Receive new posts as email.
RSS 0.91 | RSS 2.0
RDF | Atom
Podcast only feed (RSS 2.0 format)
Get an RSS reader
Get a Podcast receiver
| Sun | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
This site operates as an independent editorial operation. Advertising, sponsorships, and other non-editorial materials represent the opinions and messages of their respective origins, and not of the site operator or JiWire, Inc.
Entire site and all contents except otherwise noted © Copyright 2001-2006 by Glenn Fleishman. Some images ©2006 Jupiterimages Corporation. All rights reserved. Please contact us for reprint rights. Linking is, of course, free and encouraged.
Powered by
Movable Type
« Why Yesterday's Vote Was Uninteresting | Main | Tim Higgins' Modest Draft N Proposal »
Becky Waring writes that the first batch of Draft N routers lack interoperability, speed, range: These are the kinds of products that should stay in the R&D department until, you know, the standard on which they are based is finalized and the products have had a full QA (quality assurance) shakedown. Waring writes that Linksys’s SRX400, using Airgo’s third-generation MIMO chips, had better throughput at various ranges than all Draft N devices except NetGear’s 10/100 Mbps line-up at the longest distance she tested. Devices using chips from different vendors couldn’t achieve their highest same-vendor speeds yet, either.
Posted by Glennf at May 4, 2006 8:58 PM
Categories: Draft N
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://db.isbn.nu/mt3/mt-tb.pl/3684