Core 2 Duo has 802.11n Wireless Card SCOOP

[nagromme]

It may not be sneakiness, simply that N is not yet ready for prime time.

It may well be that new AirPort base station(s) will come out with N hardware in them... but that, just like the iMac, N functionality will be neither enabled nor marketed. Yet.

i'm getting visions of macrumors members driving past a field of cows, pointing and saying to themselves that the sight of so many cows in that particular field must mean MacBook updates tomorrow.

Do you have a picture of these crows or are you just messing with us? Are they black like the current gen crows? Were they flying or just "sitting there"? I REALLY hope you are serious because that would very cool.

 

[Teddy's]

What is that an angel on the picture? no, it is a HUGE flash flare!
Well, I think the show must continue.
The progress shall continue
and... meh and everything else.

 

[Fearless Leader]

apple should just come on and make their own standard. 802.11m. have it run at 2 gigibits/sec and a 2000ft radius...

 

[Peel]

Do you have a picture of these crows or are you just messing with us? Are they black like the current gen crows? Were they flying or just "sitting there"? I REALLY hope you are serious because that would very cool.

nagromme, it's cows, not crows. Cows means MacBooks. If it were crows, it would mean true video iPods.

 

[nagromme]

nagromme, it's cows, not crows. Cows means MacBooks. If it were crows, it would mean true video iPods.

COWS! You are onto something! Cows CANNOT fly! This is going to be one heck of a Tuesday!

 

[Fearless Leader]

COWS! You are onto something! Cows CANNOT fly! This is going to be one heck of a Tuesday!

since the imacs came out on a wed. is wed. the new tues?

 

[whenpaulsparks]

So, if you remember iTV from September, it's now called MacTube.

It has a hardrive and a special intel chip capable of decoding HDTV on the fly. We get this from your mac to the MacTube using the latest wireless technology. It's called 802.11n and it's already in all of our latest intel macs.
We'll be making a software/firmware update available immediately that allows streaming of high bandwidth HD content from your Mac to your MacTube.

So thats MacTube, we hope you like it.

Oh and one more thing, the all new iPod. blah blah blah.

i'm too lazy to read through all the comments, so don't flame me if someone has already said this...

but since apple is marketing the iTV towards flat-panel HDTVs (which they mentioned quite a bit in the keynote), why would they have the word "Tube" in the title? sounds archaic, instantly dates the device.

 

[paradillon]

Product Chain (Soup to Nuts)

iTunes movie content > Mac > 802.11n > iTV > Front Row on Sweet Apple Theater Display!

Might not need the Mac in the above chain but don't want that to distract, I just want apple to come out with the large panel home theater displays. sorry for being somewhat off topic,

They have future proofed with the early adoption of the n standard.

 

[dornoforpyros]

just from my own consumer standpoint, am I the only one confused by wifi 802.11/n/a/g/b ?? And aren't we already past the point we're wireless protocols have passed the speed of most broad band connections? I understand that having faster internal network speeds for streaming video/audio is needed. I just personally find all these similarly named speeds to be confusing.

 

[nagromme]

i'm too lazy to read through all the comments, so don't flame me if someone has already said this...

but since apple is marketing the iTV towards flat-panel HDTVs (which they mentioned quite a bit in the keynote), why would they have the word "Tube" in the title? sounds archaic, instantly dates the device.

Because the other half of "Boob Tube" did not lend itself to product naming.

just from my own consumer standpoint, am I the only one confused by wifi 802.11/n/a/g/b ?? And aren't we already past the point we're wireless protocols have passed the speed of most broad band connections? I understand that having faster internal network speeds for streaming video/audio is needed. I just personally find all these similarly named speeds to be confusing.

Brought to you by the same marketing geniuses as H.264 and 10/100/1000baseT.

 

[Eidorian]

just from my own consumer standpoint, am I the only one confused by wifi 802.11/n/a/g/b ?? And aren't we already past the point we're wireless protocols have passed the speed of most broad band connections? I understand that having faster internal network speeds for streaming video/audio is needed. I just personally find all these similarly named speeds to be confusing.

2 MB/s file transfers via wireless or I can string a wire and get 11 MB/s. Yeah, I want more throughput via wireless. Then again I want to get a Gigabit switch.

 

[dornoforpyros]

2 MB/s file transfers via wireless or I can string a wire and get 11 MB/s. Yeah, I want more throughput via wireless. Then again I want to get a Gigabit switch.

yeah but do you have an 11mb/s connection from your ISP just yet? I admit upfront that I may be completely wrong, I was just under the impression that current wifi speeds between your comp & the access point were/is faster than the connection provide by ISP via your dsl/cable modem.

Once agian, I admit I may have my 'facts' all wrong.

 

[Eidorian]

yeah but do you have an 11mb/s connection from their ISP just yet? I admit upfront that I may be completely wrong, I was just under the impression that current wifi speeds between your comp & the access point were/is faster than the connection provide by ISP via your dsl/cable modem.

Once agian, I admit I may have my 'facts' all wrong.

6 Mb/s from my ISP.

Note: Make sure YOU got your bits and bytes right.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

just from my own consumer standpoint, am I the only one confused by wifi 802.11/n/a/g/b ?? And aren't we already past the point we're wireless protocols have passed the speed of most broad band connections? I understand that having faster internal network speeds for streaming video/audio is needed. I just personally find all these similarly named speeds to be confusing.

I'm satisfied with current speeds, although I don't know whether or not the wireless speeds have surpassed most broadband connections. However, isn't n supposed to give more range? If it does, I'll be happy; range is extremely important for me, since my dorm is very very near the dining commons. There is wifi in the dining commons, and I just know that I'm almost in range. (Using campus wifi doesn't contribute to my weekly bandwidth limits so.. yay) If I just had a little more wireless reach, I can waste even more of my life on youtube.

 

[dornoforpyros]

Note: Make sure YOU got your bits and bytes right.

toche' (and please, don't quote that silly *i'm a mac* commercial, I've been wrong enough for one night ).

I still wish they could come up with some a better naming/marketing scheme for wifi protocol. I mean even WiFi 1/2/3 or A/B/C would be easier to follow. But the current system of picking letters out of thin air is confusing.

 

[iMikeT]

I think that this can be explained as a simple glitch in that poor excuse of an operating system known as Windoze...

 

[EricNau]

What are the hardware differences between this Broadcom card and the Atheros 802.11g card in older Macs? Is it possible that all these cards could be upgraded to 802.11n?

Brought to you by the same marketing geniuses as H.264 and 10/100/1000baseT.

Those names a perfectly logical compared to intel's naming scheme...

Pentium 4, Pentium 4 HT, Pentium M, Centrino, Celeron, Celeron M, Celeron D, Pentium D, Xeon, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, etc. etc.

It makes my head spin once you try and break it down even further.

 

[Eidorian]

toche' (and please, don't quote that silly *i'm a mac* commercial, I've been wrong enough for one night ).

I still wish they could come up with some a better naming/marketing scheme for wifi protocol. I mean even WiFi 1/2/3 or A/B/C would be easier to follow. But the current system of picking letters out of thin air is confusing.

"touché" and agree with the crazy naming system of IEEE 802.11 protocols.

 

[EricNau]

I still wish they could come up with some a better naming/marketing scheme for wifi protocol. I mean even WiFi 1/2/3 or A/B/C would be easier to follow. But the current system of picking letters out of thin air is confusing.

Those numbers to mean something (they aren't really "picked out of thin air")...

IEEE - "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" - The world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology related to electricity.

IEEE 802.11 - The group WiFi standards set by IEEE

From there each letter just represents a certain standard. Just pretend "IEEE 802.11" translates to "WiFi," and then you have the naming scheme you requested.

 

[dornoforpyros]

Those numbers to mean something (they aren't really "picked out of thin air")...

IEEE - "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" - The world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology related to electricity.

IEEE 802.11 - The group WiFi standards set by IEEE

From there each letter just represents a certain standard. Just pretend "IEEE 802.11" translates to "WiFi," and then you have the naming scheme you requested.

uhh ok, but as a consumer, do I care about the "institute of electrical electronic engineers" ? And were was 802.11c/d/e/f/h/i/j/k/l/m ??


I'm just going from the USB example...hmm ok USB 2 is faster than USB 1, make sense, it's simple and clean. When/if USB 3 is released, wow, how simple. Why stick all these numbers & letters together and skip certain ones? I realize it's probably based on what the engineers worked on in the lap with the industry, but really, the engineers should learn to work with the consumers, not the other way around.

Just based on my "very" minor marketing exposure on the job it's been my experience that the simpler the better. Yes, please dumb it down for me, as I'd rather know it "just works" (sound familiar?) than have to figure out which string of similarly named letters and numbers matches with my hardware.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

uhh ok, but as a consumer, do I care about the "institute of electrical electronic engineers" ? And were was 802.11c/d/e/f/h/i/j/k/l/m ??

yep, there's 802.11/a/b/c/d/e/f/g/etc. all the way to 802.11y, minus 802.11l/o/q/x. Although, admittedly, I didn't know this until I wiki'd it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

 

[coal]

This is definitely a good thing, if true, and perfectly logical when viewed from the perspective of streaming video et cetera.

My question is who could possibly vote this sort of thing as being a negative? As of this post, 5 have not only been disinterested in this rumor/news item, they have been so disgusted as to choose the "negative" button when voting. I can see one or two Mac users typsy from excitement erroneously hitting the wrong choice in their Jobs-joy fueled haste, but five of them? No way. I don't believe that for a second. I demand that you show yourselves! Immediately!

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

This is definitely a good thing, if true, and perfectly logical when viewed from the perspective of streaming video et cetera.

My question is who could possibly vote this sort of thing as being a negative? As of this post, 5 have not only been disinterested in this rumor/news item, they have been so disgusted as to choose the "negative" button when voting. I can see one or two Mac users typsy from excitement erroneously hitting the wrong choice in their Jobs-joy fueled haste, but five of them? No way. I don't believe that for a second. I demand that you show yourselves! Immediately!

I have just rated it negative. Just to vex you.

 

[dornoforpyros]

yep, there's 802.11/a/b/c/d/e/f/g/etc. all the way to 802.11y, minus 802.11l/o/q/x. Although, admittedly, I didn't know this until I wiki'd it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

ok, engineers, I'm sorry, but you are NOT to be involved in the marketing/naming of your products anymore. I appreciate your hard work and contributions to technology, but really, we don't refer to asprin as acetylsalicylic acid or caffeine as 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione (copied & pasted from wiki as well). Not everyone is as smart as you, please let the evil marketing people dumb down your naming schemes for the rest of us

Ok, I feel like I'm rambling now, I still wish wifi protocols were easier to decode, but it's time for bed.

 

[Peace]

uhh ok, but as a consumer, do I care about the "institute of electrical electronic engineers" ? And were was 802.11c/d/e/f/h/i/j/k/l/m ??


I'm just going from the USB example...hmm ok USB 2 is faster than USB 1, make sense, it's simple and clean. When/if USB 3 is released, wow, how simple. Why stick all these numbers & letters together and skip certain ones? I realize it's probably based on what the engineers worked on in the lap with the industry, but really, the engineers should learn to work with the consumers, not the other way around.

Just based on my "very" minor marketing exposure on the job it's been my experience that the simpler the better. Yes, please dumb it down for me, as I'd rather know it "just works" (sound familiar?) than have to figure out which string of similarly named letters and numbers matches with my hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11n

Scroll down to Standards.
That explains a-y of 802.11