On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 04:50:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

No. But if you google "Intel 802.11 ac wifi Bluetooth" you'll see it
says the Intel product supports dual band.

See my post of a few seconds ago where I reported the results of three
sets of phone calls to HP today.

I have asked Jeff to clarify what they told me, but here's the scoop.

In the end, they said, that the "ac" card was backwards compatible, so,
that meant that the ac card contained *both* frequencies, but the caveat
was that the "ac" card was *not* dual band.

When I asked them to clarify, they said it doesn't work on both
frequencies at the same time.

What does that really mean?
Is having two bands dual band, or not?

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 09:45:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Since this thread is really about INTERPRETING specs, is this
interpretation correct?

1. Intel 7265 BGN + Bluetooth Version 4.0
Would it be safe to assume this has *only* 2.4GHz?

2. Intel 7265 AC/B/G/N Dual Band Wireless + Bluetooth Version 4.0
Is it safe to assume this has *both* 2.4GHz & 5GHz?

No, because they are obviously the same Intel card, the same part #
and Intel isn't dumb enough to have a wifi AC card that can't also
connect to older networks. That card is dual band, period.

After my conversation with HP today, I found out that their "ac" card has
both 2.4GHz and 5GHz because it is backward compatible, but they said
that backwards-compatible-ac-card is *not* a "dual band" card.

Apparently they defined "dual band" in a specific way, that excludes the
fact that it has "two" bands.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:02:43 PM UTC-4, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 04:50:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

No. But if you google "Intel 802.11 ac wifi Bluetooth" you'll see it
says the Intel product supports dual band.

See my post of a few seconds ago where I reported the results of three
sets of phone calls to HP today.


See my previous posts. You just won't take yes for an answer.
You identified the specific Intel 7265 card that goes in the PC.
Googling shows it's dual band. I don't know what more you want.
Instead of looking at that, you don't even address it and just
ask the same thing all over again.

And one more time, how many customers do you think would be
bitching if they bought a brand new PC with the latest AC Wifi
adapter and it would not work with the many places that you
might encounter the onlythat are still on 2.4Ghz?

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:06:14 PM UTC-4, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 09:45:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Since this thread is really about INTERPRETING specs, is this
interpretation correct?

1. Intel 7265 BGN + Bluetooth Version 4.0
Would it be safe to assume this has *only* 2.4GHz?

2. Intel 7265 AC/B/G/N Dual Band Wireless + Bluetooth Version 4.0
Is it safe to assume this has *both* 2.4GHz & 5GHz?

No, because they are obviously the same Intel card, the same part #
and Intel isn't dumb enough to have a wifi AC card that can't also
connect to older networks. That card is dual band, period.

After my conversation with HP today, I found out that their "ac" card has
both 2.4GHz and 5GHz because it is backward compatible, but they said
that backwards-compatible-ac-card is *not* a "dual band" card.

Apparently they defined "dual band" in a specific way, that excludes the
fact that it has "two" bands.

HP obviously has people that don't know WTF they are talking about.
But keep calling them, if you like.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:57:18 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

This is a hand-me-down desktop that someone else didn't want, so they
gave it to this teacher, many years ago. It came with zero discs!

Finding Office 2007 replacement CD's is trivial.
Hint: BitTorrent.

If it were you or me, we'd use Belarc to find the original office product
key (or serial number, I forget which) and we'd then find the Office 2007
download ISO hidden deeply on the Microsoft web site - and we'd download
that Microsoft-provided ISO, perhaps burn it to optical disc for re-use,
and we'd simply install Office 2007 on the new laptop from that ISO, and
we'd bring over the old key that we unearthed using Belarc Advisor.

If it were purchased online from the Microsoft site, and you have the
magic serial number, you can download a replacement ISO image.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/downloads/
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/302822

In the end, you or I would have Office 2007 running on their one (winXP)
desktop and their one new (win10) laptop, which is within the license
constraints (I believe).

Yep. I vaguely recall that Office 2007 works on 2 machines. Not
sure.

But that ain't gonna happen with these people.
They are not technical.
They can't handle the complexity.

I'm technical and I hate complexity. Teachers have students, which
just love to help with such things. Some of the teenage hackers are
quite knowledgeable and have impressive experience in the dark arts of
computing. Ask the students for help.

Plus, it's time they moved into the new century, so, if they stick with
Office 2007 (which they continue to call "Word 2007", not realizing there
are multiple office apps), they will eventually have problems reading
Office 2013 documents.

Maybe, but that hasn't been my experience. I can read most anything
produced by Office 2007, 2010, and 2013 with Office 2003 and the MS
Compatibility Pack:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3
However, if there's a problem, I just ask the author to Save As: Word
97 format.

So, it's time they got a new Microsoft Office suite.

The way you can tell when it's time to upgrade is when you can't get
the work done or that it's painful to use. I have no problems reading
or writing with Office 2003 and various file format converters. I
find Office 2007/2010 to be tedious, awkward, clumsy, and not much of
an improvement over Office 2003. In other words, a step backwards. If
your really think it's time for a change, I suggest they step into the
(disk) space age, and take the great leap forward to Cloud Computing
with a Chromebook and Google Office.

Since they will *keep* the WinXP desktop with Office 2007 on it, all
we're looking at is a *single* license of Office 2013 (which they
continue to call "Word 2013", which means they're not using Outlook).

Outlooks is dead anyway because Windoze 10 includes mail and calendar
apps.

So, the price comparison is the following:
1. Pay $100 per year for Office 365 for the rest of their lives, or,
2. Pay $140 once, for Office 2013 H&S for the one laptop.

3. Pay nothing and use Google Office, LibreOffice, or similar free
alternatives.

To me, unless I missed a step, it's a no brainer.

Well, you're right about not using your brain. What I find odd is
that your primary reason to spend the money is the inability or
unwillingness of a teacher to learn something new. I've seen this
phenomenon with teachers in the past, where the monotonous repetition
of cramming facts into students heads eventually leads to intellectual
ossification. Even in computing, I guess perpetual reptition of the
same mistakes is considered a good reason not to change one's habits.
Personally, I find the logic disgusting, but I promised to improve my
diplomacy and won't push the point any further.

Here's what I suggest:
1. Have the teacher beg, borrow, buy, or steal a Chromebook. I have
several Acer products and find them quite good and cheap.
http://stores.ebay.com/Acer/Chromebooks-/_i.html?_fsub=7070078010
The various C720 models are what I use and like (also to run Linux).
Figure about $120 to $175 refurbished.
2. Have one or more of the teachers students setup the Chromebook so
that it's ready to use. The learning curve is not very steep or long,
but since that seems to be an issue here, faster is better.
3. Have the teacher learn to user various Cloud Computing services,
such as Google Cloud, MS Skydrive/OneDrive, etc. Also have the
teacher learn to run apps inside the browser. If MS Word is required,
then MS has the real thing available:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/word-online/fiombgjlkfpdpkbhfioofeeinbehmajg
4. If the teacher makes it this far, the rest should be obvious.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:40:39 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:17:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Nope. It should be:
802.11 a == 5GHz only
802.11 b == 2.4GHz only
802.11 g == 2.4GHz
only 802.11 n == 2.4GHz or 5GHz === changed 802.11
ac == 5GHz only

Thank you Jeff for clarifying this spec:
http://i.imgur.com/hBcFWkQ.jpg

After a half hour on three separate HP calls, I learned something (I
think) that nobody told me yet...
1. HP Tech Support 888-222-0029
2. Advanced HP Tech Support 866-221-4553
3. HP Shopping Team 888-999-4747

HP: They first told me the ac card was just ac.
ME: I told them that this was unlikely, so I asked them to doublecheck.

HP: After a long wait, they told me the "ac" card was backwards
compatible, but it was only 5GHz.
ME: I told them that was impossible.

HP: Then, after another long wait, they told me it was NOT dual band, but
that it had both bands.
ME: I told them that this confused me, and I asked them to clarify.

HP: Finally, they came back and said that the "ac" card was backwards
compatible, so that it had two frequencies, but they don't operate at the
same time, so it's not dual band.
ME: I said thank you but I would like to ask you, Jeff, to clarify.

Please note that I did not suggest that you call support. I suggested
you call pre-sales support (shopping team or something similar) and
ask what model Intel wireless card is the "ac" device.

Does that HP answer make sense?

Sorta, if I read between the lines.

The "ac" card is backwards compatible, so, it has both frequencies, but
it doesn't do both frequencies at the same time?

"ac" is always backwards compatible to "a". It has to be. Short
lecture follows:

If you force the wireless router (not the client radio in the laptop)
to do only "ac", then the maximum from router to laptop will be rather
short. Basically, at a fixed power level, you trade range for speed.
"ac" is all about speed, so the range decreases when it's used. If
the BER (bit error rate) increases above some pre-programmed level,
the router in "ac" mode will slow down, eventually going to the
slowest "ac" mode speed. To go slower than that, it would need to
revert to some "n" mode. Once the router slows down to the slowest
"n" mode, it will need to go to ordinary "a" mode. If it didn't go:
ac - n - a
the wireless connection would not work more than a few feet in "ac"
mode. Therefore, to obtain tolerable performance at reasonable
ranges, the wireless devices need to support all the modes down to
"a".

There is one exception. 802.11b is so disgustingly slow that the
802.11n spec (and others) demand that 802.11b be disabled if 802.11n
is active.

End of lecture section (for now). Quiz to follow.

Now, on to the "dual band" problem. The issue of "simultaneous dual
band" is more of a router problem than a client radio problem. The
usual idea is that you can have different devices use different bands
as required. To do this requires simultaneous dual band in the
router, but not in the laptop client radio. For example, I've setup
Roku wireless media player boxes to use 5GHz, while the laptops and
tablets are all on 2.4 Ghz. I've also done the reverse, when there's
so much screaming media traffic on 2.4Ghz that the only band that's
usable is 5GHz.
http://www.netgear.com/landing/dual-band.aspx
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/01/how-to-set-up-dual-band-wifi-and-juice-your-downloads/
Simultaneous dual band is (in my opinion) a requirement for wireless
routers and access points. However, for laptops, tablets, and
wireless client radios, it's only useful for marketing types that want
to advertise higher speeds. There are protocols for bonding both the
2.4 and 5GHz channels between a laptop and a router in order to get
higher download speeds. You're not going to see that on a $350 laptop
and don't need it anyway. Therefore, the HP phone person was right
that it's one band at a time, not both simultaneously.

Incidentally, the Bluetooth device shares the same radio as the 2.4GHz
wi-fi section and are setup to alternate their operation so as to not
mutually interfere with each other.

What does that really mean?

It means you've educated the HP phone support person. Somehow, I
don't think that was your intent.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:02:36 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 04:50:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

No. But if you google "Intel 802.11 ac wifi Bluetooth" you'll see it
says the Intel product supports dual band.

See my post of a few seconds ago where I reported the results of three
sets of phone calls to HP today.

I have asked Jeff to clarify what they told me, but here's the scoop.

In the end, they said, that the "ac" card was backwards compatible, so,
that meant that the ac card contained *both* frequencies, but the caveat
was that the "ac" card was *not* dual band.

When I asked them to clarify, they said it doesn't work on both
frequencies at the same time.

What does that really mean?
Is having two bands dual band, or not?

I just hate it when you ask consistently good questions. I feel
obligated to answer when I would rather roll over and die from
spending most of the Labor Day holiday running wires under a house.
I'm getting too old for this kind of work.

Operating on both frequencies at the same time is called "simultaneous
dual band". This is commonly found in wireless routers and wireless
access points, but not in wireless client radios, like the one in your
prospective HP laptop. The wireless router needs simultaneous dual
band because it might have two different users, connected at the same
time, each on a different band. Were the radio NOT simultaneous dual
band, the traffic bandwidth would be roughly cut in half because the
wireless router radio would need to switch back and forth between the
two users. However, with simultaneous dual band, it could service
both users at the same time without any loss of bandwidth.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 09/08/2015 12:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

From what Jeff said, all I can tell is (is this correct?):

Nope. It should be:
802.11 a == 5GHz only
802.11 b == 2.4GHz only
802.11 g == 2.4GHz only
802.11 n == 2.4GHz or 5GHz === changed
802.11 ac == 5GHz only

For completeness, there is the original 802.11 (with no suffix) that is
also on 2.4GHz. IIRC, maximum speed for that is 2Mbps.

[snip]


--
107 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

"Nobody has ever taken notable pains to locate the legendary heaven; but
probably that is because nobody ever thought seriously of going to a
heaven." [E. Haldeman-Julius, "The Meaning Of Atheism"]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:38:25 -0500, Sam E
wrote:

On 09/08/2015 12:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

From what Jeff said, all I can tell is (is this correct?):

Nope. It should be:
802.11 a == 5GHz only
802.11 b == 2.4GHz only
802.11 g == 2.4GHz only
802.11 n == 2.4GHz or 5GHz === changed
802.11 ac == 5GHz only

For completeness, there is the original 802.11 (with no suffix) that is
also on 2.4GHz. IIRC, maximum speed for that is 2Mbps.

Yep, however those were incorporated into the 802.11b specification.
The two slowest speeds of 1 and 2 Mbit/sec became part of 802.11b when
5.5 and 11 Mbits/sec were added.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11-1997_.28802.11_legacy.29
Besides DSSS (direct sequence spread spectrum) there were also a few
FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum) promoted by Raytheon,
Breezecom (Alviron), and TI. However, you won't see these in modern
equipment, unless you include BlueGoof, which is FHSS.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558