Wifi standards to be renamed - 802.11ax Wi-Fi to be called Wi-Fi 6

#5591771

Mda400

2018-10-03 19:21

You have 4 Wi-Fi's? I have 6 Wi-Fi's so mine is 50% faster.

#5591794

Kaarme

2018-10-03 20:16

My phone understand ac, but otherwise my devices are only up to n (router, laptop). So, Wi-Fi 4 for me in practice.

#5591802

schmidtbag

2018-10-03 20:34

Good - for consumers, the original naming scheme was kind of dumb, and misleading. For example, even though an 802.11c standard does exist, it's not noted by consumer products.

#5591893

slyphnier

2018-10-04 00:32

such wifi that is backward compatible any-naming is fine imo for people that dont really care the tech, all they way is just work, and in most case it will work just fine then for people that understand tech, well i believe they used with confusing name from various pc parts.... so for them its not an issue anyway 802.11ax itself not much different than ac... basically the upgrade is just for more device capacity wifi naming is more like generation, so it will match mobile network naming 3G->4G->5G

#5591894

tsunami231

2018-10-04 00:37

I don't see why this need to be done but ok

#5591902

RavenMaster

2018-10-04 01:05

And it's not even April Fools yet...

#5591905

Silva

2018-10-04 01:11

A new Wi-fi standard? I didn't know it was going to get out so soon. Is it as shit as "ac"? Because "ac" is absolutely horrendous. Good if you are in the same room of the router, otherwise just stick to "n".

#5591906

HeavyHemi

2018-10-04 01:15

Silva:

A new Wi-fi standard? I didn't know it was going to get out so soon. Is it as crap as "ac"? Because "ac" is absolutely horrendous. Good if you are in the same room of the router, otherwise just stick to "n".

That's never going away. Faster speeds regarding wireless are always going to be range and environment limited. As long as your device is smart enough to switch to using the most stable protocol, you're good.

#5591908

tsunami231

2018-10-04 01:27

AC is really nice providing your with in your range and have good singal, it can also be very bad depending on enviroment, just like 2ghz

#5591923

Killian38

2018-10-04 02:19

tsunami231:

I don't see why this need to be done but ok

Yeah. Sounds like someone has to much time on their hands.

#5592009

RonanH

2018-10-04 09:25

Killian38:

Yeah. Sounds like someone has to much time on their hands.

I disagree. While the folk reading websites like this know the differences between 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ax not many consumers do. This will simplify things considerably

#5592048

sverek

2018-10-04 12:40

i like the simplicity. Still have no idea how I can utilize the speed of wifi4. Wifi4 probably gonna be the only device I ever need, until 4K streaming become a thing.

#5592126

schmidtbag

2018-10-04 15:20

Silva:

A new Wi-fi standard? I didn't know it was going to get out so soon. Is it as crap as "ac"? Because "ac" is absolutely horrendous. Good if you are in the same room of the router, otherwise just stick to "n".

A couple things to note here: 1. ac is perfectly fine - it all comes down to your router configuration (unlike g or n, this makes a big difference). That being said, which frequency are you using? ac operates on 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. In case you're not aware, a higher frequency allows for more bandwidth but that also means (generally speaking) your signal is more likely to be absorbed or reflected by objects and walls. n operates only on the 2.4GHz range. I feel pretty confident that if you configure your router to run at 2.4GHz, you'll see as good (if not better) reception than n while still getting a considerable speed improvement. However, realize that in doing this, you will see less bandwidth than at 5GHz. In other words for ac, you have to pick one: range or bandwidth. 2. Y'know there are currently available Wifi standards newer than ac, right? Though, one of them (I forget which) operates at 60GHz and is notorious for basically requiring line-of-sight to the router.

#5592164

Silva

2018-10-04 16:19

schmidtbag:

A couple things to note here: 1. ac is perfectly fine - it all comes down to your router configuration (unlike g or n, this makes a big difference). That being said, which frequency are you using? ac operates on 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. In case you're not aware, a higher frequency allows for more bandwidth but that also means (generally speaking) your signal is more likely to be absorbed or reflected by objects and walls. n operates only on the 2.4GHz range. I feel pretty confident that if you configure your router to run at 2.4GHz, you'll see as good (if not better) reception than n while still getting a considerable speed improvement. However, realize that in doing this, you will see less bandwidth than at 5GHz. In other words for ac, you have to pick one: range or bandwidth. 2. Y'know there are currently available Wifi standards newer than ac, right? Though, one of them (I forget which) operates at 60GHz and is notorious for basically requiring line-of-sight to the router.

I'm not speaking from experience, as most public spaces still use "g" and I have "n" at home. I've just read the specks and I know "n" has more range and wall/object penetration over "ac". Sure, a good well configured router and devices will help solve any issues, but unless you have a repeater on every room, why bother with "ac"? Now, I know nothing of the "ax" specs yet.

#5592169

schmidtbag

2018-10-04 16:33

Silva:

I'm not speaking from experience, as most public spaces still use "g" and I have "n" at home. I've just read the specks and I know "n" has more range and wall/object penetration over "ac". Sure, a good well configured router and devices will help solve any issues, but unless you have a repeater on every room, why bother with "ac"? Now, I know nothing of the "ax" specs yet.

Again, it only has more range due to 2.4GHz. Put ac on the same band and you'll get the same, if not better range. You'll still get a speed improvement, just not as much of one.

#5592463

Aura89

2018-10-05 02:59

People say they dont understand why this is done, yet can you think about what usb would be like if it had naming like wifi? USB A(1.0) USB B(1.1) USB G (2.0) USB N (3.0) USB AC (3.1) Consumers would not understand, hence why most consumers, if you ask them which is better, ac, or g wifi, they will look at you like you are crazy as its just wifi to them.

#5592580

0blivious

2018-10-05 11:04

I approve of this new naming scheme. The old way made no real sense anyways.