Talk:IEEE 802.11n-2009

Comparison chart

802.11n how can be released in 2009 ? 2007 might be the right number.

axb:c moniker

Although clearly useful, we need some reliable source for this notation. Otherwise Wikipedia could be seen as promoting it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly know what you're talking about. What notation? 75.75.72.98 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had an edit changed the name of the header; its under the Number of antennas section. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also agree - the discussion of a x b : c under the Number of antennas section is confusing. The number of antennas represented by a and b are both capable of transmitting and receiving.

Kukabura (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Status

Under April 2008, regarding Draft 4: the external reference link makes no mention of Draft 4 - a corrected link is required.

Kukabura (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is expected that the project status page will be updated shortly with the most timely information. If you like, we can link to http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/LetterBallots.html which shows the ballot for Draft 4.0 (LB#124) being approved by 88% of respondents. It's not really the nicest page to link to, but we certainly could until the project status page is updated, if that's your preference.

JoelHowe (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Every single review of 802.11n equipment (whatever the draft) states that 802.11n falls far short of its nominal specifications. In fact, most reviews have found that 802.11n lags even behind the standard it was supposed to replace, 802.11g, in range as well as speed. So, in the end, what is the point in having this standard? And why has it gone so wrong? 84.254.34.131 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to hold off on a criticism section until the standard is complete. The 802.11n equipment has been out for a while and the latest Draft version just got approved this month, so any equipment that has been tested is out-dated. In reality, those companies that make the Draft-compatible equipment are jumping the gun. There's no guarantee that they will even be compatible with the full standard once it is released. If it doesn't meet its objectives upon full release then we've got something to talk about. But pointing out that there are flaws in draft equipment is like pointing out that there are bugs in beta software. It's to be expected.

JoelHowe (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, our anonymous reader needs to consult with WP:CRITICISM. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree.

There are softwares in use that call themselves "beta" -- but they are major products used by millions, with no sign of the "beta" tag going away. It is appropriate to seriously review such products.

In the case of 802.11n, it is fine to have a theoretical discussion of how it might work someday. But right now, the marketplace is flooded with various "pre-n" products, and most of the people reading this article are interested in these real commercial products. Calling them "draft" does not excuse them from serious consideration. Make separate sections or separate articles if you have to. -69.87.204.105 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)