Fact, Fiction And Advertising In The Numbers

from the up-to dept

A long time ago technology marketers figured out that many people buying their products don't really understand them - but they do understand that "bigger number" usually should mean "better". Thus, bigger numbers were touted, even if they weren't realistic. That's why we've got 17 inch monitors with 15 inch "viewable area". That's why wireless carriers kept promoting their data services as being "up to" 144 kbps when you were likely to get 50 kbps on a good day. Now, the latest complaint is with the numbers used for 802.11g WiFi products. Of course, the 802.11g is supposed to be 54 Mbits/sec - but in the cold light of reality, no one is going to get that sort of speed. While the writer admits that everyone expects some loss due to "overhead", you might be surprised at how much. In testing 802.11g products, he couldn't get any more than 15 Mbits/sec which is less than a third the advertised speed. He called up a bunch of vendors, and they kind of shrug off the issue, either denying that it's misleading or giving a "yes, but..." type of answer. Of course, he doesn't even get to the biggest joke in all of this: most people buying 802.11g equipment are going home and hooking it up to their cable or DSL modems that throttle down any throughput to a tiny fraction of what the router can handle.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..


If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
 

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  

    Tiny

    identicon
    DL, Jan 27th, 2004 @ 2:17pm

    "a tiny fraction of what the router can handle"

    You're assuming that all they are doing with their wireless router is browsing the web.

    What if they are using it to send video from their "server" PC to one or more client screens around the house?


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  

    Re: Tiny

    icon
    Mike (profile), Jan 27th, 2004 @ 2:40pm

    No, I understand that. However, most people aren't doing that right now. I did say "most".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  

    AMD Does it Too

    identicon
    Beck, Jan 27th, 2004 @ 4:02pm

    For example, the AMD Athlon XP 2800+ runs at about 2.1 ghz.

    (Although there's certainly more to a computer's performance than just the processor speed)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    Mikester, Jan 27th, 2004 @ 4:13pm

    Don't even get me started on computer hard drives and their advertised vs actual capacity!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>


A word from our Sponsors...
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
From the Techdirt Archive...
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This