|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
05:40 EST/10:40 GMT | News Source:
CNET |
Posted By: Alex Harris |
Microsoft said Monday that it isn't among those to fully back new wireless wunderkind 802.11a.
The software giant hasn't issued an important Windows system certification for any modems that use just 802.11a, a new generation of wireless network, Microsoft said Monday. Wireless networks using 802.11a operate up to five times as fast as networks based on an older standard, 802.11b. There are between 15 million and 30 million 802.11b networks in homes and offices worldwide.
In avoiding the newer standard, Microsoft has repeated the same concern that has dogged the equipment based on 802.11a ever since the standard was approved in 1999: The 802.11a standard isn't compatible with 802.11b networks, which means an 802.11a modem card will not work with any wireless networks using 802.11b.
To ensure compatibility with the older wireless networks, Microsoft is instead granting certification to equipment that uses both the 802.11a and 802.11b standards on one device, according to Microsoft. Such "dual mode" modems and access points are beginning to settle into the United States market after nearly two years in development.
|
|
#1 By
2960 (156.80.64.164)
at
6/11/2002 12:07:41 PM
|
It will be interesting to see what effect Microsoft's decision has on the 802.11a market. Could it kill it off?
TL
|
#2 By
2459 (66.25.124.8)
at
6/11/2002 12:28:06 PM
|
All they have to do is retain compatability with the "b" standard. This won't kill the "a" market, and will allow those that have already invested in "b" to use "a" equipment without having to switch out all of their "b" equipment simultaneously. Hopefully, they will also retain compatability when "g" (and other) equipment ships if there is no overwhelming reason not to.
|
#3 By
3339 (65.198.47.10)
at
6/11/2002 1:02:51 PM
|
enforcer, I see it just the opposite. Whether or not I have invested in b equipment... Why would I buy new equipment that forced me to support both? They work using incompatible frequencies so if I had an old b system, wouldn't I just keep those antennaes and receivers around until they were replaced(it's old cost but still works, right)? But why would I buy computers and base stations that supported two standards, one of which I wanted to move away from(costs more, but don't want to use)? And what happens when (and if) g comes out since it is compatible with b, but not a? Then I'd have a lot of equipment around with a supposedly next-gen standard that I don't use, an old-gen standard that I do use because it's compatible with the new next-gen standard, and probably a desire to buy new g equipment. The whole time having to rationalize the cost of supporting 2 standards and the confusion of where the market is going--means its likely that I stick with the lower cost first gen products until someone will decide what they are going to push as a new standard.
|
#4 By
2459 (66.25.124.8)
at
6/11/2002 2:21:48 PM
|
Having hardware that supports both standards allows you to get more out of your initial investment in "b" while migrating over to "a" (if you saw a need to migrate in the first place). Instead of having to drop the equipment you have currently invested in and start over, you can retain the legacy hardware and spread out the conversion cost. You could even keep all of the equipment working on the "b" standard, then switch to "a"(or whatever) after the migration is completed. In a business setting, the switch could be made transparent to the users besides getting them (or having them get) new wireless cards for their portable devices.
If the wireless hardware could simultaneously support both standards, then the switch could be all the more easier, allowing users with "b" devices to keep those, and users that want "a" devices to use those. It's sort of like ethernet networking. If you have a 10BT network, but want to switch to 100BT or 1000BT, you can get NICs and switches that support all of the standards simultaneously. This lets you gradually switch the network over to the latest standard while retaining backward compatability so you can still let old hardware interface with the network as needed or until it is switched with newer hardware.
|
#5 By
3339 (65.198.47.10)
at
6/11/2002 3:40:44 PM
|
Enforcer, you do know your networking analogy is pointless, right? That all the systems are backward compatibility so it's not AT ALL the same as only supporting devices which include 2 incompatible standards. Since they are incompatible standards, the transition works a bit different. Either you already have the old standard, don't or want to support a mix. If you don't--go with the new. If you have the old, keep the old and if you are looking to expand either support hybrid devices or switch to the new. If you want to support a mix, either support hybrid devices or it still might be more cost effective to support 2 different systems depending on the mix. So in six possible scenarios, I've only got 2 that would require hybrid devices.
This ignores the basic point that MS is refusing to "endorse" a next-gen only system either out of fear that it won't be a success or even worse it won't be a success and in fact the successful next-gen will be compatible with the old gen. This is the only conclusion I can draw which leads to the conclusion on my part that MS is betting that 802.11a is going to fail.
This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 15:41.
|
#6 By
135 (208.50.201.48)
at
6/11/2002 3:56:50 PM
|
If sodajerk is drawing conclusions, we can pretty much guarantee she is wrong. :)
My suspicion is that Microsoft wants to promote wireless, but is afraid that if there are two competing incompatible standards consumers will be confused and disappointed because they don't work together well. So their particular fear is really that both standards will fail to draw consumer interest.
|
#7 By
3339 (65.198.47.10)
at
6/11/2002 4:08:38 PM
|
Wait, wait, wait, am I getting that straight, soda? I'm wrong (simply because I'm me) that MS is afraid that "a" will fail. Whereas your theory is that MS is afraid both standards will fail? What makes that anymore incisive or intelligent than what I posted? Oh, it's not, you just have to respond to everything I say, I forgot.
|
#8 By
2459 (66.25.124.8)
at
6/11/2002 4:18:27 PM
|
The anaology isn't pointless. The networking standards I pointed out are compatable because they were designed to be, and seeing how the wireless standards are also used for networking, the analogy couldn't be more applicable. It is no different than a 10/100/1000 NIC, or better yet, the combo NICs that support 10BT/ 10B2 / AUI (these are totally incompatable). They provide support for multiple standards so you don't have to make a one-or-the-other decision. It allows you to keep using the hardware you already have invested in, while moving to or incorporating the new standard. There are many examples in the industry of multiple standards support, and the benefits are obvious.
This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 16:21.
|
#9 By
3339 (65.198.47.10)
at
6/11/2002 4:33:39 PM
|
Right enforcer but 10/100/1000BT are all backward compatible so you are not supporting 2 incompatible standards. In other words, it doesn't make a difference whether a PC has a 10/100/1000 Nic. But it does matter if a PC has a 802.11a or b antennae--the b will work on the b and a/b access pts and the a will only work on the a/b access pts. This means there is no motivation to move to a, or rather: corporations and ind. consumers' choices are more driven by meeting the lowest common denominator than they are in favor of paying more to support the LCD AND the latest and greatest.
In other words, getting back to the analogy, if you buy a 1000BT switch you aren't paying for three technologies but you can support three, yes, that's great, but if you buy a 802.11a and b access point you ARE paying for two technologies when the goal is really to grow or support one.
This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 16:38.
|
#10 By
2459 (66.25.124.8)
at
6/11/2002 5:02:49 PM
|
But you don't know that the cost of producing hardware that supports both standards would be much different than that which supports only one. Unless there is a significant difference in hardware costs (real, not artificially imposed by the manufacturer to segment the market), there isn't much reason not to use hardware that supports both standards, especially if both signals are supported simultaneously so no matter what wireless card a user has, they can be connected. Just because hardware supports multiple technologies doesn't mean its pricepoint is automatically more than those that support only one technology.
|
#11 By
3339 (65.198.47.10)
at
6/11/2002 5:20:01 PM
|
Considering there are .a only devices now and they are cheaper, I don't know how you can say I don't know they are cheaper. Whether or not this difference is substantial enough or not depends on the size of the company, the deployment, and what their goals are. But what I haven't heard yet is a good reason why MS should NOT endorse those devices that are .a only?
And until I do, I can only interpret that to mean that MS themselves feel that the .a market is too nascent to replace .b anytime soon or that .a is too nascent entirely and will not be the next standard. Either way this form of "support", rather than encouraging me to move to .a because old devices will also be compatible, actually DIScourages me from moving to .a because MS is not giving it a clear endorsement as the next standard.
|
|
|
|
|