Some points. Apologies for cross-posting if you find my "arguments" in other threads..
1. Apple's Airport Extreme might only offer 100mbit/sec throughput in general based on the following theory. It operates in four modes, one of which is 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz and 802.11n only @ 5ghz.
2. In the 802.11n only @ 5ghz mode, you could get 100-300mbit/sec : "One of N?s possible advantages of double-wide channels?instead of 22 MHz, they can use 40 MHz channels, which effectively doubles throughput. When you combine a newly efficient design for encoding, two or more radios, and double-wide channels, that?s when you get the high symbol rate of 300 Mbps, with effective throughputs that could go well over 100 Mbps. The 100 Mbps throughput factors in?as I understand it?the expectation that N devices will have brief periods in which they can bond two channels." ( http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_80211n.html )
3. In the 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz mode, you would not get more than 100mbit/sec bcause the double-wide channel bonding thingy does not work at 2.4ghz.
4. Sounds like 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz is slower but longer range than 802.11n only @ 5ghz ( because of apparently the lower power pumped through the 5ghz radios )
5. Airport Extreme operating in 2.4ghz 802.11b/g/n will very likely not get more than 100mbit/sec, more so than point no.3 above, because of the networking overhead and switching to lower speeds to send and receive packets for the 802.11b/g devices on the network.
...The advantage of the new Airport Extreme is that it DOES have full AFP support for the attached USB drive. That's really good news. Unfortunately, 100Mbit ethernet or wireless kind of makes it pointless as a backup solution or shared storage for semi-pro use. So close but so far.... [It's probably better to] buy a decent gigabit wired router and an access point - SMC do a neat little one for about $20 with WDS support even.
Yeah It looks like if one is *serious* about high-speed home wireless networking, you would be looking at having ALL your devices do 802.11n at 5ghz and set AirportExtreme to [802.11n only at 5ghz] -- and have them all within a good range to push past 100mbit/sec throughput, maybe hitting 200-300mbit/sec (???). In this case certainly lack of GigE on a wired ethernet out of teh AirportExtreme is a bit of a "so close yet so far" point.
I think a huge number of people might have 802.11n/b/g @ 2.4ghz or 802.11n @ 2.4ghz as the settings they would generally use. In which case, we can forget about anything more than 100mbit/sec.
Boy, I have really gone on and on and I hope nobody got hurt from dozing off in front of their computers and whacking their heads on the screen ... Just trying to put this whole 802.11n thing into perspective.
Firstly I'd like to mention that according to MacWorld Airport Extreme will give you a throughput of 100mbit/sec. Hence, a GigabitEthernet wired out from Airport Extreme would be worthless. Just throwing it out there for now... http://www.macworld.com/2007/01/feat...211n/index.php
Only for wireless to wired communication. On wired to wired comms it'd be very useful. You wouldn't stick a NAS on a wireless network generally or transfer a huge file from one Mac Pro to another using wireless when you've a gigabit ethernet port on each.
Only for wireless to wired communication. On wired to wired comms it'd be very useful. You wouldn't stick a NAS on a wireless network generally or transfer a huge file from one Mac Pro to another using wireless when you've a gigabit ethernet port on each.
Yup agreed. ...Like you said, so close, yet so far, the home/soho wired/wireless space is a bit odd. Some compromises to be made when upgrading/ designing/ tinkering with network choices. Prosumer and Pro design small studios would be better off with wired GigE setup, and maybe an Airport Extreme for say project managers, account managers with PC or Mac laptops.
Ah well, 802.11"N" is the latest in the marketing scene, and the Apple variant sure looks a bit more streamlined than the "breast" design of the previous Airport Extreme ... There is some contention in the 5ghz area, since it is currently optional in the IEEE Draft. But it *is* good that Apple has come out with dualband 2.4ghz/5ghz.
I estimate that in the UK, Germany, Spain and Japan, for example, if you choose those country settings when setting up, you will NOT have that option of [802.11n only @ 5ghz] and your throughput will not be higher than 100mbit/sec.
When they aren't informed, during the setup screen they'd happily choose the Country settings and Boom! No wide channel operation 4 u..1!!!11!..... Also, don't know what the laws are like in the UK and other places, though I doubt the police would be busting down your door because you were naughty and set some Airport Extreme settings you won't supposed to.... Or will they???
edit: This is what I'm assuming about the Country settings disabling the 5ghz 802.11n only setting.... I could be wrong, maybe AirportExtremes sold in these countries may have firmware lockouts. Mmmm... firmware hacking is my favourite kind of hack
( OFF TOPIC: The laws are different in the UK. We do have to pay a mandatory tax to receive TV. But to make it up to us, the government allows us have sex with 16 year olds, smoke cannabis and instead of banning 16-21 year olds from drinking alcohol, we make it compulsory. )
Sunil, I don't know if you have lost your mind or you are just not reading the reason why Gigabit is needed. People have wires in their houses now, at least in the U.S. My house is wired with Cat5e cables. People who use wires instead of wireless, need the gigabit and no mattter how many reasons you lay out this will not change!! People have wires and this has nothing to do with wireless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
In the above Apple document, it says the following. There are four modes of operation:
Choosing the Radio Mode
1.
Choose ?802.11n (802.11b/g compatible)? from the Radio Mode pop-up menu if
computers with 802.11n, 802.11g, or 802.11b wireless cards will join the network. Each
client computer will connect to the network and transmit network traffic at its highest
speed.
2.
Choose ?802.11n only (2.4 GHz)? if only computers with 802.11n compatible wireless
cards will join the network in the 2.4 GHz frequency range.
3.
Choose ?802.11n (802.11a compatible)? if computers with 802.11n and 802.11a wireless
cards will join the network in the 5 GHz frequency range. Computers with 802.11g or
802.11b wireless cards will not be able to join this network.
4.
Choose ?802.11n only (5 GHz)? if computers with 802.11n wireless cards will join the
network. The transmission rate of the network will be at 802.11n speed. Computers with
802.11g, 802.11b, and 802.11a wireless cards will not be able to join this network.
Ignoring number 3 above, clearly if you are using number 1 above (802.11g and 802.11n devices on 2.4ghz), I would take a shot and estimate that your average throughput WILL NOT be greater than 100mbit/sec. Hence, no need for Gigabit Ethernet.
With number 4. above, I don't know if MacWorld reporting 100mbit/sec throughput is talking about this mode or mode number 2. above. That is, what is the throughput of 802.11n only @2.4ghz vs 802.11n only @5ghz ?? We'll need some solid data once Airport Extreme ships.
The 2.4ghz and 5ghz debate is quite interesting, some other articles: (hopefully all the links work)
Firstly I'd like to mention that according to MacWorld Airport Extreme will give you a throughput of 100mbit/sec. Hence, a GigabitEthernet wired out from Airport Extreme would be worthless.
I don't understand why you'd say this. AE also has a built-in wired network switch.
Still, n at 5 GHz is nice, I didn't know that was an option. I think that would help reduce the interference between different networks.
Sunil, I don't know if you have lost your mind or you are just not reading the reason why Gigabit is needed. People have wires in their houses now, at least in the U.S. My house is wired with Cat5e cables. People who use wires instead of wireless, need the gigabit and no mattter how many reasons you lay out this will not change!! People have wires and this has nothing to do with wireless.
Apologies if I seem to be coming out and just bashing GigE wired in general... I think I have not made it clear, I am saying the GigabitEthernet port ON the AirportExtreme is *not* that important, IMO, unless you are running the 802.11n-only-5ghz with all your devices within a good range.
Of course I think if people have laid out Cat5e or Cat6 GigabitEthernet is fantastic. Like I mentioned, home transfer of huge files or a small studio of MacPros, etc, of course GigE WIRED is good.
I'm just mentioning that the portion of the network that is coming out of the wired/wireless "gate" of the AirportExtreme, 100mbit/sec at this "gate" is generally good enough.
I don't understand why you'd say this. AE also has a built-in wired network switch.
As above, the AirportExtreme wired network switch is 100mbit/sec, not 1000mbit/sec. These wired ethernet ports out of the AirportExtreme are of course useful, as in most routers, for example if you have a desktop right where you need the cables in for the DSL anyway from the phone jack.
I understand the frustration, and it would be *ideal* for Apple to have had these ports be 1000mbit/sec instead of 100mbit/sec. But 100mbit/sec on these wired out ports from the AirportExtreme are generally good enough, because for most settings/ situations the AirportExtreme can only hit 100mbit/sec, so that is the bottleneck for any network on the AirportExtreme wired/wireless side of this "gate".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Still, n at 5 GHz is nice, I didn't know that was an option. I think that would help reduce the interference between different networks.
Yeah, certainly this is the reason why 5ghz was an important addition (though optional at this stage) to the 802.11n draft spec. Ironically, 5ghz is what 802.11a operates at (54mbit/sec 802.11g speeds, but at different ranges/applications). The 802.11a that Steve Jobs described as "dead" in Jan 2003.
Using 5ghz takes the wireless network out of the 2.4ghz space, yeah, which also has issues with microwave oven leak and cordless phones. And 802.11b/g networks. It is also only at the 5ghz spectrum that 802.11n devices can do the "widechannel double-bonding 40mhz thingy" to get up to 200 or maybe even 300 mbit/sec throughput.
The disadvantage here is that all your computers and devices need to support 802.11n @ 5ghz, although you can use the wired ethernet out on the AirportExtreme to bridge to a 802.11g network for older stuff.
The other disadvantage of 5ghz is that "...The 5 GHz band at the same power levels [as 802.11b/g @ 2.4ghz] for indoor use, signals propagate less far, although they can penetrate objects more effectively..." ( http://db.tidbits.com/article/8392 ). Though clearly we don't know yet if this is the case with the AirportExtreme.
As above, the AirportExtreme wired network switch is 100mbit/sec, not 1000mbit/sec.
I knew that, but I just don't see a justification for that limit when all their computers support gigE now. GigE ports don't cost that much anymore, I think it's less than $5 extra per port.
Quote:
The other disadvantage of 5ghz is that "...The 5 GHz band at the same power levels [as 802.11b/g @ 2.4ghz] for indoor use, signals propagate less far, although they can penetrate objects more effectively..." ( http://db.tidbits.com/article/8392 ). Though clearly we don't know yet if this is the case with the AirportExtreme.
The range reduction is a matter of physics. I think n over 5GHz probably gets a lot more range than g, and faster speeds at longer distances. I think the range may be the better part of the wireless deal. When I'm wired, I want the max speed, when I'm wireless, I want the max range. If I can still VNC comfortably & surf when outdoors in the shade of a tree, then I'm good.
( OFF TOPIC: The laws are different in the UK. We do have to pay a mandatory tax to receive TV. But to make it up to us, the government allows us have sex with 16 year olds, smoke cannabis and instead of banning 16-21 year olds from drinking alcohol, we make it compulsory. )
In Australia you can pretty much get smash drunk from 13-16/17 at house parties ... where in some cases a whole bunch of kids from around the neighbourhood drop in, get smashed and pass out on the lawn. Then once you hit 18, oh boy, it's all on - strip bars, hookers (some cities in Australia), buying alcohol anywhere, bar-hopping, clubbing, drinking all night, etc... So much so by 22 a lot of "kids" are done with the whole getting smashed and random making out/ sex ... that they settle down and get married and start popping out babies at 25.
I knew that, but I just don't see a justification for that limit when all their computers support gigE now. GigE ports don't cost that much anymore, I think it's less than $5 extra per port.
It's just one of those Apple things -- I've just looked at Dlink and Linksys and they 802.11n wireless products with GigE routers. Dlink has http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=548 which is dual-band 2.4ghz/ 5(5.8 apparently(??))ghz 802.11n wireless with GigE ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The range reduction is a matter of physics. I think n over 5GHz probably gets a lot more range than g, and faster speeds at longer distances...
You'd think that higher frequency means greater range but I think 802.11a devices at 5ghz actually have *less* range (though better penetration) than 802.11b/g at 2.4ghz ... So is the story. I think because they say the power output of that 5ghz for 802.11a devices is not enough to give you that range higher or equivalent to 802.11b/[email protected]. This is probably why 802.11a got sidelined, despite operating at a fairly "clearer" 5ghz spectrum AND also delivering (802.11g-equivalent) speeds of 54mbit/sec max.
Overall though, my understanding is that 802.11n specifies greater power, and also MIMO (multiple radios) to deliver better speeds and range at 2.4ghz and (optionally in the spec) 5ghz. Again, we'll have to see field tests of the AirportExtreme to compare 2.4 and 5 ghz speed and range at 802.11n only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think the range may be the better part of the wireless deal. When I'm wired, I want the max speed, when I'm wireless, I want the max range. If I can still VNC comfortably & surf when outdoors in the shade of a tree, then I'm good.
Totally. At where I'm staying now, running off an old Asus 802.11b, placed near the front of the house. This Toshiba craptop using an MSI card 802.11b/g keeps dropping out at the back where my room and the kitchen is. My newly-aquired MacBook Core[1]Duo gets a sweet signal beyond the kitchen under the trees
Just like compression is a tradeoff between speed of compressing and size, similarly in the wireless space speed and *range* are factors that come into play...
When I'm downloading or BitTorrenting putting this 3-year-old Toshiba laptop on the table next to the wireless router table is the best way to get good transfer speeds accessing that 512kbit/sec DSL. It's fun to take it into my room at the back of the house but it drops out every 20minutes or so and I have to wait 30secs to try and reconnect ....
But all is not lost! With the MacBook now (when it comes back from a hopefully not-too-long LCD replacement [I complained about 1 dead pixel and two small white spots and they said they would replace the screen (!!!)]) things should be looking good in terms of network speed and range.
That's the weird thing with Apple hardware... Some parts are well engineered and solid, and some parts just don't hold water, so to speak. Some bits are well- or over-spec'ed and and some parts are under ...eg. the surprisingly-low-quality screen of the MacBookPros...
Everybody here does understand that you can plug a cheap 5-port Gigabit switch into one of the LAN ports on any wireless router to enable your wired computers to transfer files at 1000 instead of 100 speeds?
Everybody here does understand that you can plug a cheap 5-port Gigabit switch into one of the LAN ports on any wireless router to enable your wired computers to transfer files at 1000 instead of 100 speeds?
Yes, that can be done. Still, why make yet another powered box necessary if a single box should have been able to do the job in the first place?
Still, why make yet another powered box necessary if a single box should have been able to do the job in the first place?
In the UK the market is dominated by Wireless routers with built-in ADSL modems. The triple-whammy of half-speed 802.11n, no built-in ADSL modem and no gigabit wired ports really reduces the attractiveness of the product in the UK.
Also, if the Airport Extreme is acting as network storage (with a USB hard drive), that will only work at 100Mbps.
Yep. I'd have forgiven it most things if you could attach a drive and use it over gigabit ethernet. In fact, I'd probably have switched off everything else and just plugged it in to my Draytek Vigor 2800VG. AirDisk is it's killer feature because nobody else can offer full Apple File Protocol compatibility, but hobbling it with 100Mbit or wifi makes it next to useless.
Comments
1. Apple's Airport Extreme might only offer 100mbit/sec throughput in general based on the following theory. It operates in four modes, one of which is 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz and 802.11n only @ 5ghz.
2. In the 802.11n only @ 5ghz mode, you could get 100-300mbit/sec : "One of N?s possible advantages of double-wide channels?instead of 22 MHz, they can use 40 MHz channels, which effectively doubles throughput. When you combine a newly efficient design for encoding, two or more radios, and double-wide channels, that?s when you get the high symbol rate of 300 Mbps, with effective throughputs that could go well over 100 Mbps. The 100 Mbps throughput factors in?as I understand it?the expectation that N devices will have brief periods in which they can bond two channels." ( http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_80211n.html )
3. In the 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz mode, you would not get more than 100mbit/sec bcause the double-wide channel bonding thingy does not work at 2.4ghz.
4. Sounds like 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz is slower but longer range than 802.11n only @ 5ghz ( because of apparently the lower power pumped through the 5ghz radios )
5. Airport Extreme operating in 2.4ghz 802.11b/g/n will very likely not get more than 100mbit/sec, more so than point no.3 above, because of the networking overhead and switching to lower speeds to send and receive packets for the 802.11b/g devices on the network.
...The advantage of the new Airport Extreme is that it DOES have full AFP support for the attached USB drive. That's really good news. Unfortunately, 100Mbit ethernet or wireless kind of makes it pointless as a backup solution or shared storage for semi-pro use. So close but so far.... [It's probably better to] buy a decent gigabit wired router and an access point - SMC do a neat little one for about $20 with WDS support even.
Yeah
I think a huge number of people might have 802.11n/b/g @ 2.4ghz or 802.11n @ 2.4ghz as the settings they would generally use. In which case, we can forget about anything more than 100mbit/sec.
Firstly I'd like to mention that according to MacWorld Airport Extreme will give you a throughput of 100mbit/sec. Hence, a GigabitEthernet wired out from Airport Extreme would be worthless. Just throwing it out there for now... http://www.macworld.com/2007/01/feat...211n/index.php
Only for wireless to wired communication. On wired to wired comms it'd be very useful. You wouldn't stick a NAS on a wireless network generally or transfer a huge file from one Mac Pro to another using wireless when you've a gigabit ethernet port on each.
Only for wireless to wired communication. On wired to wired comms it'd be very useful. You wouldn't stick a NAS on a wireless network generally or transfer a huge file from one Mac Pro to another using wireless when you've a gigabit ethernet port on each.
Yup agreed.
Ah well, 802.11"N" is the latest in the marketing scene, and the Apple variant sure looks a bit more streamlined than the "breast" design of the previous Airport Extreme
I estimate that in the UK, Germany, Spain and Japan, for example, if you choose those country settings when setting up, you will NOT have that option of [802.11n only @ 5ghz] and your throughput will not be higher than 100mbit/sec.
And why would someone do that.... exactly?
C.
And why would someone do that.... exactly?
C.
edit: This is what I'm assuming about the Country settings disabling the 5ghz 802.11n only setting.... I could be wrong, maybe AirportExtremes sold in these countries may have firmware lockouts. Mmmm... firmware hacking is my favourite kind of hack
C.
( OFF TOPIC: The laws are different in the UK. We do have to pay a mandatory tax to receive TV. But to make it up to us, the government allows us have sex with 16 year olds, smoke cannabis and instead of banning 16-21 year olds from drinking alcohol, we make it compulsory. )
In the above Apple document, it says the following. There are four modes of operation:
Choosing the Radio Mode
1.
Choose ?802.11n (802.11b/g compatible)? from the Radio Mode pop-up menu if
computers with 802.11n, 802.11g, or 802.11b wireless cards will join the network. Each
client computer will connect to the network and transmit network traffic at its highest
speed.
2.
Choose ?802.11n only (2.4 GHz)? if only computers with 802.11n compatible wireless
cards will join the network in the 2.4 GHz frequency range.
3.
Choose ?802.11n (802.11a compatible)? if computers with 802.11n and 802.11a wireless
cards will join the network in the 5 GHz frequency range. Computers with 802.11g or
802.11b wireless cards will not be able to join this network.
4.
Choose ?802.11n only (5 GHz)? if computers with 802.11n wireless cards will join the
network. The transmission rate of the network will be at 802.11n speed. Computers with
802.11g, 802.11b, and 802.11a wireless cards will not be able to join this network.
Ignoring number 3 above, clearly if you are using number 1 above (802.11g and 802.11n devices on 2.4ghz), I would take a shot and estimate that your average throughput WILL NOT be greater than 100mbit/sec. Hence, no need for Gigabit Ethernet.
With number 4. above, I don't know if MacWorld reporting 100mbit/sec throughput is talking about this mode or mode number 2. above. That is, what is the throughput of 802.11n only @2.4ghz vs 802.11n only @5ghz ?? We'll need some solid data once Airport Extreme ships.
The 2.4ghz and 5ghz debate is quite interesting, some other articles: (hopefully all the links work)
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...m?newsid=17059
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=411&tag=nl.e539
http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_80211n.html
http://www.techworld.com/mobility/fe...amecatsamechan
Firstly I'd like to mention that according to MacWorld Airport Extreme will give you a throughput of 100mbit/sec. Hence, a GigabitEthernet wired out from Airport Extreme would be worthless.
I don't understand why you'd say this. AE also has a built-in wired network switch.
Still, n at 5 GHz is nice, I didn't know that was an option. I think that would help reduce the interference between different networks.
Sunil, I don't know if you have lost your mind or you are just not reading the reason why Gigabit is needed. People have wires in their houses now, at least in the U.S. My house is wired with Cat5e cables. People who use wires instead of wireless, need the gigabit and no mattter how many reasons you lay out this will not change!! People have wires and this has nothing to do with wireless.
Apologies if I seem to be coming out and just bashing GigE wired in general... I think I have not made it clear, I am saying the GigabitEthernet port ON the AirportExtreme is *not* that important, IMO, unless you are running the 802.11n-only-5ghz with all your devices within a good range.
Of course I think if people have laid out Cat5e or Cat6 GigabitEthernet is fantastic. Like I mentioned, home transfer of huge files or a small studio of MacPros, etc, of course GigE WIRED is good.
I'm just mentioning that the portion of the network that is coming out of the wired/wireless "gate" of the AirportExtreme, 100mbit/sec at this "gate" is generally good enough.
I don't understand why you'd say this. AE also has a built-in wired network switch.
As above, the AirportExtreme wired network switch is 100mbit/sec, not 1000mbit/sec. These wired ethernet ports out of the AirportExtreme are of course useful, as in most routers, for example if you have a desktop right where you need the cables in for the DSL anyway from the phone jack.
I understand the frustration, and it would be *ideal* for Apple to have had these ports be 1000mbit/sec instead of 100mbit/sec. But 100mbit/sec on these wired out ports from the AirportExtreme are generally good enough, because for most settings/ situations the AirportExtreme can only hit 100mbit/sec, so that is the bottleneck for any network on the AirportExtreme wired/wireless side of this "gate".
Still, n at 5 GHz is nice, I didn't know that was an option. I think that would help reduce the interference between different networks.
Yeah, certainly this is the reason why 5ghz was an important addition (though optional at this stage) to the 802.11n draft spec. Ironically, 5ghz is what 802.11a operates at (54mbit/sec 802.11g speeds, but at different ranges/applications). The 802.11a that Steve Jobs described as "dead" in Jan 2003.
Using 5ghz takes the wireless network out of the 2.4ghz space, yeah, which also has issues with microwave oven leak and cordless phones. And 802.11b/g networks. It is also only at the 5ghz spectrum that 802.11n devices can do the "widechannel double-bonding 40mhz thingy" to get up to 200 or maybe even 300 mbit/sec throughput.
The disadvantage here is that all your computers and devices need to support 802.11n @ 5ghz, although you can use the wired ethernet out on the AirportExtreme to bridge to a 802.11g network for older stuff.
The other disadvantage of 5ghz is that "...The 5 GHz band at the same power levels [as 802.11b/g @ 2.4ghz] for indoor use, signals propagate less far, although they can penetrate objects more effectively..." ( http://db.tidbits.com/article/8392 ). Though clearly we don't know yet if this is the case with the AirportExtreme.
As above, the AirportExtreme wired network switch is 100mbit/sec, not 1000mbit/sec.
I knew that, but I just don't see a justification for that limit when all their computers support gigE now. GigE ports don't cost that much anymore, I think it's less than $5 extra per port.
The other disadvantage of 5ghz is that "...The 5 GHz band at the same power levels [as 802.11b/g @ 2.4ghz] for indoor use, signals propagate less far, although they can penetrate objects more effectively..." ( http://db.tidbits.com/article/8392 ). Though clearly we don't know yet if this is the case with the AirportExtreme.
The range reduction is a matter of physics. I think n over 5GHz probably gets a lot more range than g, and faster speeds at longer distances. I think the range may be the better part of the wireless deal. When I'm wired, I want the max speed, when I'm wireless, I want the max range. If I can still VNC comfortably & surf when outdoors in the shade of a tree, then I'm good.
This is the Bandwidth police! Nobody move!
C.
( OFF TOPIC: The laws are different in the UK. We do have to pay a mandatory tax to receive TV. But to make it up to us, the government allows us have sex with 16 year olds, smoke cannabis and instead of banning 16-21 year olds from drinking alcohol, we make it compulsory. )
In Australia you can pretty much get smash drunk from 13-16/17 at house parties ... where in some cases a whole bunch of kids from around the neighbourhood drop in, get smashed and pass out on the lawn. Then once you hit 18, oh boy, it's all on - strip bars, hookers (some cities in Australia), buying alcohol anywhere, bar-hopping, clubbing, drinking all night, etc... So much so by 22 a lot of "kids" are done with the whole getting smashed and random making out/ sex ... that they settle down and get married and start popping out babies at 25.
I knew that, but I just don't see a justification for that limit when all their computers support gigE now. GigE ports don't cost that much anymore, I think it's less than $5 extra per port.
It's just one of those Apple things
The range reduction is a matter of physics. I think n over 5GHz probably gets a lot more range than g, and faster speeds at longer distances...
You'd think that higher frequency means greater range but I think 802.11a devices at 5ghz actually have *less* range (though better penetration) than 802.11b/g at 2.4ghz ... So is the story. I think because they say the power output of that 5ghz for 802.11a devices is not enough to give you that range higher or equivalent to 802.11b/[email protected]. This is probably why 802.11a got sidelined, despite operating at a fairly "clearer" 5ghz spectrum AND also delivering (802.11g-equivalent) speeds of 54mbit/sec max.
Overall though, my understanding is that 802.11n specifies greater power, and also MIMO (multiple radios) to deliver better speeds and range at 2.4ghz and (optionally in the spec) 5ghz. Again, we'll have to see field tests of the AirportExtreme to compare 2.4 and 5 ghz speed and range at 802.11n only.
I think the range may be the better part of the wireless deal. When I'm wired, I want the max speed, when I'm wireless, I want the max range. If I can still VNC comfortably & surf when outdoors in the shade of a tree, then I'm good.
Totally. At where I'm staying now, running off an old Asus 802.11b, placed near the front of the house. This Toshiba craptop using an MSI card 802.11b/g keeps dropping out at the back where my room and the kitchen is. My newly-aquired MacBook Core[1]Duo gets a sweet signal beyond the kitchen under the trees
Just like compression is a tradeoff between speed of compressing and size, similarly in the wireless space speed and *range* are factors that come into play...
When I'm downloading or BitTorrenting putting this 3-year-old Toshiba laptop on the table next to the wireless router table is the best way to get good transfer speeds accessing that 512kbit/sec DSL. It's fun to take it into my room at the back of the house but it drops out every 20minutes or so and I have to wait 30secs to try and reconnect
But all is not lost! With the MacBook now (when it comes back from a hopefully not-too-long LCD replacement [I complained about 1 dead pixel and two small white spots and they said they would replace the screen (!!!)]) things should be looking good in terms of network speed and range.
That's the weird thing with Apple hardware... Some parts are well engineered and solid, and some parts just don't hold water, so to speak. Some bits are well- or over-spec'ed and and some parts are under ...eg. the surprisingly-low-quality screen of the MacBookPros...
Everybody here does understand that you can plug a cheap 5-port Gigabit switch into one of the LAN ports on any wireless router to enable your wired computers to transfer files at 1000 instead of 100 speeds?
Yes, that can be done. Still, why make yet another powered box necessary if a single box should have been able to do the job in the first place?
Yes, that can be done. Still, why make yet another powered box necessary if a single box should have been able to do the job in the first place?
Also, if the Airport Extreme is acting as network storage (with a USB hard drive), that will only work at 100Mbps.
Still, why make yet another powered box necessary if a single box should have been able to do the job in the first place?
In the UK the market is dominated by Wireless routers with built-in ADSL modems. The triple-whammy of half-speed 802.11n, no built-in ADSL modem and no gigabit wired ports really reduces the attractiveness of the product in the UK.
C.
Also, if the Airport Extreme is acting as network storage (with a USB hard drive), that will only work at 100Mbps.
Yep. I'd have forgiven it most things if you could attach a drive and use it over gigabit ethernet. In fact, I'd probably have switched off everything else and just plugged it in to my Draytek Vigor 2800VG. AirDisk is it's killer feature because nobody else can offer full Apple File Protocol compatibility, but hobbling it with 100Mbit or wifi makes it next to useless.