Xbox 360 802.11n WiFi adapter reviewed by FCC

I'm not arguing that the original wireless adapter wasn't over priced, but that also wasn't your only option. There were other 3rd party solutions you could use from Linksys, Netgear, and DLink that were much cheaper. Microsoft just didn't want to build a wireless adapter in so that they could allow their consumer to actually upgrade to better solutions without having to buy a whole new console.

Unfortunately their "option" is more expensive than just buying a wireless bridge. You can buy a wireless-N bridge that plugs into the ethernet port of any of the consoles for less than the $100 they charge for their wireless-G adapter. So adding N to a PS3 isn't really difficult. But what the PS3 can do that the 360 cannot is use gigabit ethernet.

Bryan,

That's pure BS and you know it. Quit repeating MS corporate executives talking points. How can you actually convince yourself that not bundling wifi and wired is a good thing? It wasn't about giving consumers choice. A choice would have been including both or selling the console with and without wired & wireless (seperate bundles.) As it stands if you want wireless you have NO choice but to buy additional hardware.

You are really grasping for straws by saying Sony didn't give it's consumers choice because they included wired and wifi. It's so retarded and non-sensical that I don't know if you are being sarcastic.

What's next? Are you going to tell me that it's a good thing 360 users have the choice of paying for XBL Gold or not playing online at all?

It's just dumb corporate talking points to misdirect ppl. Do you actually believe the cost of the 360 would be $100 if they bundled wifi?

Get with reality. Your logic is backwards.

Hey Johnny,

Clearly you don't understand. Whether they built a console with and without wireless, or just sell the adapter separately, its all choice. You don't need a wireless adapter to play games online, and not everyone needs it. So if you want it, you can either buy Microsoft's own wireless adapter, or one from countless other providers like Linksys or Netgear. Plus, by NOT including it in the hardware, they can then come out with a Wireless N adapter without having to revise their hardware. It's not corporate BS, its reality, and its smart buisiness.

Sony just came out with a Playstation Slim with Wireless G built in, but they didn't know that Wireless N technology would get certified. So now what? They're stuck. Where Microsoft can now offer their customers a choice. You can either use an ethernet cord, buy a wireless G adapter or buy a wireless N adapter.

My logic isn't backward, you're just not looking at it from a logical standpoint. You're looking at it from a cheap ass standpoint. You want everything handed to you, but you don't realize that it costs money to keep coming out with hardware revisions. So instead of locking themselves into the same BS that Sony found themself in when when they had to release a PS3 Slim, and wasted millions of dollars that they'll never be able to recover, Microsoft came out with a console that they can constantly upgrade, and come out with new addons for, instead of forcing their consumers to buy new consoles over and over.

So don't come at me like you know me. And as for XBL, you pay for it because its a premium service. It's the best online solution out there for console gaming, hands down. Sony can't even compete with XBL. Sure, PS3 is great for offline games, and their own first party titles. But if you're a true online console gamer, you go with XBL hands down. Remember, you pay for what you get. If something is free, chances are its crap.

What was it that you said bryan? I couldn't hear you with microsoft's dick in your mouth.

That was an intelligent response Ashitaka. I'm glad to see we haven't resorted to childishness.

bryan

By your own logic PS3 users can simply buy the same 3rd party bridge 360 users can and plug it in the back of the box ... boom 802.11n wireless. Thats the same choice you are getting! Whats the difference? They include wi-fi in the package from the start. You are so fucking stupid it's not even funny.

I'll bite one more time.

If you get what you pay for then why is it that the 360 has the highest failure rate in the HISTORY of consumer electronics? How could you say someone that bought a PS3 is cheap and wants everything for free? It's just a better deal and a better package of features. It's obvious you have never owned a PS3 and you have probably never even played one.

The 360 could use a hardware revision more than any other console in the current generation! Once they redesign the thing to have a longer lifespan than 6 months I'll take that plunge again but until then I refuse to buy inferior crap so I can be nickel and dimed for hardware additions to make the console functional to my standards.

Sony lost a billion dollars because they took a loss on good hardware. Microsoft lost a billion dollars because they had to pay for repair their defective console.

But, you are right that you get what you pay for. Thats why I bought a complete system that came with what I needed in the PS3 where as the 360 had me buying HDD's, play and charge kits, wifi adapters and forcing me to pay to play games online.

If someone with a PS3 wants 802.11n they can buy a 3rd party bridge just like 360 users. The difference is that if Sony does offer a first party solution it won't be so grossly overpriced because they don't force their user base to subsidize their hardware repairs.

You are a straight up fucktard through and through. How's Vista working out for you? In fact, I think I know who you REALLy are ... http://cdn.stereogum.com/img/zune_tattoo2.jpg

Seriously, your shilling and propaganda makes Sprinkles and Sk8monroe look tame by comparison.

Sorry, what. The wii could use a hardware revision more than the 360. The 360 has added HDMI (and 1080p), built in flash memory for the arcade unit, and improved the chip size and cooling (and thankfully reliability) over the years. The wii is a dinosaur with it's 480p video output and lack of an ethernet port.

Yea, the 360 had it's problems but microsoft is actively fixing them and taking care of their customers. Even though the 360 looks the same as it did on launch the circuitry inside has changed a lot.


Vista? What does that have to do with anything? Now you're just ragging on microsoft just out of fanboyism, not helping your point.


For the record, I have both the PS3 and the 360. They both have their faults and their advantages but to put down someone else for buying a different console than you when they're both obviously good contenders is really getting childish.

Thats for the USB plug. That's how you actually connect the adapter to your XBox. So what's ironic about that? It still connects to the internet wirelessly.

Its actually the USB cable that hooks itself to XB in the back you should look up information about the older Wifi before opening your mouth.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

You believe you should never use wireless for online gaming, yet you are angry that MS doesn't include a built in adapter on the 360, for something you should never use anyways.

I always hear ppl say that but it's really not relevant anymore. Wireless is a must for me and has been since the 360 released. Basically, when I had my 360 and since Ive had my PS3 I gamed exclusively on wireless without lag or degredation. I thinks it's more to do with the quality of the router than it is with the protocol itself. I never have any issues at all simply because I'm wireless. If the cable itself is spotty or the signal is weak the wired will be just as intermittent as the wireless. My personal experience is that if all things are equal the connections will be virtually indistinguishable. If the connection coming in sucks the connection it puts out will suck. I think it has a lot to do with setting up the wireless network correct from the start and having a wireless router adequate for gaming.

If security is a concern then a wired connection is king but other than that I haven't seen a performance difference or experienced latency or signal degredation because of using wifi for gaming.

Just my 2 cents.

I think MS should have included wifi and I think nintendo should have included wired out of the box. Even if ppl don't want one over the other they should both be included.

@ Huey

Let me clarify. If you have the choice, a wired connection is better. It can't be interfered with, it can't drop in signal, and range isn't an issue. On top of that wireless has more of a latency than cables.


HOWEVER. Both the nintendo wii and the PS3 have included wireless from the start, and Microsoft should include wireless to be competitive because despite wires being superior, people want wireless.

@johnnynumber5. Yea, you can play with wireless and you might not notice the difference, but I've been in too many games with horrible lag not because someones internet connection is bad, but because they have bad wireless signal, and they claim the room is too far away to run a wire. (When obviously it's also too far away to use wireless) I feel like if people just did things right and wired their console it would be a better experience for everyone.


And I definately agree with you that MS should have included wireless and nintendo should have included wired. Nintendo had no excuse, they made a huge profit on their console since day 1.

Hey johnny, which router do you use? I'm starting to despise my Netgear router because the connection is beginning to go flaky on me.

My favourite colours are green and red

Yeah Kinsey, an only elitist douche like you would pick green and red.

Everyone knows blue and purple are win.

Only steers and queers would pick blue and purple. My colours of the the great flag of Portugal (greatest soccor team by far) and the colours of Christmas ... CHRISTMAS damn it!!!

The funny thing is that a 50 ft wired cable degrades the signal worse than a wireless connection. If I had to pay $100-$200 for a wireless adapter I would love me some 50 ft ethernet cables as well. Just because you aren't stupid enough to buy the wifi adapter doesn't mean that wireless is inferior.

@Johnnynumber5

A 50ft Ethernet cord degrades more than wireless G signal over 50 feet with walls in between? Do you have a source on that?

@Johnnynumber5

your logic is flawed since Networked buildings have 100's and 100's of feet of ethernet cable with very little degradation to the internet.

@johnnynumber5
except 99% of the time, wireless is inferior, i only ever found it useful with my DS, and laptops, and since i'm a PC gamer, laptops suck for me

Ok Johnny now you're just making shit up.

It all depends on your own individual home setup as in what networking cables you are running and what wireless router you are running. The problems with wireless in additions to walls is also the range (frequency) and interference from microwaves, blue tooth, legacy 802 devices and cordless phones etc. However, depending on the type of networking cables, length, how many times the cable is twisted or contorted and how good the ends of the connectors are can also cause degradation issues. It's amazing considering wireless is in it's infancy and in one form or another wired connection have been around since the telegraph.

There are some limiting factors. The type of cable can make a
difference. When using "stranded" cable, which is most often used for
patch cables due to its flexibility, the industry standard limits the
length to 10 meters (33 feet).
http://www.theheadwaters.com/cables/faq.htm
"The TIA/EIA 568A which is the governing standard regarding commercial
cabling systems limits the length of patch cables to 10 meters in
total length."

CAT5 cable is just glorified copper wiring and can be used for lots of other things. Some applications much longer runs and some much shorter. However, since
the Xbox has an "Ethernet" port all of the industry standard rules will apply.

Is it always true in every circumstance that a 50 ft ethernet connection will degrade the signal worse? No. So, yeah, that was a bit of an embellishment. In my opinion the only advantage to a wired connection is security. But, as I said it all depends on the individual setup.

Happy?

Yeah, johnny, you're a total dumbass.

First of all... I direct you to the following article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA/EIA-568-B

"The TIA/EIA-568-B standards were first published in 2001. They supersede the TIA/EIA-568-A standards set, which are now obsolete."

Using your eyes and brain, continue reading here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable

"Cat 5e cable is an enhanced version of Cat 5 that adds specifications for far end crosstalk. It was formally defined in 2001 as the TIA/EIA-568-B standard, which no longer recognizes the original Cat 5 specification. Although 1000BASE-T was designed for use with Cat 5 cable, the tighter specifications associated with Cat 5e cable and connectors make it an excellent choice for use with 1000BASE-T. Despite the stricter performance specifications, Cat 5e cable does not enable longer cable distances for Ethernet networks: cables are still limited to a maximum of 100 m (328 ft) in length"

or

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=maximum+length+cat5

See. I already knew this info, as this is what I do for a living... but rather than ask you to take my word for it, I thought I'd just throw out some quick google results.


Wireless is not (and will likely NEVER BE) better than wired. There are interference, latency, security and a host of other reasons that make wireless ONLY the more convenient solution, best case scenario. That's not to say that you may use wireless and never have a problem, but if you and your 8 other neighbors all use wireless, and cell phones, and microwaves, etc, you bet your ass you're gonna run into some problems.
In the IT world, Wifi is used only if you absolutely have to. It's NEVER choice number 1.

Of course, I can google as well as the next man... do some research before spouting bullshit.

I'll leave you to go cry in a corner.

(sorry, I really don't like being a dick, but people that spread horseshit like this really piss me off)

This man speaks the truth.