Wireless G in a Pocket PC?

[Pat Logsdon]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.brighthand.com/article/Atheros_Shipping_Single-Chip_802.11g_Solution' target='_blank'>http://www.brighthand.com/article/A...02.11g_Solution</a><br /><br /></div>Brighthand reports that "Atheros Communications, a developer of advanced wireless LAN (WLAN) chipsets, has announced it is now shipping in volume the world's first complete IEEE 802.11g solution that fits on a single chip. The Atheros AR5005G brings an unprecedented level of integration, performance, power savings, and cost reduction to the rapidly growing 802.11g market. It is suited for a wide range of wireless products, including handhelds. No currently available handheld includes built-in 802.11g.<br /><br />The Atheros AR5005G features new signal processing technology that extends the battery life of mobile devices by dynamically adjusting power consumption in response to system and network activity. This technique delivers up to 98 percent lower power consumption than multi-chip WLAN solutions on the market today."<br /><br /> <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/logsdon_20040427_atheros.jpg" /> <br /><br />802.11g is a WiFi standard that supports bandwidth up to 54 Mbps. All Pocket PC WiFi solutions use the slower 802.11b standard, which supports up to 11 Mbps. The low power requirements and small footprint of this new chip could make it an attractive option for Pocket PC OEMs. In fact, a little digging on Atheros' site turned up their client list, which includes both Wistron (OEM for the Dell Axim) and Asus. What do you think? Would Wireless G be a welcome addition to your next Pocket PC, or are you getting along just fine with good old Wireless B? :wink:

[whydidnt]

I'd like it just so I didn't have to run my router in "mixed mode" which causes all my current "g" devices to run slower. Hopefully it wouldn't use anymore power. I think as far as actual use Internet Explorer is slower in rendering pages than what "b" connection can deliver anyway, though.

[nosmohtac]

I'd like it just so I didn't have to run my router in "mixed mode" which causes all my current "g" devices to run slower. Hopefully it wouldn't use anymore power. I think as far as actual use Internet Explorer is slower in rendering pages than what "b" connection can deliver anyway, though.

I agree. I would like to have it, simply for the possibility of better battery life.

[beq]

You mean complete with Atheros's 108Mbps non-spec channel bonding thingie? :)

I'm waiting for single-chip a/g for PPC teehee... In fact though I'm shopping for a new firewall router and PC Mag's latest wireless router roundup's been a help...

[Pat Logsdon]

You mean complete with Atheros's 108Mbps non-spec channel bonding thingie? :)
Fortunately, their "SuperG" technology is on a separate chip. This one is spec. :)

[jt3]

Whydidnt pretty much summed it up for me. PocketIE doesn't even come CLOSE to utilizing the 11Mb/s bandwidth of 802.11b, much less the 54Mb/s of 802.11g (or the 108Mb/s of the proprietary "turbo" modes of 802.11g). Until PIE does a better job of utilizing bandwidth, I don't see much use for the higher wireless speeds.

However, eventually, there will come a day when hotspots will stop offering "Mixed Mode" for their 802.11g networks, forcing the 802.11b clients to upgrade. Granted, that won't happen for quite a while... quite a long while, actually... but it will happen eventually. Not only that, but there are other applications, such as ftp, that will benefit from the increased bandwidth. Hopefully, PIE will improve speedwise in the future (but, with M$, you never know), so someday I will want the increased speed on my PPC, but not today.

Right now, my wireless network access point consists of a dual-mode "a/b" router, mainly because there was no "a/b/g" or "a/g" router when I got it (5GHz is important to me, to eliminate interference from microwaves and cordless phones, so "a" was a must). Eventually, I'd like to upgrade my router to an "a/b/g" model, but with "a" routers disappearing from most retailers, the demand is such that the prices on these things aren't likely to go down anytime soon, and I'm not spending another $400-500 just to add "g" to my home network.

Bottom line... For the moment, I couldn't care less about having 802.11g on my home wlan at all, much less on my PPC, but the day will come... oh yes, the day will come.

[Jonathon Watkins]

....but the day will come... oh yes, the day will come.

Don't we know about that one JT3! :wink:

It always seems odd that larger capacity, faster, later generation devices often use less power than their smaller sized, slower, older parent devices. Still, I'm not complaining! :lol:

I look forward to the day when this will be usefull for the PPC, i.e. there will be apps that can use this kind of bandwidth. I have no idea what they will be, but I'm sure I will want one when it comes out. :mrgreen:

[cmchavez]

I look forward to the day when this will be usefull for the PPC, i.e. there will be apps that can use this kind of bandwidth. I have no idea what they will be, but I'm sure I will want one when it comes out. :mrgreen:

I want it now, even though I don't have a real use for it yet. It's just like buying a house or a new computer; you buy more than you need because you just know you will grow into it someday... :)

[bridgecrosser]

I didn't realise that my PPC wouldn't work with "g" when I bought the system. Boy, do I welcome this technology. The sooner the better!

[dangerwit]

Don't forget, with "G" wireless, the range decreases. From what I recall, the Mbps also drop off much more quickly the farther you get from the access point. I like the "b" and I'll keep the range.

*Phil

[Howard2k]

With 802.11a the range decreases based on an equal power output. I've seen no documentation that the same applies to b. It's the same frequency so with the same power output why would it travel a lesser distance?

I could be wrong, but I don't think you're correct. A - yes. G - I don't think so.

The PPC will work with G as long as the G network is in mixed mode.

[dangerwit]

Couldn't tell ya. :) I'm going off of what the Cisco certifiers told us, so I perhaps shouldn't open my mouth (or keyboard?) unless I can back it up. :)

*Phil

[jt3]

Actually, the "b" and "g" standards both have the same maximum effective range (typically, about 100 meters, depending on conditions), whereas the "a" standard has about half (typically about 50 meters, again, depending on conditions).

The 5GHz frequency used in "a" networks has a MUCH harder time getting through building walls, so in a home or office environment, the range can be greatly reduced, but it's a "clean" frequency, whereas the 2.4GHz of "b" and "g" networks is the same as all microwave ovens, and most modern cordless phones, so they are much more likely to have "dropped" signals resulting from interference.

[Falstaff]

I'd love to have 802.11g on my PDA, maybe not so much for simple web browsing in PIE, but using a 3rd party web browser like Thunderhawk, I could see use there. Also, I can see use in using network files and downloading images/large documents in e-mails, streaming video from websites, etc. I think there can never be enough speed....

For more info on a/b/g, there is a pretty good comparison on the Linksys site. (http://www.linksys.com/edu/wirelessstandards.asp) It is a year or two old, but the information is still good.

[beq]

I remember being gung-ho on .a just because of lesser band interference, but its niche only in enterprise (more nonoverlapping channels for greater density) and eventually apparent range limitation have changed my mind. Well, I still get a/g combo, but expecting more WiFi usage in 2.4GHz spectrum.

So since then I've swapped my strategy to look for a full-featured multi-line/multi-handset 5GHz cordless phone system (accepting their inherent need for bigger power output and thus heavier batteries). The thing is, I can't find any! And it's been over a year, kinda ridiculous that there's no multi-line 5GHz cordless system on the market. I remember pestering all vendors before (Hello Direct, etc), nada... Starting to think it might be a technological hurdle (like how early designs were hybrid 2.4/5GHz)?