this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
178 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

59446 readers
3750 users here now

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


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Faster than ever: Wi-Fi 7 standard arrives::How fast do you want your Wi-Fi to go? How does 5.8 Gigabits per second sound? Fast enough for you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People don’t seem to understand that this isn’t really aimed at casual web browsing. It’s basically a wireless alternative to thunderbolt.

So take all of those crazy film cameras and data storage systems that rely on thunderbolt for decent performance… now get rid of the cable.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Get rid of the cable and add heat

The problem with adding high bandwidth wifi is that it adds quite a bit of heat to a device. That's why high bandwidth wifi 6e devices and 10 gigabit Ethernet devices get quite warm. Many cameras already have a lot of heat problems because video sensors and processing already generates quite a bit of heat. Wireless always generates more heat than wired due to much higher amplification, transmit power, and demodulation requirements.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yes, now it does with the current tech. I'm sure you'll agree we can make more efficient devices in the future and they will support the same standard as your router

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Have it as a little pack detached from the camera?

[–] effward@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And the external wireless data transfer pack can be connected to the camera by a long thin piece of metal. Maybe we could call it a "cord". And why stop there, it could be disconnected from the camera when you're not transferring data.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Having a pack in your pocket is far better than being tethered to an object with a cord that you can trip on and obstruct your movement. Come on dude, do I really need to explain this? I think you're being purposefully obtuse for some reason. Do you want to have discussions here or make bluntly snarky remarks that don't really make sense? Is that really the culture you want to propagate on lemmy?

[–] effward@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

From the article:

The bad news is that the 6 GHz wireless spectrum uses shorter wavelengths. Short wavelengths are great for fast data transfers at close range, So, they're great for connecting to your Wi-Fi 7-enabled HDTV a few feet away from your router

With a range that short, you're not going to be doing much roaming around. It obviously has some use cases, but unless you need to be streaming data it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The example we are discussing in this thread is transferring data off of a high res/high performance camera. For many situations this can be done after filming is completed, in which case a cord still makes a lot more sense. Hence my joke.

For live broadcasting it could be useful, but the range still seems quite limiting.