- Mythbuster busts his own tale
- 10 open source companies to watch
- Sony recalls 73,000 Vaio laptops
- Tool to evade China's Web censorship
- Chrome and Firefox and add-ons
Newsletters | Podcasts | Chats | Opinions | RSS Feeds | This Week In Print | IT Careers | Community | Reports | Downloads | Slideshows | New Data Center
Partner Sites:App Performance | On Demand Security | Networking Solution | SOA | Value of WDS
Joanie Wexler looks at how enterprises can take advantage of wireless LANs and WANs.
A recent, multidimensional evaluation of 802.11n wireless LAN vendors compiled by ABI Research reflects the complexity facing IT departments as they conduct their own assessments of enterprise-class 802.11n prospects. In what was more or less a photo finish, Meru Networks edged out its fierce rival, Aruba Networks, as the leading vendor in ABI's latest Vendor Matrix, released last week. Motorola took the No. 3 spot.
Note that while these vendors received the highest overall rankings, criteria were weighted, and other companies excelled in certain areas in their own right. So, depending on what’s important to you, you might wish to weigh certain factors differently and, thus, come up with the same or different “winners.”
For example, if you anticipate bar-coded data only traversing your WLAN and never running voice or video over it, the high points Meru earned for its “no-handoff” virtual cell architecture and QoS might not carry the weight for you that they did for the general assessment.
Among the criteria used by Stan Schatt, ABI vice president and networking research director, were weighted ratings of several “implementation factors” that ranged from channel partner infrastructure, number and size of existing commercial deployments, value for price, product range, migration strategy from earlier 802.11 networks, power-over-Ethernet support and planning tools.
Also critiqued were “innovation factors” that covered antenna technology and architectural features such as QoS, high-availability design, scalability. The evaluation was based on detailed surveys and conversations with each of 13 vendors and did not include performance testing, Schatt said.
In attempting to create a true apples-to-apples assessment of the 802.11n market as it stands today, ABI examined a wide range of variables. It also normalized pricing. For example, it accounted for the fact that some 802.11n access points (AP) might seem the least expensive, but become more costly if you want to add features that come bundled into competitors’ higher-priced APs.
You can view the ABI 802.11n Vendor Matrix here (free registration is required), but I’ll also provide some vendor-by-vendor replay in the next newsletter.
Joanie Wexler is an independent networking technology writer/editor in Silicon Valley.

Discover the capabilities your file integrity monitoring solution should have to effectively secure...
Realizing the Potential of User-Generated and Social NetworkingCan communication service providers (CSPs) leverage Web 2.0 services and create new service...
Digital Asset Management StrategyThe reality of Dramatically changing media landscape, has created awareness within the media and...

The standard for Power over Ethernet (PoE), IEEE Std. 802.3af(tm)-2003, advanced networking,...
Intelligent Mobility: BlackBerry Technical Seminar 2008The virtual BlackBerry Technical Seminar keeps growing in popularity every year, and we want to...
Harnessing the power of communications to increase workplace performanceDue to the convergence of IT and telecommunications technologies, the business workplace has been...

WAN Ethernet services are reliable, cost-efficient offerings that are widely available and in a...
Comments (11)
Response to Anon> this is ofBy David Fron Poland on July 30, 2008, 8:30 amResponse to Anon> this is of course not true and even if it was the case you should switch virtual cell to Per Station instead of shared. Obviously you have never...
Reply | Read entire comment
Go to ABIresearch Cisco was included...By Anonymous on July 10, 2008, 1:19 pmGo to ABIresearch Cisco was included. Just because they weren't the best doesn't mean you need to be a baby. And as the last guy said try not to blame the equipment...
Reply | Read entire comment
Ow and to add ("dumb ass") why don't you leave virtual cell on fBy Anonymous on July 10, 2008, 1:03 pmOw and to add ("dumb ass") why don't you leave virtual cell on for data profiles or whatever else you are trying to do and create a separate ESSID ID with same channel...
Reply | Read entire comment
The Meru AP320 only requires a single cat 5e cable with power frBy Anonymous on July 10, 2008, 12:57 pmThe Meru AP320 only requires a single cat 5e cable with power from a standard POE switch. You may be thinking of Xirrus
Reply | Read entire comment
Then turn off Virtual Cell dumb ass...By Anonymous on July 10, 2008, 12:55 pmThen turn off Virtual Cell dumb ass. Its not hard to configure but maybe you should go out and get some linksys or D-Link where are they in this test...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments