You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
235 points
*

The confusing alphabet soup of Wi-Fi versions got renamed. 802.11n became Wi-Fi 4, 802.11ac became Wi-Fi 5, and 802.11ax became Wi-Fi 6. Wi-Fi 7 is still in development so 6 is the best in-use version.

permalink
report
reply
96 points
*

Technically 6E is the best in-use version for compatible devices. Same as WiFi 6 but adds the 6GHz spectrum that was recently unlocked by many regulatory agencies around the world. The 6GHz range is significantly less congested and would have better real-world performance in dense residential areas.

Edit: A few months ago I stumbled upon this site where the author goes quite in-depth about WiFi and does so in a way that is easy to understand. They debunk/corroborate claims and technologies advertised by manufacturers so it really helps demystify the process of selecting the right WiFi gear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

It’s funny that WiFi is alphabet soup as the other comment mentioned, they rebranded to a single, simple number…then chucked an E on the end.

I get how/why, but it’s just funny.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points
9 points
*

6E is great, but basically nothing supports it. I got a 6E capable AP from Ubiquiti, and looking at my devices table, basically nothing has ever used the 6GHz radio. My house has a wide variety of devices, many new. The only thing that’s used it is my MacBook

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

And that MacBook must get unparalleled speed and airtime

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Most new devices support 6E at this point with the exception of low-cost phones/computers and IoT devices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

What speeds are you getting on your MacBook?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

WiFi in its current form will never be better than ethernet for backhaul applications as it is half-duplex. The benefits of the new spectrum are wider bands which makes the real-world speeds closer to the published speeds. Congested frequencies mean the bands must be more narrow, which lowers real-world bandwidth.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That is a wonderful website, very well written. Thanks for sharing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

And then, because they can’t help themselves, they came out with 6E. Honestly I think all standards bodies (USB, HDMI, WiFi) just love making stupid sub-versions that make things even more confusing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

pre-numbering, it was almost like trying to decipher Sanskrit when going out to buy a router.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I’m more confused now than before. I always knew what b, g, n and ac were, but now when people say Wifi 5 or Wifi 6 I don’t know which of the standards it corresponds to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Just count them, that’s what I do. 1 is a, 2 is b, 3 is g, 4 is n, 5 is ac, 6 is ax.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*

You want to be really confused then? Because b is WiFi 1 and a is WiFi 2. Everything else you said is correct though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Thanks, that actually a good idea.

I guess I did miss “a”, that was never something I saw on our older APs when I was a teen, only “b”

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

WiFi has literally gone the opposite of USB.
It used to be obvious what USB speeds were, whereas WiFi was 802.11b or whatever.
Now we have WiFi 5 or WiFi 6. And we have USB-C PD 10gbps with AltMode

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

USB has gotten more complicated and does way more now in more contexts. It charges laptops now, it carries multiplexed displayport signals, it does its own handshake and performs hardware level initialization protocols.

Meanwhile we’ve been wanting the same thing out of wifi since the start. Nothing’s really changed, we just want it to go faster.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Fair point.
USB doing everything requires significantly more description of what a port can actually do.
I just wish the USB foundation didn’t go with something that makes it difficult to find devices supporting specific features, and played directly into the marketing “upselling/shrinkflation” thing.
The ubs3.1, usb3.2, gen1, gen2, 10gbps etc. It’s a LOT, and everything is very similar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You’re thinking of USB-C, not the USB standard. USB PD, Alternative Mode and Thunderbolt aren’t part of the USB spec.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

What’s the difference?

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

The very simple version is that the newer versions support faster speeds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I would add the potential for better range as well from a variety of improvements.

Newer WiFi standards can take advantage of multiple frequencies in a single link, which allows for fallback on the slower, but longer range, 2.4GHz networks. Beamforming has been available since at least WiFi 5 (802.11ac) and helps connection quality as well. The new 6GHz spectrum is uncongested and gives better performance in areas with high saturation of 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks, such as apartments and highrises.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It’s more nuanced than faster speeds. All newer versions of WiFi came with speed improvements but compared with previous versions WiFi 6 speed improvements were comparatively modest. The advantage with WiFi 6 over its predecessors was a focus on improving latency and reliability. The number of supported clients was drastically increased with the implementation of technologies first developed in cell networks. Wireless antennas used to be limited to serving each client one at a time. Now they’ve been given the ability to multitask.

You can liken it to a restaurant where the cook is the network, the waiter is the wireless antenna, and each customer is a wireless device. With WiFi standards before version 6, the waiter was not very good at their job and once they collected an order, they would give it to the cook and wait for the cook to finish cooking the entire meal before delivering it to the customer and moving on to the next customer. This method was improved in the past by making the waiter quicker which is where we get the speed boosts. You can also improve on this by adding more antennas or “waiters” to the environment but the waiters themselves are still not operating as effectively as they can on an individual level. This is why WiFi 6 is such a major improvement that flies under the radar. The improvement may not be that noticable in a home environment where the antennas only have to serve a limited number of clients but in an environment where hundreds or even thousands of clients are communicating simultaneously, this is a critical improvement. On top of this, the improvements have decreased the rate of packets being dropped and improved latency so even in home environments, a network running on WiFi 6 will be more robust and reliable. WiFi 7 will go back to the old paradigm of significantly increasing speed once again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well explained.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Lots of really cool little things that add up to making it faster

https://youtu.be/j5egLKTwOt0

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/j5egLKTwOt0

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Huh I had no idea, many thanks. I assume it’s backwards compatible?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes, as a general rule the device and access point will just connect at whatever the newest version they both understand is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

802.11b PCMCIA card from 2002? You bet!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Never heard about Wi-Fi 4. Always ‘n’ letter was advertised.

Wi-Fi 5 kinda associated with 5 GHz bandwidth, but can be also used on the 2.4 GHz.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

It’s a retroactive name just to keep the numbering scheme logical. It would be weird to start off giving the next version “1” so they added numbers to all of the old versions. 802.11n was renamed a full 15 years after it was released!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I wished they’d tidy up the clusterfuck that’s USB versions. Especially in combination with thunderbolt. Holy…

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

802.11a was 5GHz long before Wi-Fi 5 was a phrase, and “Wi-Fi 5” as a phrase does not imply any particular frequency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It was like a posthumous award

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 519K

    Comments