True, gigabit would be nice. But seriously, if you're setting up a network where you're pushing around 20GB of files over ethernet, this isn't the router you're going to buy anyway.
If you want to use time machine to backup your laptop wirelessly to the USB hard drive attatched to the router, this one's for you.
I do wish it had 2 USB ports though. I'd like to have my printer and an external drive on it... and I doubt a hub is going to work well, but it might. I wonder if Apple will make a matching USB hard drive so it can "stack?"
Yes, a hub is reported to work, so you can have multiple hard drives and printers.
In that case, we wouldn't need 802.11n speed either, would we? 802.11g can handle current broadband speed just fine. The "but my DSL can't keep up" argument applies to the wireless side too.
If I upgrade my current 11g access point to 11n, I want faster Ethernet speed too. If wired speed is slower than wireless speed, then it might as well forgo the Ethernet ports.
That is an excellent point! I'll have to remember that when the "why do you need GB ethernet?" argument pops up again.
Anyone know if USB scanners and other USB devices sharable with Image Capture can be shared via AirPort Extreme USB, or is it limited to printers and disks?
Anyone know if USB scanners and other USB devices sharable with Image Capture can be shared via AirPort Extreme USB, or is it limited to printers and disks?
Not really on topic, but I never knew I could share my scanner that I have connected to my Mac Pro. After seeing your post I did that and can now access it from my MacBook Pro. Thanks.
Anyone know if USB scanners and other USB devices sharable with Image Capture can be shared via AirPort Extreme USB, or is it limited to printers and disks?
Not really on topic, but I never knew I could share my scanner that I have connected to my Mac Pro. After seeing your post I did that and can now access it from my MacBook Pro. Thanks.
For anyone that has been having trouble connecting to wireless base stations (I had an old 3Com router that I was completely unable to connect to with the MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo), this update might be what you're looking for. I'm now able to connect without any problems.
eh? Gigabit/Megabit doesn't have anything to do with a wireless connection to AppleTV.
Totally. With regard to WIRELESS connections with the Airport Extreme, the maximum rated is 540mbit/sec with typical throughput probably around 200mbit/sec. So Gigabit Ethernet has nothing to do with AppleTV in terms of wireless streaming.
Yes, a hub is reported to work, so you can have multiple hard drives and printers.
Yes, and I think because the station shares Mac mini dimension (6.5" by 6.5"), hubs designed for Mac mini are perfect addition (e.g., Belkin's Mac mini 4-port USB hub).
(don't forget to request FLAC support in iTunes and on the iPod while you're at it too)
...
I'm tempted to say "you're all idiots" but that would just not be nice
I understand the frustration with Gigabit Ethernet, however...
...
Look, the Airport Extreme 802.11n has an average throughput of let's say 200mbit/sec. At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n#802.11n ...Let's assume your AirportExtreme is doing 200mbit/sec average throughput. If this is the primary connection between a file wirelessly coming off a computer, going into the AirportExtreme and then wired going into a computer, the "100mbit/sec bottleneck" is not a serious issue.
As JeffDM alluded to, why not have that wired computer sit closer to where that wireless file is coming from and just FW400 the transfers?
Also otherwise, why not just have most of your computers wired connected with GigabitEthernet??
In some general cases where the Airport Extreme is serving several transfers through it at one time, it will be a 200mbit/sec bandwidth divided up to the various clients, so an ethernet out of 100mbit/sec from it during this time is quite alright.
I understand if Apple has *screwed* up and decided just simply not to go with GigabitEthernet for whatever mysterious reasons they do these sort of things. In which case, a different brand 802.11n with GigE wired ports would serve you better.
The AirportExtreme is meant to be a fast (200mbit/sec bandwidth) wireless base station to
1. Serve 1mbit/sec to 25mbit/sec DSL/Cable broadband to several wireless clients
2. Throughput in realtime or sync iTunes content from 802.11n/g Macs to AppleTV/ AirportExpress(?)Tunes
3. Serve as a general file transfer throughput for files between Macs, WIRELESSly.
As I understand it the wired part of the AirportExtreme is for like old PCs or Macs or maybe a storage device that is not wirelessly-enabled, or have a wired connection to the router to take the "load" of wireless transmission for those computers wired-ly connected to the AirportExtreme.
802.11n 200mbit/sec throughput in general may not be enough for backups and transfers of huge video files for the prosumer video (eg EyeTV, DvDRips, etc.) market. In this case, I think, even if you had GigE out of the AirportExtreme, you wouldn't see the speeds you like to push those huge files around.
Clearly either a direct FW400 connection, or a wired GigE router/ cabling setup would be better.
That's the thing with the NetworkAreaStorage devices that are 802.11g and have like 300gbytes or something. To me, it would take ages to put files in and out of it. I'd rather USB2.0 or FW400 those files.
So anyway, just my take on things. Yes, a bit of Apple apologist stuff, but let's have an understanding of what the AirportExtreme is about. Until GigabitWireless comes out, then a complete high-speed-huge-file prosumer video and other applications WIRELESS home/office system would be sensible. In the meantime, IMHO, it's 802.11n for general Apple end-to-end solutions and general wireless access, while people in need for more speed have WIRED USB2.0, FW400/800, GigE router options.
Not really on topic, but I never knew I could share my scanner that I have connected to my Mac Pro. After seeing your post I did that and can now access it from my MacBook Pro. Thanks.
Glad to help.
My Canon LiDE 50 scanner can't be shared via Image Capture, but my wife's Canon SD200 camera can.
It *is* interesting that home/soho networking has become such a mainstream area when before you'd have 10/100BaseT cables running around (like when I was at uni/college in '96-98 ) or some "IT guy" setup the 10/100/1000Ethernet in your office, in the space of the past 10 years.
It's a trickier situation now with huge files and backups. The next big revolution, as I mentioned, and that I'm looking foward to, is WirelessGigabitEthernet and better SMB transactional hash-checked file transfers*. Or maybe I need to checkout BonjourWindows solutions
*For an all-Mac home/soho network things are okay, but Windows/OSX networking via SMB is a pain in the ass with 802.11b/g connections. Files drop out, the STUPID FRACKING MY NETWORK WINDOW in XP just always hangs there, you don't know how long it is taking, what it is doing, if it is checking the network or not, what the timeout is, and so on.
For transferring files from my borrowed Toshiba laptop to my recently-eBay-purchased MacBook or my parents' iBook G4 933mhz, I have found FTP to be the easiest. Run an FTP server on the Toshiba, and Cyberduck or TerminalFTP files in and out. Cyberduck is nice with resuming stopped downloads and stuff.
I use a Belkin Firewire hub with 6m cables for three machines. it probably doesn't work in everybody's setup, but it works beautifully for me, letting me take advantage of FW800 on the machines that support it.
One caveat is: the hub is powered and i managed to fry a friend's mac by plugging it into his third party FW card before plugging in the machine's power cord. i knew i had a problem when the fans came on right away. The real shocker was when Apple replaced his mirror drive G4 with a brand new Quad G5 free of charge, when they couldn't figure out how to fix it. I'm still bitter about it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
With PoE, then there's a decent reason to not have gigE, I think they are incompatible with each other. I don't think it's there though.
That's the thing with the NetworkAreaStorage devices that are 802.11g and have like 300gbytes or something. To me, it would take ages to put files in and out of it. I'd rather USB2.0 or FW400 those files.
Most of the decent NAS drives actually have gigabit ethernet and support jumbo packets for nice speedy backups of big files. The problem is, I've yet to find a NAS that supports HFS+ fully and Apple File Protocol so it's not uncommon for apple file names to cock up your backup. There's ways around it (using sparse images) but not ideal.
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 workable around as a network router with the addition of a gigabit switch, leaving the Airport Extreme to just do wireless and act as an internet gateway but for the money, it's pointless. Buy a decent gigabit wired router and an access point - SMC do a neat little one for about $20 with WDS support even.
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
Of course, we have no real-world testing yet because the AirportExtreme will operate 802.11n at 2.4ghz and 802.11n at 5ghz, the latter claimed as "having full 802.11n speed" in the Apple document http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/Des...1nNetworks.pdf
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)
Note that option no.4 above will *most likely* not be allowed if you choose your country settings as UK or a few others eg Germany, Japan and Spain because 802.11n ONLY @ 5ghz is NOT ALLOWED:
Also, "The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom" ( http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/ )
Wide-channel operation means 802.11n ONLY @ 5ghz in the Airport Extreme settings.
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.
Comments
True, gigabit would be nice. But seriously, if you're setting up a network where you're pushing around 20GB of files over ethernet, this isn't the router you're going to buy anyway.
If you want to use time machine to backup your laptop wirelessly to the USB hard drive attatched to the router, this one's for you.
I do wish it had 2 USB ports though. I'd like to have my printer and an external drive on it... and I doubt a hub is going to work well, but it might. I wonder if Apple will make a matching USB hard drive so it can "stack?"
Yes, a hub is reported to work, so you can have multiple hard drives and printers.
Steve
Just pushing around EyeTV recordings around can involve 20GB files.
Yep. I'm always wanting more bandwidth for transferring video content on my 100Mbps LAN.
In that case, we wouldn't need 802.11n speed either, would we? 802.11g can handle current broadband speed just fine. The "but my DSL can't keep up" argument applies to the wireless side too.
If I upgrade my current 11g access point to 11n, I want faster Ethernet speed too. If wired speed is slower than wireless speed, then it might as well forgo the Ethernet ports.
That is an excellent point! I'll have to remember that when the "why do you need GB ethernet?" argument pops up again.
Guess i'll have to stop reading the airport threads until new info is around to discuss.
[edit]
Found the source of my deja-vu...
This thread: When will Airportget Gigabit Ethernet?
Anyone know if USB scanners and other USB devices sharable with Image Capture can be shared via AirPort Extreme USB, or is it limited to printers and disks?
Not really on topic, but I never knew I could share my scanner that I have connected to my Mac Pro. After seeing your post I did that and can now access it from my MacBook Pro. Thanks.
Steve
Anyone know if USB scanners and other USB devices sharable with Image Capture can be shared via AirPort Extreme USB, or is it limited to printers and disks?
Not really on topic, but I never knew I could share my scanner that I have connected to my Mac Pro. After seeing your post I did that and can now access it from my MacBook Pro. Thanks.
Steve
For anyone that has been having trouble connecting to wireless base stations (I had an old 3Com router that I was completely unable to connect to with the MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo), this update might be what you're looking for. I'm now able to connect without any problems.
Thanks,
Andy.
eh? Gigabit/Megabit doesn't have anything to do with a wireless connection to AppleTV.
Totally. With regard to WIRELESS connections with the Airport Extreme, the maximum rated is 540mbit/sec with typical throughput probably around 200mbit/sec. So Gigabit Ethernet has nothing to do with AppleTV in terms of wireless streaming.
Yes, a hub is reported to work, so you can have multiple hard drives and printers.
Yes, and I think because the station shares Mac mini dimension (6.5" by 6.5"), hubs designed for Mac mini are perfect addition (e.g., Belkin's Mac mini 4-port USB hub).
make sure to give feedback here as soon as it is available.... make sure apple knows you want gigabit ethernet
http://www.apple.com/feedback/
it's a dealbreaker for me too
(don't forget to request FLAC support in iTunes and on the iPod while you're at it too)
...
I'm tempted to say "you're all idiots" but that would just not be nice
I understand the frustration with Gigabit Ethernet, however...
...
Look, the Airport Extreme 802.11n has an average throughput of let's say 200mbit/sec. At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n#802.11n ...Let's assume your AirportExtreme is doing 200mbit/sec average throughput. If this is the primary connection between a file wirelessly coming off a computer, going into the AirportExtreme and then wired going into a computer, the "100mbit/sec bottleneck" is not a serious issue.
As JeffDM alluded to, why not have that wired computer sit closer to where that wireless file is coming from and just FW400 the transfers?
Also otherwise, why not just have most of your computers wired connected with GigabitEthernet??
In some general cases where the Airport Extreme is serving several transfers through it at one time, it will be a 200mbit/sec bandwidth divided up to the various clients, so an ethernet out of 100mbit/sec from it during this time is quite alright.
I understand if Apple has *screwed* up and decided just simply not to go with GigabitEthernet for whatever mysterious reasons they do these sort of things. In which case, a different brand 802.11n with GigE wired ports would serve you better.
The AirportExtreme is meant to be a fast (200mbit/sec bandwidth) wireless base station to
1. Serve 1mbit/sec to 25mbit/sec DSL/Cable broadband to several wireless clients
2. Throughput in realtime or sync iTunes content from 802.11n/g Macs to AppleTV/ AirportExpress(?)Tunes
3. Serve as a general file transfer throughput for files between Macs, WIRELESSly.
As I understand it the wired part of the AirportExtreme is for like old PCs or Macs or maybe a storage device that is not wirelessly-enabled, or have a wired connection to the router to take the "load" of wireless transmission for those computers wired-ly connected to the AirportExtreme.
Clearly either a direct FW400 connection, or a wired GigE router/ cabling setup would be better.
That's the thing with the NetworkAreaStorage devices that are 802.11g and have like 300gbytes or something. To me, it would take ages to put files in and out of it. I'd rather USB2.0 or FW400 those files.
So anyway, just my take on things. Yes, a bit of Apple apologist stuff, but let's have an understanding of what the AirportExtreme is about. Until GigabitWireless comes out, then a complete high-speed-huge-file prosumer video and other applications WIRELESS home/office system would be sensible. In the meantime, IMHO, it's 802.11n for general Apple end-to-end solutions and general wireless access, while people in need for more speed have WIRED USB2.0, FW400/800, GigE router options.
Not really on topic, but I never knew I could share my scanner that I have connected to my Mac Pro. After seeing your post I did that and can now access it from my MacBook Pro. Thanks.
Glad to help.
My Canon LiDE 50 scanner can't be shared via Image Capture, but my wife's Canon SD200 camera can.
It's a trickier situation now with huge files and backups. The next big revolution, as I mentioned, and that I'm looking foward to, is WirelessGigabitEthernet and better SMB transactional hash-checked file transfers*. Or maybe I need to checkout BonjourWindows solutions
*For an all-Mac home/soho network things are okay, but Windows/OSX networking via SMB is a pain in the ass with 802.11b/g connections. Files drop out, the STUPID FRACKING MY NETWORK WINDOW in XP just always hangs there, you don't know how long it is taking, what it is doing, if it is checking the network or not, what the timeout is, and so on.
For transferring files from my borrowed Toshiba laptop to my recently-eBay-purchased MacBook or my parents' iBook G4 933mhz, I have found FTP to be the easiest. Run an FTP server on the Toshiba, and Cyberduck or TerminalFTP files in and out. Cyberduck is nice with resuming stopped downloads and stuff.
How long are your Firewire cables?
I use a Belkin Firewire hub with 6m cables for three machines. it probably doesn't work in everybody's setup, but it works beautifully for me, letting me take advantage of FW800 on the machines that support it.
One caveat is: the hub is powered and i managed to fry a friend's mac by plugging it into his third party FW card before plugging in the machine's power cord. i knew i had a problem when the fans came on right away. The real shocker was when Apple replaced his mirror drive G4 with a brand new Quad G5 free of charge, when they couldn't figure out how to fix it. I'm still bitter about it...
With PoE, then there's a decent reason to not have gigE, I think they are incompatible with each other. I don't think it's there though.
Didn't know that. thanks for enlightening me!
That's the thing with the NetworkAreaStorage devices that are 802.11g and have like 300gbytes or something. To me, it would take ages to put files in and out of it. I'd rather USB2.0 or FW400 those files.
Most of the decent NAS drives actually have gigabit ethernet and support jumbo packets for nice speedy backups of big files. The problem is, I've yet to find a NAS that supports HFS+ fully and Apple File Protocol so it's not uncommon for apple file names to cock up your backup. There's ways around it (using sparse images) but not ideal.
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 workable around as a network router with the addition of a gigabit switch, leaving the Airport Extreme to just do wireless and act as an internet gateway but for the money, it's pointless. Buy a decent gigabit wired router and an access point - SMC do a neat little one for about $20 with WDS support even.
Of course, we have no real-world testing yet because the AirportExtreme will operate 802.11n at 2.4ghz and 802.11n at 5ghz, the latter claimed as "having full 802.11n speed" in the Apple document http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/Des...1nNetworks.pdf
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
http://www.macworld.com/2007/01/feat...211n/index.php
Also, "The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom" ( http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/ )
Wide-channel operation means 802.11n ONLY @ 5ghz in the Airport Extreme settings.
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.