Talk:125 High Speed Mode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Would a list of noteworth devices that support 125HSM (such as the Linksys WRT54GS) belong here?

US Robotics[edit]

According to [1] the US Robotics 125 Mbps Wi-Fi is based on Texas Instruments, not Broadcom as the article says. David Bergan 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe the article is corrent, as Broadcom's 125HSM page [2] shows U.S. Robotics licensing 125 High Speed Mode. Mr. Zarniwoop 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

54g.org link[edit]

It should be noted that 54g.org (referenced in "External Links") is run by Broadcom, not any independent standards organization (as the ".org" would suggest).

Hard to read[edit]

The formating of this article makes it hard to read. Anyone who does article layout want to format it better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions[edit]

It says in the top paragraph that 125HSM devices from different vendors have interoperability, then under Criticisms it says they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.152.208.1 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It also talks about gross bit rate (data signalling rate) or 125 Mbit/s, while the regular (non-High Speed) rate for 802.11g is listed as 128 Mbit/s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.13.159 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Rant[edit]

I absolutely believe that the criticisms in this section are valid -- the problem is that they read like a rant against the mislabeling. I'm not saying any of the criticisms need to be removed, they should, however, be reworded to sound less like a vendetta. OngoingCivilUnrest (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)