Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
Summary: Sure, Intel's Thunderbolt with 10Gbps speeds and protocols that support both data transfer and displays sounds great, but why worry with wires connections at all with Gigabit Wi-Fi on its way?
I think Intel's Thunderbolt technology with its 10Gbps (Gigabit per second) speeds and support for both for data transfer and displays sounds wonderful. And, yes, I like the idea of cutting down the number of wires coming out of my entertainment center and computers with Thunderbolt. But, really wouldn't you rather have no wires at all? That's what a quartet of Wi-Fi technologies are promising.
None of these technologies are quite ready for prime-time, but then, neither is Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt uses the DisplayPort and PCI-Express data protocols over two data transmission channels, and, in theory, can hit up to 10Gbps over copper. That's twice as fast as USB 3.0. Eventually, optical connections are supposed to bring that up to 100Gbps in burst mode. Even the fastest commercial SATA drives can only deliver 6Gbps.
So, while Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 are all fine in their place, shouldn't we really be looking to technologies like 802.11ac, 802.11ad, Wireless Gigabit aka WiGig, and Wi-Fi Direct? No, they're not as fast, but they can everything that Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 can do without any wires.
Wi-Fi Direct, which works on the same 2.4 and 5GHz spectrum ranges used by your current Wi-Fi network, can only deliver up to 250Mbps, but for sending files to a buddy or to a printer that may be all you need. Apple seems to think so. Experts like Glenn Fleishman think that Apple's next version of Mac OS, Lion, includes Wi-Fi Direct under the name AirDrop. That's at least one wire, to my printer, gone.
Moving on 802.11ac, the next generation of Wi-Fi, will give you devices that can handle 1Gbps speed in the 5Ghz range. Alas, you won't see these until the end of 2012.
You may very well see the even faster, but far more shortly ranged, WiGig/802.11ad devices before then. This technology will be able to reach up to 7Gbps but at range of only a few meters. But, isn't that the same range as a Thunderbolt or USB? Why yes, yes it is.
If you move your device out of range, no problem. WiGig chipsets will automatically downshift to 802.11n. Like Thunderbolt, WiGig also supports multiple protocols such as HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) and DisplayPort.
Sure, it's no 10Gbps, but it's more than fast enough for say streaming HD video from a media server to multiple HDTVs. What more do you want? I quite like the idea of having a flat-screen TV on the wall without any wires showing or expensive behind the wall wiring. I'd also like to be able to move about my office without entangling myself with the dozens of wires hooking up my PCs and servers to the wiring closet.
All-in-all, Thunderbolt does sound good, but the rise of Gigabit and faster Wi-Fi networking and direct device to device wireless connections sounds even better.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
It is not Intels', but collaboration between Intel and Apple
Without Apple this thing would not fly off, because Intel by itself would just settle for USB 3.0. It is good, but not good enough for Apple.
<b>As to wires thing, scientists in Europe recently concluded five-year long research on health of trees near by Wi-Fi hotspots, and conclusions are really bad.</b>
I mean there is no way to want a 24/7 microwaving in your house if it could be avoidable with wires.
(However, in case of iPad, avoid wireless is impossible, because otherwise you loose all of the freedom this device grants.)
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
The energy coming from a router is also VERY LOW ENERGY, meaning that it is nothing like being near a microwave at all.
There is nothing to ridicule in that reseach: they tracked five groups of..
Since in all five years progress/regress was perfectly consistent with the fact where Wi-Fi transmitters were set and were they were not, there is no way to doubt the results -- as of now.
Also, the damage that trees have got was quite specific and not similar to any known epidemic tree disease. And, since these trees are apart, it is not quite possible for them to "coincidentally" became ill of some previously unknown disease -- only when and where Wi-Fi transmitters were installed.
It should be taken into consideration that Wi-Fi maximum range is 100 meters, and since these transmitters were "public hot spot", they had maximum possible power for that standard. Home Wi-Fi modems are usually weaker than 100 metres.
Actually apple only glommed on to this because the market spoke and killed
@Johnny Vegas
Of course, when your $500 HP finally gets this tech in 4 years, you'll wonder how you lived without it.
What about the lengthy approval process
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
http://practical-tech.com/network/802-11n-fast-wi-fis-long-tortuous-road-to-standardization/2351/
In these cases though everyone who matters is already on board. There are some competitor technologies to WiGig, but they're one company specifications & I don't see them getting broad traction.
Steven
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
And, you can't power devices (well, any significant power) with WiFi
Horses for courses
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
The real problem with this stuff, weirdly enough, is CPU speed that can keep up with the encryption demands if you want to use it securely, but that's a sgtory for another day.
Steven
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
And what about bandwidth? Frankly, I have trouble with my 802.11n connection sometimes because, according to my Windows Networking center, there are over 25 wireless routers that it can see in the vicinity. All are using 2.4GHz or 5GHz (which doesn't give as strong a signal at a distance as 2.4, at least in my building). It's crowded out there and adding more wireless devices to the mix won't help unless they move into new frequencies.
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
Steven
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi?
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
I agree, the real speed for wireless networks is often 1/10 of the advertised speed. wifi is not a panaceea!
It will be relegated to low security and low speed home usage.
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
I can just see what would happen with data loss, and malfunctioning devices ...
Wireless = Rosanne Barr
Wired = Katherine Zeta Jones
Which would you rather be on?
(I know, kinda sexist, sorry about that, but you get the point.
Ludo
RE: Wires? We don't need no stinking Wires! Gigabit Wi-Fi
Wireless is great and all, but then you have to
Personally I would prefer having my place wired up, and have a WAP for my laptop, and wireless devices, and leave my entertainment area connected via copper or glass.