There is only one thing I need from the AE, more than 3 ethernet ports! But I am sure, Apple, in its quest to make everything smaller/thinner without regard to the needs of the people that are actually using it, will probably drop all wired ports.
Rant over...cool 802.11ac.
-kpluck
P.S. on a completely unrelated note, my god does the site redesign suck.
Yeah, clearly Apple's staggering success is because it creates products 'without regards to the needs of the people that are actually using them'. What you meant to say was, it makes products without regards to the needs of niche people such as yourself, who don't represent the needs of the MAJORITY of the people who use the product. Try to look beyond your own specific situation and realize that there's probably a very small percentage of people who need more than 3 wired connections to their router, seeing as the majority of all purchased devices these days are wireless. How many people have more than 3 wired devices in the same room as their router, or willing to run ethernet cables through their walls? I can't imagine that this would be a practical requirement in anything other than an office environment, in which case needs are totally different and an AE might not be the best choice of device anyway. Yes, Apple does tend to draw a line in the sand somewhere between functionality and design aesthetic, but this line is usually rational and reasonable.
On another note, would be sweet as hell if the next iPhone had 802.11ac, even though I probably wouldnt take advantage of it for a long time.
Our household video library of 1,000 videos resides on a Promise Pegasus 12 TB RAID attached to the latest iMac 27" with Thunderbolt. This can be feeding up to 7 iPads (more likely 3 or 4) at any given time. We also have NetFlix and Hulu Streaming from the Internet. I think this would be a boon for the next 5 years.
If the new iMacs, Airports and iPads have this -- we will probably upgrade.
Ummm, are you aware that it only takes 4-8 Mbps to stream 1080p at 24 frames per second? Thus, your present 802.11n will EASILY stream 10 devices - and leave you plenty left over for multiple streams of Netflix (which is still going to face a bottleneck at your ISP).
802.11AC isnt just useful for streaming HD video and large files. SSD drives, Network Storage and upto 1Gbs internet connections are all available right now. While very few have access to 1Gbs internet, both Verizon & Comcast offer 300+Mbs packages to those who want to pay for it. Dont be surprised if those speeds continue to double or cheapen.. as other ISP's play catchup. Hardware upgrades have considerably increased the horsepower of consumer devices like the AppleTV3, BluRay playback & 4K UltraHDTV. And software upgrades to iOS & OSX now allow entire desktop/screen mirroring and sharing.
I welcome any future AC products to help cut down on the network hiccups, buffering and helping all of these networked devices work as seemless as possible. While my 2010 Airport Extreme dual band N router already can stream, mirror and transfer files at reasonable rates. Its still area that can be improved on in terms of both speed & latency. One area where this is very noticeable is when streaming an HD movie file and fast forwarding or rewinding. I also notice hiccups and stuttering when switching from one Apple TV to another. I have 4 ATVs in my home, so its pretty common for me to start watching a movie in the living room or basement.. and finish watching it in bed.
I can only imagine how much more my network will bog down when I finally get 6TB RAID5/6 Synology NAS up and running.. and begin using all of my data from it, including machine backups and media libraries. Lastly one must also consider the sheer number of wireless devices now hanging off a single home/small office router. I have counted 12 wifi devices that are currently connnected to mine, with several of those streaming gig+ HD video files (Xbox360, PS3, iPads, ATV's, etc). So a faster processer, larger range 2012 Apple Extreme AC router to handle the main powerlifting NAS/LAN/Internet duties is welcomed. I could then convert my 2010 dual band N model to bridge duty to help the weak signal areas in the basement & backyard. I was honestly planning on getting a $99 2012 Airport Express dual band to accomplish that anyways.
Remember data storage, usage & transfer is only going to INCREASE in the future. If a new standard is here, why not begin to support it now.. instead waiting a few years.
P.S. on a completely unrelated note, my god does the site redesign suck.
Completely agree with you on this comment. So much harder to read, very little contrast and harder to tell what text is the actual article. I couldn't find where to log in to make this comment until I came into the actual forum.
Addition: I'm kind of surprised they didn't adopt it in the July Macbook refresh. That would be my only queue that we won't see 802.11ac until next year's refresh.
Could be one of two reasons. The first is that despite the fact that 802.11ac chips were available at the launch of the Ivy Bridge MacBooks doesn't mean that Apple could get them in the quantity that they would have needed to do a product launch. Apple sells about 4 million Macs per quarter and 3/4s of them are MacBooks. Since the entire Macbook Air/Pro line refreshed at the same time you'd need 3 million+ chips in order to keep Apple's supply chain happy and that may not have been in the cards. The current crop of 802.11c routers are likely selling only in the hundreds or thousands to the early adopter geek crowd (especially since 802.11ac has virtually no major laptop vendor support yet).
The other possibility is that the current MacBooks already have the capability but were waiting for a refresh of the Airport Extreme/Time Capsule. That's not likely since we live in the world of iFixit which tears down everything Apple makes and reports on chip vendors. If Apple had snuck this in, I think we'd have known about it.
If the 802.11ac standard does happen, it could be in time for a desktop refresh since the new iMac is due (and the Mac Mini).
For what? Perhaps commercial use, but the Apple routers are not designed for heavy industrial/commercial use (ie. Hospitals, factories, businesses). Your best ISP is still stuck at speeds that make 802.11n seem about a decade ahead of their time.
Now, if you have a bunch of SSD's in a RAID configuration (you will not see sustained Gigabit datarates with non-SSD drives) and feel the need to stream more than 6 streams of 1080p video, simultaneously - then 802.11ac should work well. But, if you only have a a few streams of 1080p video you have to watch simulatneously - the 802.11n should work just fine.
Here are some reasons... 2K, 3K and 4K video. The new iPad Retina has 1 Million more pixels than a 1080p HDTV. The iPad can be coerced to play 2K video. Final Cut Pro X handles 4K and 2K natively. These are coming technologies.
I can play a 4K (4096x2304) or 2K(2048x1152) QuickTime video mirrored AirPlay from my iMac to my AppleTV via WiFi Airport Extreme... The 4K looks good on the HDTV, better on the Mac. The 2K looks better on the iPad than on the iMac.
My point is that these technologies (2K and 4K digital) are here and being used -- we are going to want to stream them around the home or small office.
Our household video library of 1,000 videos resides on a Promise Pegasus 12 TB RAID attached to the latest iMac 27" with Thunderbolt. This can be feeding up to 7 iPads (more likely 3 or 4) at any given time. We also have NetFlix and Hulu Streaming from the Internet. I think this would be a boon for the next 5 years.
Here are some reasons... 2K, 3K and 4K video. The new iPad Retina has 1 Million more pixels than a 1080p HDTV. The iPad can be coerced to play 2K video. Final Cut Pro X handles 4K and 2K natively. These are coming technologies.
I can play a 4K (4096x2304) or 2K(2048x1152) QuickTime video mirrored AirPlay from my iMac to my AppleTV via WiFi Airport Extreme... The 4K looks good on the HDTV, better on the Mac. The 2K looks better on the iPad than on the iMac.
My point is that these technologies (2K and 4K digital) are here and being used -- we are going to want to stream them around the home or small office.
BTW, 4K is 1 Gig bps.
Just one question ... how do you intend to source that 4K?
Internet won't be ready for the forseeable future. No media - I question whether this will even be accepted by the public in any meanful manner. I recall how 3D was presented, and it failed to impress. Blu-Ray isn't selling as hoped, either.
When HDTV's came out, they were in the $10K range - the 4K sets are coming in at $20K - so in maybe 5-10 years, the prices will be in the range that the average consumer can comtemplate them. But, in the meanwhile, we will need to revamp our entire internet infrastructure (ie. Fiber).
Any way you look at this - we are 5-10 yrs before anything is remotely likely to happen. With that said, why buy a 802.11ac router now, when the 802.11n standard is market dominant, inexpensive, well supported and is overkill for the internet speeds that 95% of the internet users have? The HDTV was a dramatic improvement over the conventional TV experience - I haven't seen a 4K demo, but I just don't see myself tossing my 5 yr old 50" plasma away, and dropping that sort of money on a TV with a "better than HD" picture. It's simply an issue of "how good, is good enough". I submit that the market will simply say "HDTV is "good enough".".
As for the 4K, I'd wager your favorite adult beverage that this will be dismissed by the masses as yet another "fad", just like 3D, just like Blu-Ray, and just like the SA-CD audio format. Are these formats superior? Maybe, but it's always about the bang for the buck.
For what? Perhaps commercial use, but the Apple routers are not designed for heavy industrial/commercial use (ie. Hospitals, factories, businesses). Your best ISP is still stuck at speeds that make 802.11n seem about a decade ahead of their time.
If you have a large house and are receiving the wireless signal through multiple walls/floors, the wifi speed can easily start to bottleneck the internet speed. It's not 450Mbits wherever you are as long as you have signal, it starts to degrade the second you step away from the router.
And that's not even considering faster local uses like transferring files between computers and streaming HD movies. 450Mbits is about 60 MB, most modern hard drives can read/write faster than that alone, let alone RAID or SSDs.
If you have a large house and are receiving the wireless signal through multiple walls/floors, the wifi speed can easily start to bottleneck the internet speed. It's not 450Mbits wherever you are as long as you have signal, it starts to degrade the second you step away from the router.
And that's not even considering faster local uses like transferring files between computers and streaming HD movies. 450Mbits is about 60 MB, most modern hard drives can read/write faster than that alone, let alone RAID or SSDs.
I used to think the same thing, but you have to understand what the 450 Mbps number means. It's not comparable to Hard drive transfer rates.
Specifically, you don't actually get 60 MBps on a 450 Mbps wireless connection. Actual data throughput is 1/2 to 1/3 of that number, so now you're down to 20-30 MBps throughput in real life. See, for example, the second post on this thread. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1666359
Second, as you point out, you basically have to be on top of the router to see the full speed. Add a wall or some distance, and suddenly you drop that by half again, so your 450 Mbps is now only around 100 Mpbs, which is a little over 10 MBps actual transfer speed.
Third, the 450 number is the whole wireless network, not each computer. Unlike a wired network, it's it's not a full duplex number.
I have the current generation Airport Extreme, which does up to 300 Mbps on my MacBook Air. When Time Machine is backing up, it saturates the wireless and slows down my internet connectivity. And I don't have an especially fast hard drive or anything like that.
Bottom line is that your real word throughput is only a fraction of that 450 Mbps number, even under optimal conditions. Add in some distance, and you're no longer looking so hot. So better/faster wireless isn't just something for super power users.
Our household video library of 1,000 videos resides on a Promise Pegasus 12 TB RAID attached to the latest iMac 27" with Thunderbolt. This can be feeding up to 7 iPads (more likely 3 or 4) at any given time. We also have NetFlix and Hulu Streaming from the Internet. I think this would be a boon for the next 5 years.
If the new iMacs, Airports and iPads have this -- we will probably upgrade.
My household has a video library of about 600 titles residing on a Drobo attached to a Mac Mini (2009). I must not be living right. :-(
There is only one thing I need from the AE, more than 3 ethernet ports! But I am sure, Apple, in its quest to make everything smaller/thinner without regard to the needs of the people that are actually using it, will probably drop all wired ports.
Rant over...cool 802.11ac.
-kpluck
P.S. on a completely unrelated note, my god does the site redesign suck.
Well, as of Monday night, Amazon does have it. They didn't have it about about 3-4 weeks ago, but as I said, they do now. And Best Buy has it in stores, although not available for shipping for online orders. So I don't know if there really is this "limited availability" the article refers to.
And kpluck, I couldn't agree with you more about the site redesign!
Your best ISP is still stuck at speeds that make 802.11n seem about a decade ahead of their time.
True, but as you note yourself, there are lots of uses for home networks beyond just internet distribution. My wife is crazy for her camera and often has need to move hundreds of high resolution images from one device to another. A faster network would reduce the amount of time it takes to do that, since N can't keep up with even a single laptop hard drive. Backups are another task that would just take less time for a faster network. It's not necessary but it is convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Now, if you have a bunch of SSD's in a RAID configuration (you will not see sustained Gigabit datarates with non-SSD drives) and feel the need to stream more than 6 streams of 1080p video, simultaneously - then 802.11ac should work well.
You don't need an SSD RAID to see the improvement. I have a simple centralized storage system hanging off a mini and file access is MUCH faster with a cable than over the air via N. I'm hoping that AC will be fast enough to eliminate the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
But, if you only have a a few streams of 1080p video you have to watch simulatneously - the 802.11n should work just fine.
The resolution and frame rate are not the only variables. Image quality is obviously affected by bit rate, so higher quality renders can be much more demanding of bandwidth. If I'm editing a video and want to stream what I've done so far to the big TV so the family can see it and make suggestions, that intermediate stage is going to consume WAAAY more bandwidth than a finished h.264 encoded movie. N can do it, but AC should do it with fewer lags, burps and waits.
It's like faster drives or CPUs. For some things it won't be the weakest link so no improvement is realized. For other things it will make a big difference. In some applications the improvement is dramatic, in other cases more subtle. It's an incremental improvement, and like any other upgrade its value to you is based on what you do and how you do it. In our house it would be worth having. I was surprised and disappointed that AC wasn't included in the last batch of new Macs.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
There is only one thing I need from the AE, more than 3 ethernet ports! But I am sure, Apple, in its quest to make everything smaller/thinner without regard to the needs of the people that are actually using it, will probably drop all wired ports.
Rant over...cool 802.11ac.
-kpluck
P.S. on a completely unrelated note, my god does the site redesign suck.
Yeah, clearly Apple's staggering success is because it creates products 'without regards to the needs of the people that are actually using them'. What you meant to say was, it makes products without regards to the needs of niche people such as yourself, who don't represent the needs of the MAJORITY of the people who use the product. Try to look beyond your own specific situation and realize that there's probably a very small percentage of people who need more than 3 wired connections to their router, seeing as the majority of all purchased devices these days are wireless. How many people have more than 3 wired devices in the same room as their router, or willing to run ethernet cables through their walls? I can't imagine that this would be a practical requirement in anything other than an office environment, in which case needs are totally different and an AE might not be the best choice of device anyway. Yes, Apple does tend to draw a line in the sand somewhere between functionality and design aesthetic, but this line is usually rational and reasonable.
On another note, would be sweet as hell if the next iPhone had 802.11ac, even though I probably wouldnt take advantage of it for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Our household video library of 1,000 videos resides on a Promise Pegasus 12 TB RAID attached to the latest iMac 27" with Thunderbolt. This can be feeding up to 7 iPads (more likely 3 or 4) at any given time. We also have NetFlix and Hulu Streaming from the Internet. I think this would be a boon for the next 5 years.
If the new iMacs, Airports and iPads have this -- we will probably upgrade.
Ummm, are you aware that it only takes 4-8 Mbps to stream 1080p at 24 frames per second? Thus, your present 802.11n will EASILY stream 10 devices - and leave you plenty left over for multiple streams of Netflix (which is still going to face a bottleneck at your ISP).
802.11AC isnt just useful for streaming HD video and large files. SSD drives, Network Storage and upto 1Gbs internet connections are all available right now. While very few have access to 1Gbs internet, both Verizon & Comcast offer 300+Mbs packages to those who want to pay for it. Dont be surprised if those speeds continue to double or cheapen.. as other ISP's play catchup. Hardware upgrades have considerably increased the horsepower of consumer devices like the AppleTV3, BluRay playback & 4K UltraHDTV. And software upgrades to iOS & OSX now allow entire desktop/screen mirroring and sharing.
I welcome any future AC products to help cut down on the network hiccups, buffering and helping all of these networked devices work as seemless as possible. While my 2010 Airport Extreme dual band N router already can stream, mirror and transfer files at reasonable rates. Its still area that can be improved on in terms of both speed & latency. One area where this is very noticeable is when streaming an HD movie file and fast forwarding or rewinding. I also notice hiccups and stuttering when switching from one Apple TV to another. I have 4 ATVs in my home, so its pretty common for me to start watching a movie in the living room or basement.. and finish watching it in bed.
I can only imagine how much more my network will bog down when I finally get 6TB RAID5/6 Synology NAS up and running.. and begin using all of my data from it, including machine backups and media libraries. Lastly one must also consider the sheer number of wireless devices now hanging off a single home/small office router. I have counted 12 wifi devices that are currently connnected to mine, with several of those streaming gig+ HD video files (Xbox360, PS3, iPads, ATV's, etc). So a faster processer, larger range 2012 Apple Extreme AC router to handle the main powerlifting NAS/LAN/Internet duties is welcomed. I could then convert my 2010 dual band N model to bridge duty to help the weak signal areas in the basement & backyard. I was honestly planning on getting a $99 2012 Airport Express dual band to accomplish that anyways.
Remember data storage, usage & transfer is only going to INCREASE in the future. If a new standard is here, why not begin to support it now.. instead waiting a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
P.S. on a completely unrelated note, my god does the site redesign suck.
Completely agree with you on this comment. So much harder to read, very little contrast and harder to tell what text is the actual article. I couldn't find where to log in to make this comment until I came into the actual forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
Addition: I'm kind of surprised they didn't adopt it in the July Macbook refresh. That would be my only queue that we won't see 802.11ac until next year's refresh.
Could be one of two reasons. The first is that despite the fact that 802.11ac chips were available at the launch of the Ivy Bridge MacBooks doesn't mean that Apple could get them in the quantity that they would have needed to do a product launch. Apple sells about 4 million Macs per quarter and 3/4s of them are MacBooks. Since the entire Macbook Air/Pro line refreshed at the same time you'd need 3 million+ chips in order to keep Apple's supply chain happy and that may not have been in the cards. The current crop of 802.11c routers are likely selling only in the hundreds or thousands to the early adopter geek crowd (especially since 802.11ac has virtually no major laptop vendor support yet).
The other possibility is that the current MacBooks already have the capability but were waiting for a refresh of the Airport Extreme/Time Capsule. That's not likely since we live in the world of iFixit which tears down everything Apple makes and reports on chip vendors. If Apple had snuck this in, I think we'd have known about it.
If the 802.11ac standard does happen, it could be in time for a desktop refresh since the new iMac is due (and the Mac Mini).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
... 802.11ac is MUCH needed.
For what? Perhaps commercial use, but the Apple routers are not designed for heavy industrial/commercial use (ie. Hospitals, factories, businesses). Your best ISP is still stuck at speeds that make 802.11n seem about a decade ahead of their time.
Now, if you have a bunch of SSD's in a RAID configuration (you will not see sustained Gigabit datarates with non-SSD drives) and feel the need to stream more than 6 streams of 1080p video, simultaneously - then 802.11ac should work well. But, if you only have a a few streams of 1080p video you have to watch simulatneously - the 802.11n should work just fine.
Here are some reasons... 2K, 3K and 4K video. The new iPad Retina has 1 Million more pixels than a 1080p HDTV. The iPad can be coerced to play 2K video. Final Cut Pro X handles 4K and 2K natively. These are coming technologies.
I can play a 4K (4096x2304) or 2K(2048x1152) QuickTime video mirrored AirPlay from my iMac to my AppleTV via WiFi Airport Extreme... The 4K looks good on the HDTV, better on the Mac. The 2K looks better on the iPad than on the iMac.
My point is that these technologies (2K and 4K digital) are here and being used -- we are going to want to stream them around the home or small office.
BTW, 4K is 1 Gig bps.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
BTW, 4K is 1 Gig bps.
Is that H.264 or HEVC? That's the key here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Our household video library of 1,000 videos resides on a Promise Pegasus 12 TB RAID attached to the latest iMac 27" with Thunderbolt. This can be feeding up to 7 iPads (more likely 3 or 4) at any given time. We also have NetFlix and Hulu Streaming from the Internet. I think this would be a boon for the next 5 years.
Dick, you're not normal. Take that as you will
3 things I'd like to see in a new Airport, in this order:
1. Built-in cable modem
2. Additional power/range boost
3. More bandwidth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here are some reasons... 2K, 3K and 4K video. The new iPad Retina has 1 Million more pixels than a 1080p HDTV. The iPad can be coerced to play 2K video. Final Cut Pro X handles 4K and 2K natively. These are coming technologies.
I can play a 4K (4096x2304) or 2K(2048x1152) QuickTime video mirrored AirPlay from my iMac to my AppleTV via WiFi Airport Extreme... The 4K looks good on the HDTV, better on the Mac. The 2K looks better on the iPad than on the iMac.
My point is that these technologies (2K and 4K digital) are here and being used -- we are going to want to stream them around the home or small office.
BTW, 4K is 1 Gig bps.
Just one question ... how do you intend to source that 4K?
Internet won't be ready for the forseeable future. No media - I question whether this will even be accepted by the public in any meanful manner. I recall how 3D was presented, and it failed to impress. Blu-Ray isn't selling as hoped, either.
When HDTV's came out, they were in the $10K range - the 4K sets are coming in at $20K - so in maybe 5-10 years, the prices will be in the range that the average consumer can comtemplate them. But, in the meanwhile, we will need to revamp our entire internet infrastructure (ie. Fiber).
Any way you look at this - we are 5-10 yrs before anything is remotely likely to happen. With that said, why buy a 802.11ac router now, when the 802.11n standard is market dominant, inexpensive, well supported and is overkill for the internet speeds that 95% of the internet users have? The HDTV was a dramatic improvement over the conventional TV experience - I haven't seen a 4K demo, but I just don't see myself tossing my 5 yr old 50" plasma away, and dropping that sort of money on a TV with a "better than HD" picture. It's simply an issue of "how good, is good enough". I submit that the market will simply say "HDTV is "good enough".".
As for the 4K, I'd wager your favorite adult beverage that this will be dismissed by the masses as yet another "fad", just like 3D, just like Blu-Ray, and just like the SA-CD audio format. Are these formats superior? Maybe, but it's always about the bang for the buck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
For what? Perhaps commercial use, but the Apple routers are not designed for heavy industrial/commercial use (ie. Hospitals, factories, businesses). Your best ISP is still stuck at speeds that make 802.11n seem about a decade ahead of their time.
If you have a large house and are receiving the wireless signal through multiple walls/floors, the wifi speed can easily start to bottleneck the internet speed. It's not 450Mbits wherever you are as long as you have signal, it starts to degrade the second you step away from the router.
And that's not even considering faster local uses like transferring files between computers and streaming HD movies. 450Mbits is about 60 MB, most modern hard drives can read/write faster than that alone, let alone RAID or SSDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
If you have a large house and are receiving the wireless signal through multiple walls/floors, the wifi speed can easily start to bottleneck the internet speed. It's not 450Mbits wherever you are as long as you have signal, it starts to degrade the second you step away from the router.
And that's not even considering faster local uses like transferring files between computers and streaming HD movies. 450Mbits is about 60 MB, most modern hard drives can read/write faster than that alone, let alone RAID or SSDs.
I used to think the same thing, but you have to understand what the 450 Mbps number means. It's not comparable to Hard drive transfer rates.
Specifically, you don't actually get 60 MBps on a 450 Mbps wireless connection. Actual data throughput is 1/2 to 1/3 of that number, so now you're down to 20-30 MBps throughput in real life. See, for example, the second post on this thread. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1666359
Second, as you point out, you basically have to be on top of the router to see the full speed. Add a wall or some distance, and suddenly you drop that by half again, so your 450 Mbps is now only around 100 Mpbs, which is a little over 10 MBps actual transfer speed.
Third, the 450 number is the whole wireless network, not each computer. Unlike a wired network, it's it's not a full duplex number.
I have the current generation Airport Extreme, which does up to 300 Mbps on my MacBook Air. When Time Machine is backing up, it saturates the wireless and slows down my internet connectivity. And I don't have an especially fast hard drive or anything like that.
Bottom line is that your real word throughput is only a fraction of that 450 Mbps number, even under optimal conditions. Add in some distance, and you're no longer looking so hot. So better/faster wireless isn't just something for super power users.
I have 350KB/s down and 20KB/s up... Life it good and fast in my neck of the woods...
That should be Megabits per second not Kilobytes per second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Our household video library of 1,000 videos resides on a Promise Pegasus 12 TB RAID attached to the latest iMac 27" with Thunderbolt. This can be feeding up to 7 iPads (more likely 3 or 4) at any given time. We also have NetFlix and Hulu Streaming from the Internet. I think this would be a boon for the next 5 years.
If the new iMacs, Airports and iPads have this -- we will probably upgrade.
My household has a video library of about 600 titles residing on a Drobo attached to a Mac Mini (2009). I must not be living right. :-(
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet
My household has a video library of about 600 titles residing on a Drobo attached to a Mac Mini (2009). I must not be living right. :-(
Maybe just not as long yet.
I miss SpyMac.... especially JuicyApple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
There is only one thing I need from the AE, more than 3 ethernet ports! But I am sure, Apple, in its quest to make everything smaller/thinner without regard to the needs of the people that are actually using it, will probably drop all wired ports.
Rant over...cool 802.11ac.
-kpluck
P.S. on a completely unrelated note, my god does the site redesign suck.
Ever hear of an ethernet switch?
And kpluck, I couldn't agree with you more about the site redesign!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Your best ISP is still stuck at speeds that make 802.11n seem about a decade ahead of their time.
True, but as you note yourself, there are lots of uses for home networks beyond just internet distribution. My wife is crazy for her camera and often has need to move hundreds of high resolution images from one device to another. A faster network would reduce the amount of time it takes to do that, since N can't keep up with even a single laptop hard drive. Backups are another task that would just take less time for a faster network. It's not necessary but it is convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Now, if you have a bunch of SSD's in a RAID configuration (you will not see sustained Gigabit datarates with non-SSD drives) and feel the need to stream more than 6 streams of 1080p video, simultaneously - then 802.11ac should work well.
You don't need an SSD RAID to see the improvement. I have a simple centralized storage system hanging off a mini and file access is MUCH faster with a cable than over the air via N. I'm hoping that AC will be fast enough to eliminate the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
But, if you only have a a few streams of 1080p video you have to watch simulatneously - the 802.11n should work just fine.
The resolution and frame rate are not the only variables. Image quality is obviously affected by bit rate, so higher quality renders can be much more demanding of bandwidth. If I'm editing a video and want to stream what I've done so far to the big TV so the family can see it and make suggestions, that intermediate stage is going to consume WAAAY more bandwidth than a finished h.264 encoded movie. N can do it, but AC should do it with fewer lags, burps and waits.
It's like faster drives or CPUs. For some things it won't be the weakest link so no improvement is realized. For other things it will make a big difference. In some applications the improvement is dramatic, in other cases more subtle. It's an incremental improvement, and like any other upgrade its value to you is based on what you do and how you do it. In our house it would be worth having. I was surprised and disappointed that AC wasn't included in the last batch of new Macs.