Intel Working on Agile Wireless Chip 78
Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that Intel has announced that its scientists had
invented a new type of chip that can process signals from different types of wireless
networks. The chip also could handle upcoming WiMax technology, that promises
wireless internet connectivity for up to 30 miles, and future flavors of WiFi."
Re:WiMax! (Score:2)
I'm still waiting on 350MHz 64-bit and RISC based Merced that Intel promised long ago. (ok Merced was put on the market, except specs were completely different)
Intel very often promises and very rarely delivers.
From here on* my own biased opinion
All that Intel has done good (or bad, I still blame them for 386 fiasco, when they based chip on what software uses and not original IBM specs [IBM 286 already had multithreading and other specs i
Re:WiMax! (Score:2)
The Pentium M (no, the M does not stand for "mobile") is indeed based off the Pentium 3 heritage (but it's not a Pentium 3), while the Pentium 4 is a different beast. Someone with more detailed knowledge of Intel's processor lines can explain it better than I can, but the Pentium M take
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm very confused and unsure what you mean by this. Here are some of my thoughts after reading it:
1) You think that Intel analysts are the ones who "come up with something like this". This is definitely a problem -- it is generally Intel employees (i.e. smart engineers who research and develop, not mediocre marketing people) who would come up with ideas and create proofs of c
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, obviously, they also hope to stir up investors and get good press, but, who wouldn't want to do that?
Holy Grail (Score:4, Funny)
Let's see if they manages to find it then
Re:Holy Grail (Score:5, Funny)
I told them we've already got one.
</AMD in horrible French accent>
Re:Holy Grail (Score:1)
Re:Holy Grail (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone knows it's at the Castle Arrggh.
Re:Holy Grail (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Holy Grail (Score:2)
I knew this miniturazation craze had gone too far!
Its time to bring back vacuum tubes before we start to lose products that actually exist!
Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple? (Score:1)
Re:Linux? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, no. This is an *Intel* chip. It will be best used with Mac OS X, of course.
Woo hoo! (Score:5, Interesting)
===
I'm on a college campus, so if I walk down the street, I can see almost dozens of seperate wireless networks (from apartments to different college wireless zones)
If they expanded wireless to 10 miles... oh my!
[not that I'd torment anybody, but it's always fun to look around
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:4, Funny)
Does one of those happen to be called "linksys"?
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:1)
Wacky Names (Score:2)
Re:Wacky Names (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:2)
Intel invents firmware! (Score:5, Funny)
Firmware will allow the electronics giant to reprogram its chips when new standards are developed. That should help Intel avoid a replay of the wireless Centrino debacle, in which they were shipping 10Mhz mobile chips into a market driven by 54Mhz base stations.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:1)
Next they'll have wireless cards that can connnect to other wireless cards! They might even call it Ad-Hoc as well. Man, Intel is dead inventive!
Wait, was the above post sarcastic?Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:2)
Why would you want a wireless card to connect to another wireless card? I don't get that at all. Besides, what are the odds you'd ever run into anyone else with a wireless network adapter without a base station? You don't mean you'd try to move your laptop around, do you?
But "Ad Hoc" has a nice ring to it. You should trademark that phrase. Maybe it would catch on.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:3, Interesting)
For the layman's overview of ad hoc mode check out this overview [wi-fiplanet.com] if you want the nitty gritty read the standard itself [ieee.org]
It is a real mode. And would be quite usefull if chipset manufacturers bothered to implement it correctly and test interoperability.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:2)
As for crossover cables, I generally carry a pair of RJ-11/12/45 crimpers with me.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:2)
Then he simply carries this with him wherever he thinks he may need a crossover cable, and one female-female RJ-45 socket. That way he can transform any cable into a crossover cable.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:2)
That's a good idea.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:1)
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/tools/7470/ [thinkgeek.com]
Not trying to plug ThinkGeek here, but this Crossover adapter turns any straight Ethernet cable into a crossover cable, and it fits on a keychain.
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:2)
Re:Intel invents firmware! (Score:2, Informative)
No, the point of the work is... (Score:1)
'
Re:No, the point of the work is... (Score:3, Funny)
Mactel Blue-Tooth/Airport Replacement...? (Score:2)
Re:Mactel Blue-Tooth/Airport Replacement...? (Score:1)
and BT is NOT wifi, it is a short range, low frequency wireless communication system for devices.
Re:Mactel Blue-Tooth/Airport Replacement...? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mactel Blue-Tooth/Airport Replacement...? (Score:2)
Airport cards are made by broadcom, not Intel.
30 mile range? (Score:5, Interesting)
That 30 mile (48 km?) range sounds awfully nice, but I would guess it's not a figure to be relied on for regular use. The WiMAX forum's [wimaxforum.org] home page provides some more realistic range figures:
In a typical cell radius deployment of three to ten kilometers, WiMAX Forum Certified(TM) systems can be expected to deliver capacity of up to 40 Mbps per channel, for fixed and portable access applications. This is enough bandwidth to simultaneously support hundreds of businesses with T-1 speed connectivity and thousands of residences with DSL speed connectivity. Mobile network deployments are expected to provide up to 15 Mbps of capacity within a typical cell radius deployment of up to three kilometers.
It sounds like 3 km (under 2 miles) from a tower is best, with up to 10 km (just over 6 miles) plausible.
Jamie
Re:30 mile range? (Score:2, Insightful)
And we have solved all the hidden station problems have we? Shannon has been found to be tosh? Nyquist a mathematical bungler?
Yes, you may get 40 Mbps if you are close enough, both sides are running enough (legal) power and you are the only two ends on the channel without any interference of any kind. Note the word "may".
Look, there are some fundamental problems with using wireless for network connectivity. They are to do with the medium, the nature of transmitters and receivers (and the
Re:30 mile range? (Score:2)
...and once science conquers all these challenges and delivers this reliable service to your home...
You'll pay them for every machine in the house, individually! Just like cel phones! Hey, my cingular bill for just last month alone with over $1000, and my phone has been disconnected for 3 months now! I can't WAIT for WIRELESS INTERNET!
HSDPA? (Score:1, Interesting)
Cingular, the nation's largest cellular carrier, is making a big push for HSDPA, hoping to have it rolled out in 15-20 markets by the end of the year. 3 Mbps wireless internet with a coverage area as large as Cingulars' is a pretty tempting prospect to me, and having compatibility built in to my devices with this Intel chip migh
Re:BBS? (Score:1, Interesting)
Am I way off base here?
Re:BBS? (Score:1)
you may just get wider spread harder to track criminal gangs.
Re:BBS? (Score:1)
No, not really...http://www.neighbornode.net/ [neighbornode.net]
Range is one thing, performance another (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Range is one thing, performance another (Score:2)
Re:Range is one thing, performance another (Score:1)
HotSpot lackey - manager (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but if they could deliver this gargantuan wireless range, won't that provoke more crackers to break through the security so they can leech net access off of the Starbucks HotSpot a few miles away?
It just seems logical to me that with such an impressive possible range of operation, there would be a greater tempation to pickpocket with telekinesis, so to speak.
That's just my thought on it.
Re:HotSpot lackey - manager (Score:1)
Re:HotSpot lackey - manager (Score:1)
Given the average persons' poor tech safety practices, I hope these WiMax devices come with hardware firewalls. Otherwise, they're going t
Re: (Score:1)
Intel Proof of Concept Design (Score:1)
unlicensed bands are miserable without rules (Score:2)
If the bands for WiMax are the same three ring circus we've seen in the 802.11b range for metro areas there is just no point to even trying - the noise floor for 2402-2483MHz in metro Omaha is so thick you can walk on it, and the 5.2 - 5.8GHz stuff is headed that way.
I don't pay much attention to this stuff any more, since its a miserable waste of time and money here, but I hear tell of some sort of frequency allocation scheme for some of the new spectrum that has been opened
Bogus Headliner... (Score:2, Interesting)
Intel multiplexing a blackbox all-in-one chip flys in the face of historical precedent. You young whippersnapper's at
Go back to bed...
-r
Too many flavors of Wireless (Score:2)
Verizon Guy (Score:1, Funny)
Mythical Bigfoot (Score:2)
Scientists?! (Score:1)
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2)
""It is more of a proof of concept rather than a device that will see the light of day," he said. That's because the chip integrates only analogue and not digital circuitry and WiFi chip would require both types to make it usable by a digital device."
All they've done is build a radio that probably runs at 2.5GHz and is probably direct conversion down to baseband. If it has enough bandwidth, linearity, and low enough phase noise in the LO, it can be used with a variety of MAC chips to imple
Just A CMOS RF Chip (Score:1)
The important part is that it's CMOS. Now, they can make one cheaper chip that does the RF and the digital baseband processing.
Wonder how close they are to a software radio on a chip? Imagine one chip that