Where does it say to always use the lowest number? 22Mbits/sec is
41% of 54mbits/sec. OK, I'll concede that it's not exactly half. I've gotten about 25Mbits/sec using IPerf at about 6 ft.Yep. TomsNetworking didn't have an Extreme G benchmark. I figured it was close enough. I guess not. I'll confess that I don't know much about Apple products. The Airport at the neighboring office is the one that looks like a large while plastic mushroom with an aftermarket hang-on antenna. I guess that's an Extreme G.
Here's some benchmarks by Mac.com
CNET review offers 16.8Mbits/sec in their review at:
This is kinda weird.
Well, with the Apple Airport Extreme G Base Station, you're apparently correct. Most of the other benchmarks appear to be running in the
22-28Mbits/sec range.
Yep. 20Mbits/sec is 37% which is fairly close to 33%. 22Mbits/sec (the higher number) is 41% which is about half way between 33% and
50%. Would it help if I amend my estimate to "up to 50% of the connection speed"?I don't have the slightest idea what to tell them. I'm the worlds lousiest salesperson and would probably bury them in technobabble. If forced to supply an answer, I would probably cover my ass and give them a range of performance values that conveniently are proportional to price tag on the hardware. After all, the customers do have some vague idea that price and performance are proportional.
Now, plop yourself in my shoes. You just burned a good chunk of the marketing budget paying an overpriced lab to run performance and reliability tests on your unreleased product. The numbers come back looking like someone had thrown darts at a target, with no semblance of a bell curve. Of course, the lab claims they did everything correctly. What numbers do you give them for the advertising literature? Marketing wants to use the best numbers and ignore the rest. Engineering wants to cover their ass and use minimum values so that nobody comes back and demands that the field units perform to published specifications. Legal wants to use the tweaked FCC cert numbers. The ad agency is waiting. What do you tell them?
Actually, this is a rhetorical question because such debates are never this clear or obvious. At one company, engineering makes all such decisions. In another, it's marketing, legal, or maybe the autocratic president. It's the same as in your store example. The customers (and managers) all have their expectations and agendas and it's difficult to make them all happy simultaneously.
Actually, I do quite a bit of writing. None of it is for a general audience. Most of it is research and technical summaries. Some science fiction business plans and lots of market analysis reports. I try to keep my explanations simple and often succeed. It's difficult in usenet news to judge the abilities of someone posting a question. If I guess wrong, I may overwhelm a beginner or insult an expert. I get quite a bit of email asking for details so I think I can assume that the general usenet audience are not all looking for a fast fix.
You didn't really answer my question. So, I'll simplify it for you. Please select which one *YOU* would prefer to be told (not what you thing everyone else would prefer) for 802.11g performance.
- 12Mbits/sec
- Up to 25Mbits/sec
- 40-50% of connection rate.
- 33% of connection rate.
- 20-25Mbits/sec up to 6ft under ideal conditions, TCP, using IPerf benchmark, on a 100baseTX-HDX connected computer to a XXXXX wireless router and a XXXXX mini-PCI wireless card in a P4-2.4GHz laptop. Obviously, I prefer #5.
Do you mean a Mac is slower than a PC for 802.11g benchmarks? The only Mac's I work on are from friends and accomplices, so I don't see too many of them. Frankly, I've never bothered to do a side by side wireless comparison with a comparable PC laptop.
Well, actually I'm stalling. The plumbing in the bathroom is clogged and I'm waiting for my chemical attack to finish.