UUUUUUGHHHHHH No I don’t think this will help consumers. It certainly won’t make it any easier on techs with future versions.
https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-alliance-introduces-wi-fi-6
2 Likes
Not being a geek, this makes sense to me. Easier for non-geeks to understand IMO.
1 Like
You would think that, but now you’ll start to see more gamer centric marketing around each of the Wifi Standards. You gotta have 6! It is the hotness. Get that 4 trash out. Wireless N and G is perfectly fine for some people. What’s next IEEE is gonna name RJ-45 Fat phone wire end? Coax will now mean Copper Stick 5 etc… This will be my hill I die on.
1 Like
thats exactly what I am seeing
“more number=more better”
as time goes on they will add more numbers like how intel has i9 now and in the beginning it may be ok, it will be horrible later
1 Like
Each new gen adds a number.
It is essentially the same as it is now except we don’t have random letter combinations dictating in.
Just a simple incrementing number. It isn’t really comparable to the i9 thing which is product tiering and all marketing. A company can’t just slap a bigger number on to appear better
It is a simple find and replace. N is now 4, AC is now 5 and AX is now 6
I don’t see how this is much of a problem
4 Likes
If it is only that then disregard my post
rushing to conclusions lol
Yup. Per the article:
“The new naming system identifies Wi-Fi generations by a numerical sequence which correspond to major advancements in Wi-Fi.”
"The numerical sequence includes:
Wi-Fi 6 to identify devices that support 802.11ax technology
Wi-Fi 5 to identify devices that support 802.11ac technology
Wi-Fi 4 to identify devices that support 802.11n technology"
1 Like
that’s fair enough. I just wonder about the mess if/when they bring in multi generational standards or concurrent competing standards.
Do we start getting X Gen2 and X.1, 2, 3…
The system if it stays as it is now is fine but like USB his could get confusing for the layman consumer.
I appreciate that the average person may not know the difference between 802.11a and 802.11g, but this numbering scheme is not necessarily the answer. Folks will go out and buy AD equipment, thinking it must be the best … after all, it is a seven (or whatever) so it must be better than a six, (AX) right? Meanwhile, once they get it home, they find out that the range is utter crap.
There is no substitute for a dispassionate evaluation of your needs followed by some actual research on possible solutions. This numbering scheme does not serve the customer, by providing any meaningful information.
3 Likes
I agree. More likely it will be missused by various marketing departments. The world is not black and white and trying to make it easier most likely makes it more missleading. The most obvious precedent with wifi is the 2.4 vs 5 GHz discussion. Yes more GHz means more bandwidth … until you place an obstruction in the line of sight between transceivers.
Edit: Symbols that do not imply numerical order might have been an alternative. This naming problem definitely is not as streight forward as it might at first glance seem.
2 Likes
The problem with incrementing is, it will be percieved in the way that a higher number is better by someone that does not do any research. (I would do the same) The reality is, that a higher number may be worse for your usecase, it does not really explain anything. A non judgmental naming scheme has the advantage that you don’t mislead yourself and need to ask for advice or do your research.
In the grand scheme of things I don’t think this naming convention is a problem but I would not say it makes it easier for the consumer and it will be missused by marketing departments.
Who cares about the name? Wifi6 is a big deal. It takes all the various advances in AC and moves them to the 2.4Ghz band, allowing for somewhat faster speeds but much more importantly, band-sharing. So you get the range and penetration of 2.4Ghz but aren’t constantly competing with dozens of neighbors for each of the only 3 non-overlapping bands. That’s a big deal for people living in urban environments.
It’s not much different than Bluetooth 4.2 and Bluetooth 5.
It’s not a problem.
I disagree, the naming scheme with from bluetooth 1- now 5 doesn’t tell me anything. Other than, this is the better one because the number is higher. There isn’t anything in the name that helps me what standard it actually is on. While Wifi AC and AX can be differentiated. I immediately think of the 5ghz band and 2.4 side band available on AC routers. Where as AX improves on that essentially, by upping the available bandwidth, and becoming more efficient at the same time. When I hear Wifi 6 all those interesting factoids won’t enter my head other than again “Well that’s the better one herp derp”
Why does that matter? Higher number herp derp is better than what we had before. If you need to find the difference between AC and AX, you needed to look that up too, except with those you couldn’t tell which was better without doing so.
1 Like