Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by FunkiBluDawg View Post
    802.11g is plenty..
    My wifi network is still on 802.11g and I am pretty happy to stay on it as the main bottleneck is my isp maxxing at 30mbps.

    802.11n is good but I am skipping it for 802.11ac with 1Gbps/gigabit speeds.
    I doubt it H/P will place 802.1ac, when it becomes available, they are always behind on technology
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  2. #22  
    Totally agree with OP. A rare feature on cellphones and indeed noteworthy. At least a very welcome feature for those who need/want it!
  3. #23  
    Which is it guys? Do specs-for-spec-sake matter or don’t they?

    Everyone always complains that the Android guys only care about specs and that WebOS is more than that. Yet I would have to say that geeking out over 5Ghz support on a smartphone is the epitome of spec-measuring.

    Also, imo 5Ghz “N” is a *very* low priority on a phone. The only time I could see it even close to useful is in the extreme case of trying to stream very high quality media. Perhaps DLNA streaming of HD video from the phone. But honestly, you’re going to have space for about an hour or less of video at bitrates where you would actually see some real world benefit of tese 5Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz differences.

    Pure measurebaiting in my book.

    -Suntan
  4. #24  
    i see where you're coming from, but some people have 5ghz n networks at home because the 2.4ghz range is just too crowded... just saying
  5. #25  
    I am on board with the OP. I also brought this up in another thread about a month ago. I would prefer for the Pre3 to have N 5Ghz. It is not a priority, but it would be nice. I like to keep by router on N only 5Ghz mode. There is less interference and although I get a weaker signal at the far end of my house, the speed is still much higher than using a mixed mode.

    I am not into the spec wars either, but I don't really think this falls into that category. This is a feature that would add functionality for a group of users who have adopted wireless N 5Ghz. I view the spec wars as mostly consisting of people who complain about how the "1.4Ghz CPU is already outdated!!!". Give me a break. You don't need a quad core CPU clocked at 3.2 Ghz with 6GB of RAM and 1TB internal storage to make phone calls and play Angry Birds.

    I'll put it this way - If you want the most up-to-date specs in your PC, how to you accomplish that? You buy all of the most up-to-date components and build it yourself. You can't go to HP, Dell, Apple, Lenovo, or any other computer manufacturer and get the most up-to-date spec'd machine. And guess what...your brand new build will still be outdated before you even receive your components.

    My point is, every device that is announced will be "outdated" by the time it is released. Until we have the ability to build our own mobile devices (which will never happen), that is the way it will be.

    Sorry, I went off on a tangent there.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by fanaticalman2 View Post
    I am not into the spec wars either, but I don't really think this falls into that category. This is a feature that would add functionality for a group of users who have adopted wireless N 5Ghz.
    I would challenge anyone to hand a Pre3 that was locked to a 5Ghz network and a Pre3 that was locked to a 2.4Ghz network, ask them to play with both of them and then ask them which was repeatably faster.

    I just don’t see it being that big of a real world feature for a phone.

    A perk, yes. But not a standout feature that makes the phone.

    -Suntan
  7. #27  
    It's not a bad thing to have N, but it's not necessarily that great either. Even if you get a crappy signal on G, you're still probably going to have more bandwidth available via your wireless connection than your broadband connection (cable/DSL) provides.

    Most cable companies provide 10Mbps or less as their standard service. Wireless G provides up to 54Mbps, stepping down to 48, 36, 24, 18, 12, 9 and 6 as the signal strength weakens. You have to have a pretty lousy connection for it to be at 9 or 6.

    In other words, not too much to be excited about.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  8. #28  
    challenge accepted. come over with the pre3 and i'll show you how the 2.4 ghz network is unusable and how the 5 ghz network works good.
    seriously, not everyone has a good enough 2.4 ghz wlan. where i live there are at least 20 wlan networks on the 2.4 ghz range reachable anytime. add all the microwaves and baby monitors and water pipes and you'll consider setting up a 5 ghz network. and that's when you'll be happy that your phone is compatible.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygewitter View Post
    and that's when you'll be happy that your phone is compatible.
    No, that’s when I would likely pony up $30 to add a wireless access point to the other side of my house. Or probably just switch the phone back to cellular.

    I wouldn’t pick one phone over the other because it supports 5Ghz N.

    -Suntan
  10. #30  
    I'd wager that if I came to your neighborhood and did a WiFi scan, I'd see most everyone on channel 6. There are at least 11 separate channels provided by G. Most users aren't even aware of the separate channels, much less how to change to them.

    Same thing is going to happen with N, when it becomes the de facto standard. Even without phones, microwaves, etc., there's much more channel overlap on N at the higher bandwidths.

    Best bet is to learn how to change the channel!
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Syndil View Post
    I'd wager that if I came to your neighborhood and did a WiFi scan, I'd see most everyone on channel 6. There are at least 11 separate channels provided by G. Most users aren't even aware of the separate channels, much less how to change to them.

    Same thing is going to happen with N, when it becomes the de facto standard. Even without phones, microwaves, etc., there's much more channel overlap on N at the higher bandwidths.

    Best bet is to learn how to change the channel!
    Correction, there are 11 channels for North America on b/g. Of the 11 only 3 channels can be used without overlap 1,6,&11
  12. #32  
    yeah i changed the channel, probably the first thing i did when i moved here. and unfortunately not everyone is on ch 6, and even if they were all on 6 they'd also use 2-10, see it's not that easy as just to change the channel and everything will magically work.
    maybe same thing's going to happen with n, but right now 2.4 is really really crowded and on 5 there are just crickets.
    oh and btw the cable company provides 100mbps here.

    is it really so hard to accept that there are actually people using 5ghz 802.11n who are happy about the fact that their possible future cellphone supports that?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Syndil View Post
    I'd wager that if I came to your neighborhood and did a WiFi scan, I'd see most everyone on channel 6. There are at least 11 separate channels provided by G. Most users aren't even aware of the separate channels, much less how to change to them.
    There are 11 channels, but they overlap. A channel is 22MHz of bandwidth, with 11MHz to each side of a specific frequency. Channels themselves are only 5MHz apart: channel 1 is at 2412MHz, while channel 2 is at 2417, and so forth. Anyone using channel 1 uses bandwidth from 2401MHz to 2423MHz, overlapping channels 2 (2406MHz-2428MHz), 3 (2411MHz-2432MHz), 4 (2416MHz-2438MHz) and 5 (2421MHz-2443MHz). Anyone on channel 2, 3, 4, or 5 will at least occasionally collide with traffic on channel 1, interfering with the traffic (and vice versa). Channel 6 picks up at 2426MHz, thus clear of channel 1 and not interfering.

    While 802.11g/n use 20MHz of bandwidth (unless .11n is in double-width mode, which is rare for most purposes), the practical effect is the same in the US, with only three discrete channels possible, though it allows 1-5-9 as a combination.

    Incidentally, I do check my neighbors' APs on a fairly regular basis. They're all over the place, with about half on 6, a third on 11, and a few on 1, with a couple of them making life difficult on the upper range by sitting on channel 9.

    Same thing is going to happen with N, when it becomes the de facto standard. Even without phones, microwaves, etc., there's much more channel overlap on N at the higher bandwidths.
    802.11n doesn't use double-width channels in the presence of legacy devices. See next paragraph for explanation. However, .11n does a much better job of transmitting using improved spectrum management, a wider symbol range, and MIMO to improve throughput, minimize retransmits, and generally play nicer with others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclevanya View Post
    Some wireless N devices also use wide spectrum on 2.4ghz which can interfere with other 2.4ghz devices by using a double wide channel. Some wireless N devices can use both 2.4ghz and 5ghz at the same time.
    802.11n requires that any .11n device that wants to use a double-wide channel (44MHz for those interested in the technical aspect) must check to see if the additional spectrum is in use by legacy devices. If it is, the device is prohibited from using the additional bandwidth. In practical terms, this means that as most .11n systems are b/g/n and thus remain in the 2.4GHz range, they almost never use the double-wide mechanism because there's almost always a legacy device nearby.

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkiBluDawg View Post
    802.11g is plenty..
    My wifi network is still on 802.11g and I am pretty happy to stay on it as the main bottleneck is my isp maxxing at 30mbps.
    You're never going to get your max bandwidth on .11g. The maximum theoretical connection rate is 54Mbps, but that is almost never achieved. Signal issues will usually knock it down to the upper 30s, and you're competing for transmission slots with other devices and retransmitting when there's a conflict (802.11 used CDMA) or because a frame doesn't pass its checksum. On top of that, 802.11 adds an additional header to the frame, so you have the 802.11 header, the Ethernet header, the IP header, and the TCP or UDP header before you get to your payload. The wireless header also uses bandwidth.

    Short version: Because of the way wireless works, you will under the best conditions generally get no more than 50% of the wireless connection rate. If that is in the 30s, you're getting 15-18Mbps.

    802.11n is good but I am skipping it for 802.11ac with 1Gbps/gigabit speeds.
    You're going to be waiting a long time. I don't expect to see consumer devices running even draft formats until late 2012 or early 2013, and that's optimistic given how long it took .11n to be approved. Companies don't want to fall into the .11n incompatibility trap again if the standard undergoes major shifts as happened with .11n.
    If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by spork141 View Post
    I think the Pre3 has everything it needs to be a fantastic device..some people knock it but I think it's going to be a real winner...at least with tech people

    just hope it's not to big
    I disagree. I think it needs to have it's USB and 3.5 jack replaced with the magnetic adapter that the Veer is getting.
  15.    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Suntan View Post
    Which is it guys? Do specs-for-spec-sake matter or don’t they?

    Everyone always complains that the Android guys only care about specs and that WebOS is more than that. Yet I would have to say that geeking out over 5Ghz support on a smartphone is the epitome of spec-measuring.

    Also, imo 5Ghz “N” is a *very* low priority on a phone. The only time I could see it even close to useful is in the extreme case of trying to stream very high quality media. Perhaps DLNA streaming of HD video from the phone. But honestly, you’re going to have space for about an hour or less of video at bitrates where you would actually see some real world benefit of tese 5Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz differences.

    Pure measurebaiting in my book.

    -Suntan
    Suntain...im the OP....im a little lost by your comments....I can understand why members jump on other negative members... like all the guys complaining about the Pre3 being DOA based on specs.... something i totally don't agree with.....but all im saying is that im excited about a feature....a feature that i stated in the posting title was a minor feature.

    So why am i a "measurebaiter in your book"..I have a 5.0GHZ network at home....and none of my mobile phones has ever been on it....so im excited....nothing more to see here...not trying to start a debate.

    Are you like the HP/Palm diva? What would make you happy?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Suntan View Post
    I would challenge anyone to hand a Pre3 that was locked to a 5Ghz network and a Pre3 that was locked to a 2.4Ghz network, ask them to play with both of them and then ask them which was repeatably faster.

    I just don’t see it being that big of a real world feature for a phone.

    A perk, yes. But not a standout feature that makes the phone.

    -Suntan

    Its not a matter of whether the 5Ghz Pre3 would run faster or not, it's a matter of versatility. I would challenge anyone to hold a Pre3 that only has wireless N 2.4Ghz capability and try to connect to a wireless N 5Ghz only network.

    The point is that wireless N 5Ghz wouldn't make the Pre3 faster, stronger, or more marketable, but it would make it a more versatile device. Wireless N 5Ghz isn't exactly new technology. Consumer wireless N 5Ghz routers started being released in 2009. It is also an inexpensive technology. There really isn't any reason to leave the functionality out. This bugs me just as much with the Playstation 3. When the PS3 Slim came out...they should have included wireless N 5Ghz. (The PS3 actually doesn't even have wireless N, but wireless G adapters are capable of connecting to N networks at 2.4Ghz at 54Mbps).

    This minor missing feature won't keep me away from the Pre3, I just feel as if electronics designers should at least be as nerdy as me. And if I had designed a high-end mobile device anytime after Jan 1st 2010, I would include wireless N 5Ghz.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by fanaticalman2 View Post
    Its not a matter of whether the 5Ghz Pre3 would run faster or not, it's a matter of versatility. I would challenge anyone to hold a Pre3 that only has wireless N 2.4Ghz capability and try to connect to a wireless N 5Ghz only network.

    The point is that wireless N 5Ghz wouldn't make the Pre3 faster, stronger, or more marketable, but it would make it a more versatile device. Wireless N 5Ghz isn't exactly new technology. Consumer wireless N 5Ghz routers started being released in 2009. It is also an inexpensive technology. There really isn't any reason to leave the functionality out. This bugs me just as much with the Playstation 3. When the PS3 Slim came out...they should have included wireless N 5Ghz. (The PS3 actually doesn't even have wireless N, but wireless G adapters are capable of connecting to N networks at 2.4Ghz at 54Mbps).

    This minor missing feature won't keep me away from the Pre3, I just feel as if electronics designers should at least be as nerdy as me. And if I had designed a high-end mobile device anytime after Jan 1st 2010, I would include wireless N 5Ghz.
    Fanaticalman, the Pre 3 DOES support N 5.0ghz....thats the part of the pre3 i am excited about....not sure if I read your right
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by fanaticalman2 View Post
    Consumer wireless N 5Ghz routers started being released in 2009. It is also an inexpensive technology. There really isn't any reason to leave the functionality out.
    Adding in 5GHz capabilities adds more complexity than you realize. Devices that ship with 5GHz capabilities over the last couple of years have had to support .11a, .11n, and .11h, the latter of which requires power modulation and spectrum steering when radar or satellite signals are detected. These additional features require more code, more conformance testing (even before the testing lab gets it) and an additional antenna. It's a good thing to see present, but it's not a Lego snap-in module.

    To any pedants reading: I know that 802.11h was rolled up into the 2007 base standard revision. It's still a useful method of referring to the technology, which does not have to be implemented if you're not using the 5GHz band.
    If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.
  19. #39  
    To all of this, let me reiterate my original sentiment towards the inclusion of wireless N on the Pre 3:

    Meh.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by spork141 View Post
    Suntain...im the OP....im a little lost by your comments....
    I explained my reasoning back a few posts, but I’ll put it a different way here.

    IMO, a phone doesn’t really need much in the way of a network connection. 4 to 9Mbps is solid to overkill for phone web surfing. Most people in the country can’t even get that to their wired computers in their home. Yeah, yeah all the proud, badge wearing nerds will retort with how they get this and this on their speedtests, etc. But, this talk of people wanting 100Mbps… …to their phone? Come on.

    In my experience 10Mbps is still easily capable even on wifi LANs that were heavily polluted. I just don’t see this being some magic bullet that makes a phone go from being unusable to magical in any given scenario. I could be wrong, maybe there are some locations where this perfect storm of 2.4Ghz saturation has made it a completely unusable morass, I just have never experienced it in a lot of business travel to places that are traditionally quite congested.

    If you’re excited about it because you got a new router and you’re just busting to use those 5Ghz waves floating about in your house, that’s great. Maybe it will be noticeable that first time you set up to transfer all your MP3s over to the phone via “Wifi Media Sync.” But I don’t see this as anything of importance in general usage for the average person looking to buy a phone. Or to put it into more selfish terms, I don’t see this as a feature that will attract significant market share to WebOS thus increasing the chances of getting more support from developers, etc.

    If I’m coming off as overly negative, I apologize. It just gets tiring to read post after post about people constantly beating the drum to the tune that “specs don’t matter when you're talking about WebOS” only to hear people praising HP when they manage to have a better spec than most other phones in a category that doesn’t matter.

    -Suntan
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions