Belkin 802.11n Wireless Router - Four Times Current Wireless Speeds

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/archives/000548.php' target='_blank'>http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/archives/000548.php</a><br /><br /></div>"<i>It appears that Belkin will be one of the first manufactures to come out with a Pre-N wireless router based on the 802.11n specification under development by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). 802.11n, for those unfamiliar, is a new wireless specification that promises data throughput speeds 4 times faster (approx. 100 – 200Mbps) than typical 802.11a/g gear (Belkin claims that estimate is conservative – their product has been tested reaching speeds up to 6 times faster), and will have a transmission range that can span several floors in an office building (Belkin's Pre-N spanned 16 floors in informal testing). In addition, Intel and the IEEE are pushing for next-generation 802.11n devices to be backwards compatible with legacy 802.11a/g systems, which is good news for people who already made an investment in networking gear for their home or office.</i>"<br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/belkin_pre_n_router.jpg" /><br /> <br />We shall see if the "n" specification takes off as quickly as g did, but without backwards compatibility, it is not going anywhere. I'm not too sure about the 3 antennas on the demo unit. Why can't they just put them internally? It would look so much better.

[groan]

This is good for me, I want to do a wireless setup in my new home, and want the best i can get (especially if i will be doing gaming).

I hope this comes out fast, i am moving next week!
lol

[klinux]

How will this affect my tumor? :)

[Jason Dunn]

How will this affect my tumor? :)

Massive radiation SHRINKS tumors of course, so it will help! ;-)

[sbrown23]

This 802.11n spec sounds tight and if Intel and the IEEE are pushing for backwards compatibility, I am sure they will get it. Look how far 802.11a went without backwards compatibility... :roll:

The range is most impressive, as is the speed. I can see utilizing this in my house with my TiVo, when they release the TiVoToGo service that officially allows burning of TiVo programs to DVD. The extra range and speed should rock for that purpose.

[Jason Dunn]

Why can't they just put them internally? It would look so much better.

Putting antenna's internal means less signal, doesn't it? That's what I've heard people say when it comes to mobile phones, so I don't imagine this is any different.

[arebelspy]

once the cable line to my HOUSE is faster than the wireless speed might matter.. for now? g/n won't matter much (other than transferring files between computers, yeah)..

-arebelspy

[that_kid]

Why can't they just put them internally? It would look so much better.

Putting antenna's internal means less signal, doesn't it? That's what I've heard people say when it comes to mobile phones, so I don't imagine this is any different.

Yup that's correct. The absortion rate of the RF energy is high enough with just air, adding a layer of plastic that's coated with metallic particles will make it next to useless.

[dean_shan]

Why can't they just put them internally? It would look so much better.

Then grab an Apple AirPort. I think external antennas look better IMHO.

[James Fee]

Putting antenna's internal means less signal, doesn't it? That's what I've heard people say when it comes to mobile phones, so I don't imagine this is any different.
But how much less? I don't have any trouble with my signal at my house, even in the backyard with my Airport. Sure in industrial settings the extra range would be important, but if we can send rovers to mars, why can't we get internal antennas?

[James Fee]

[quote=Jason Dunn]Yup that's correct. The absortion rate of the RF energy is high enough with just air, adding a layer of plastic that's coated with metallic particles will make it next to useless.
Hmm, so Apple is able to conquer physics? ;)

[Suhit Gupta]

Hmm, did you notice that they list the range at up to 16 floors. That to me firstly sounds like a very vague range. Secondly, given the fairly limited range of 802.11g and even more limited 802.11a, I find it very strange that 802.11n will have that kind of range.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

...given the fairly limited range of 802.11g and even more limited 802.11a, I find it very strange that 802.11n will have that kind of range.

Duuuuude....like, 'n' is way further in the alphabet than a, b, or g, so it's, like, going to have waaaaaaaaaay better range. :lol:

[OSUKid7]

...given the fairly limited range of 802.11g and even more limited 802.11a, I find it very strange that 802.11n will have that kind of range.

Duuuuude....like, 'n' is way further in the alphabet than a, b, or g, so it's, like, going to have waaaaaaaaaay better range. :lol:Radical!!! Think what 802.11z would be. 100Gbps from here to the moon. :rock on dude!: Rock on! :lol:

[ctmagnus]

But you'll need line-of-sight :P

[Suhit Gupta]

Bunch o' damn comedians. :lol: I was trying to be serious there.

Going with ctmagnus' theory, clearly they must have drilled a hole through those 16 floors. ;-)

Suhit

[that_kid]

Hmm, so Apple is able to conquer physics? ;)

Lol they wish they could, they just don't use metalic shielding in the cover. An external antenna will always be better than an internal one.

[James Fee]

Lol they wish they could, they just don't use metalic shielding in the cover. An external antenna will always be better than an internal one.
But do 90% of consumers need to fight through 16 floors? The Airport looks good no matter where you put it. Of course you pay extra for the Apple logo (which is why I bought a Linksys 802.11g AP, not the Airport version), but why can't others do the same?

[OSUKid7]

Lol they wish they could, they just don't use metalic shielding in the cover. An external antenna will always be better than an internal one.
But do 90% of consumers need to fight through 16 floors? The Airport looks good no matter where you put it. Of course you pay extra for the Apple logo (which is why I bought a Linksys 802.11g AP, not the Airport version), but why can't others do the same?No consumer AP goes 16 floors at this time. That's why this 802.11n is so...well, cool. :D Anyway, if companies all went for internal antennas, they'd get countless complaints that their products don't have a large enough range. Believe me, I could care less what an AP looks like. I go for top speed, far range, a reliable product, and a good price. If all you care about is how pretty it looks, go with Apple. :wink:

[that_kid]

But do 90% of consumers need to fight through 16 floors? The Airport looks good no matter where you put it. Of course you pay extra for the Apple logo (which is why I bought a Linksys 802.11g AP, not the Airport version), but why can't others do the same?

Most consumers are not trying to go through 16 floors, they're just trying to make it through 1 or 2. In the end it all comes down to the placement of the AP. An ap with no external antenna that's mounted in the attic will out perform an ap with external antennas that is on the first floor. If you put that same ap in the attic it will out perform the one without the external antenna. Then again with the ap in the attic who cares what it looks like :wink:

[James Fee]

I go for top speed, far range, a reliable product, and a good price. If all you care about is how pretty it looks, go with Apple. :wink:
Hmm, what part of an Airport isn't "top speed", "far range", "reliable product"? Sure it costs more, but I can't imagine that Netgear/Linksys/Dlink couldn't create a similar cheaper solution. I have an "industrial" 3Com AP here at work that has the range we need in our building, but at home is this really needed? I say no. APs are no longer just for geeks and smaller better looking APs are going to be needed to move them into living rooms and kitchens.

[James Fee]

Most consumers are not trying to go through 16 floors, they're just trying to make it through 1 or 2. In the end it all comes down to the placement of the AP. An ap with no external antenna that's mounted in the attic will out perform an ap with external antennas that is on the first floor. If you put that same ap in the attic it will out perform the one without the external antenna. Then again with the ap in the attic who cares what it looks like :wink:
Right, but as I've said, I can't believe there isn't more choice here. Why is Apple the only one who thinks internal antennas are good enough?

[ctmagnus]

Why is Apple the only one who thinks internal antennas are good enough?

Buffalo (http://www.buffalo-technology.com/webcontent/products/wireless/), Proxim/ORiNOCO (http://www.proxim.com/products/wifi/ap/).

[James Fee]

Buffalo (http://www.buffalo-technology.com/webcontent/products/wireless/), Proxim/ORiNOCO (http://www.proxim.com/products/wifi/ap/).Cool, two companies get my point. 8)

Wish I knew then before buying the Linksys AP, but live and learn.

[dean_shan]

Just wondering James, where do you keep your AP? Is it out in the open where everyone sees it?

[James Fee]

Just wondering James, where do you keep your AP? Is it out in the open where everyone sees it?Its in my family room. I like it there because it keeps it from "leaking" into neighbors yards and covers my pool. Sure I could stick it behind a TV or couch, but why? My new Linksys AP is up there too now for 802.11g support, but its pretty ugly compared to the clean lines of the Airport. I would have gotten the Airport Extreme, but its just too expensive. :cry: