| ▲ | KingMachiavelli 2 hours ago | |
I'd like to understand why the WiFi spec developed so slowly from G to N and finally to AC but now it's seems like a new version is released every other year yet many of the features/extensions are poorly implemented or have nearly 0 real world improvement. | ||
| ▲ | dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Does any of it have to do with the spectrum becoming available? After 2.4GHz and 5GHz, I have no idea what else the latest/future gens of WiFi are using. As some tech like 2G is no longer in operation, that spectrum was opened up. There are other frequencies that have become available where operating the older equipment that used to operate there is a big no-no now. There was a frequency range used by old wireless microphone systems that are banned at locations. Just taking a swing at it, but I don't play that sport so probably a big whiff | ||
| ▲ | niobe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
I would agree with that. G to N was perhaps the most critical move in Wi-Fi because it included MIMO. You can think of this as unwanted signal echoes and reflections being switched from a liability to a benefit. Heck, I _still_ run WiFi-4 networks and they perform very well. WiFi-5 was an incremental upgrade, with many experimental features that barely used in practice. 802.11 is in general a vast swag of cool tricks, and when enough ideas are thrown at a wall, many do end up sticking, but for the most part the benefits are cumulative. MIMO being one major exception. | ||
| ▲ | crims0n 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Surely some of that was need. When G was dominant from around 2004-2009 the theoretical maximum was 54mbps… most people were still on DSL or cable at the time, often capping out way below that. | ||
| ▲ | Avamander an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
It's all very proprietary and the tooling is ass, there's a lot of wasted effort creating and testing out the same stuff. Bluetooth is just as horrible for the same reasons. | ||