre-n products will provide four times faster speed and coverage area than 802.11b and g products. The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products."

Multiple signals?

[Davak]

Anybody know if the increase number of signals increases the amount of interference?

wireless vs wire

[Davak]

Reliability rivaling that of wired connections and effortless connectivity at real-world distances is why Belkin's True MIMO products have ushered in a new era in wireless."

When I can wirelessly play my PS2 and download torrents at the same time, I'll be in heaven. As much as I love wireless, I think we are far from the reliability and connectivity of a hard wire.

Wireless-G

[Klar]

For me, 802.11G is by fast enough by far for my uses. B is good enough for web traffic. Hopefully this introduction of new A, and now N configerations will lower prices more for the G routers making it even easier to find access points. *crosses fingers for easier wardriving*

And why would I buy from Belkin?

[Saint Aardvark]

This is the same company [slashdot.org] that lost my trust by screwing their customers. They've done nothing since to earn that trust back. (And no, removing their stupid adware, when it shouldn't have been there in the first place, doesn't count toward earning my trust back.)

Re:new pre-n products

[Gr8Apes]

Heck, I've got a virtually unusable Belkin 54g router sitting at home (well, at least until I flash its firmware with sveasoft or the like)

The damn thing won't hold a configuration for crap, reboots like a windows machine, and otherwise is about the most unpleasant networking product I've owned since the 3Com 503 (I think that was the model #, might have been 501). Fortunately I had a cheap netgear 54g router on the shelf, plugged it in and all was well, except for sustained connectivity. Seems there's lots of interference in my neighborhood (about 12 networks show up, maybe I should just use one of them? :)

ah, let the consumer trickery begin

[SuperBanana]

The new products will also be compatible with older products and in fact will increase performance on those older products

Yup, but the box will say "4X FASTER! Also speeds up 802.11b and g networks!" Consumers will think, "hey, it'll speed up my 802.11b network by 4x! Yeah!"

Corporations need to learn to write clear, concise blurbs for their packaging, so customers don't feel ripped off or mislead (and never buy their products again as a result).

Re:Multiple signals?

[Klar]

I dunno. I've been having problems with my 802.11b network anytime someone is on a 2.4ghz phone in the area.. I'm debating buying a 5.8ghz phone to get rid of this problem, but the ones i've seen have been a lil pricy.

I'm supprised I can opperate the microwave while being online.

Re:So?

[ron_ivi]

I'd rather see "more coverage area". I can barely get my home-wireless-network from the coffee shop at the end of the block; and prettymuch everyone there (except those I'm sharing it with) is pretty jealous.

Security can be handled on the end-systems (install SP2 :), iptables, etc).

Range isn't so easy in real-world (obstructed) environments.

complex, doable, but who needs it?

[puzzled]

Who really needs 100 mbit in their home? I can see some corporation in a union bound town like St. Louis wanting to replace current wired LAN deploy costs with simple wireless gear, but the 802.11b device I've connected through to write this provides 5x the speed I need in a worst case scenario ... I guess I'm just a text interface BSD Luddite ...

Re:Math?

[Biff78]

Um sounds like your math needs a little work too. If b and g speeds were 0, 4x0=0. They would all be the same speed, and n would not be 4 times faster than either b or g. However, since both b and g have approximately the same range g's speed will decrease faster with distance from the antenna as both approach zero speed. At some point prior to 0 speed there will be a given distance for g and a given distance for b where speeds will be equal. In turn, at some given distance from the antenna for n there will be a speed that is 4 times faster than both b and g at the same time. ....But I don't think that's what they had in mind.