I realized yesterday afternoon that the model numbers I posted on here, and Macworld.com, were for the Canadian models of the Airport Extreme (I'm in Canada). Now Macworld used those model numbers, and AI has used them from the Macworld story. If I had made up a model number would it have appeared in these stories (aka, do they check any of this info before posting it?)?
I realized yesterday afternoon that the model numbers I posted on here, and Macworld.com, were for the Canadian models of the Airport Extreme (I'm in Canada). Now Macworld used those model numbers, and AI has used them from the Macworld story. If I had made up a model number would it have appeared in these stories (aka, do they check any of this info before posting it?)?
That is pretty geeky. Apple makes products that are simple to use.
My Mac is easy to use, but that doesn't mean I can't go in to the Terminal and enable some pretty fancy settings. Theoretically I could replace the Aqua interface with one of the ugly X11 window managers if I wanted to. I can (and do) script and automate tasks using the built-in Unix shell and php languages.
Apple makes products that are simple to use, but they also make products that are powerful to use. There's no reason they couldn't leave the simple on/off setting in place for those who just want to enable guest access and then include an advanced configuration open for those who want to lock down their guest networks. Frankly, I didn't realise that the guest network automatically shared the IP submit of the registered machines. This does open up a potential security hole and should be allowed to be closed.
Think of the possibilities if this was offered... How many times have you been to an auto shop or doctor's office (or any other business) where you can see a secured WiFi but you can't connect to it because it's secured for internal use only? With a secured guest connection open, they could maintain their internally secured network and still allow customer access to the outside world.
Think of the possibilities if this was offered... How many times have you been to an auto shop or doctor's office (or any other business) where you can see a secured WiFi but you can't connect to it because it's secured for internal use only? With a secured guest connection open, they could maintain their internally secured network and still allow customer access to the outside world.
You can already do this on several routers and AP's. Cisco Aironet AP's and 800 series wireless routers come to mind. You can broadcast separate SSID's and have a guest SSID on a different VLAN. If you're running a business you should run a business class product, not an Airport Extreme (IMHO). Also, just because you can doesn't mean you want to - these offices where you see a secured wireless connection may have the capabilities and simply have chosen to deny wireless access altogether.
In what way? The device has been updated, but all these articles are based on posts made in forums - the writers haven't done any research themselves. To illustrate my point, I pointed out that the model numbers being used in the articles are ones I have posted, and they are the Canadian models. Had the writers researched this themselves they probably would have gone to the US Apple site and seen the slightly different model numbers, then used those in their stories.
Does anyone know where applebitch.com got its info about the new Airport Extreme having a redesigned antenna and increased range?
Don't know about that site, but a guy on the apple discussion boards found the FCC Test Reports for the current model as well as the previous model. It shows significant increases in output power for the radios...
Agreed. This need is definitely not required by a huge majority of users.
I gave a use case: small to medium business having MacOS server (or linux, windows server) on it's internal network on which it has DNS running for efficient management of internal applications. Add a guest network for visitors, and prevent guests accessing internal servers for safety. This means that the internal DNS is no longer available to the guest network. But there is no option to specify different DNS config on guest network, so it becomes crippled.
It's not a very exotic use case, I've seen many businesses using such setups as a consultant.
Apple could have specified "automatic" or manual as options. Users who don't know anything about networking would leave it at automatic.
Apple hardware & software is indeed easy for consumers, but putting an "advanced options" menu will not drive consumers away, and allows professionals to use the devices where the current limited configuration options make it a failure.
Apple could also publish a technical document regarding configuration and logging options using snmp v3. Only for the experts, I agree, but I would certainly make use of it !
I gave a use case: small to medium business having MacOS server (or linux, windows server) on it's internal network on which it has DNS running for efficient management of internal applications. Add a guest network for visitors, and prevent guests accessing internal servers for safety. This means that the internal DNS is no longer available to the guest network. But there is no option to specify different DNS config on guest network, so it becomes crippled.
It's not a very exotic use case, I've seen many businesses using such setups as a consultant.
Guest access can be easily configured to use different DNS servers in the DHCP service on Mac OS X Server. It's not necessary to support this on the AEBS.
I gave a use case: Add a guest network for visitors … but there is no option to specify different DNS config on guest network, so it becomes crippled. It's not a very exotic use case… Apple could have specified "automatic" or manual as options. Users who don't know anything about networking would leave it at automatic. Apple hardware & software is indeed easy for consumers, but putting an "advanced options" menu will not drive consumers away, and allows professionals to use the devices where the current limited configuration options make it a failure. Only for the experts, I agree, but I would certainly make use of it !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Guest access can be easily configured to use different DNS servers in the DHCP service on Mac OS X Server. It's not necessary to support this on the AEBS.
Having more advanced options on the AEBS (or Time Capsule) may not be necessary, but would be helpful for people who don't have Mac OS X Server and want the extra control.
I think, yes. Non-USA countries have a slightly different models, while numbers usually stay the same.
I can confirm this as a non-US Apple distributor. Our parts end with X/A instead of LL/A in most cases, so the new Airport Extreme is MD031X/A and the Time Capsules are MD032X/A and MD033X/A.
That was my thoughts too. It's not like Apple to release a new revision without something new in it. The only time that I can remember Apple doing this is during the Intel transition. We found out from Steve Jobs in his keynote that x86 was secretly in Mac OS X for 5 years without anyone outside the transition team knowing it.
Except that both of these devices have been pretty buggy/prone to failure. The TCs apparently had a significant heat dissipation issue causing them to fail regularly after 18 months or so (google TC failure rate), and speaking personally, I've had a bloody tough time with my AEBS spitting the dummy and requiring semi-regular hard resets along with the attendant re-setting up of everything.
Fingers crossed through some minor design changes they've been able to address these issues.
Comments
Allowing the administrator to activate the DHCP independently (and with independent settings) is a requirement.
That is pretty geeky. Apple makes products that are simple to use.
the only thing "late" is appleinsider getting on top of things.
it was discovered as new by an ai member commenting on an ai message board very early tuesday morning: Jackberger at 06:06 am.
the fact that ai didn't learn of the update until much later doesn't make it "late".
I think it was "late" as in late in the day. Not late as in a missed deadline.
BTW, the US models end in LL/A.
I realized yesterday afternoon that the model numbers I posted on here, and Macworld.com, were for the Canadian models of the Airport Extreme (I'm in Canada). Now Macworld used those model numbers, and AI has used them from the Macworld story. If I had made up a model number would it have appeared in these stories (aka, do they check any of this info before posting it?)?
BTW, the US models end in LL/A.
So this entire thread is a waste.
That is pretty geeky. Apple makes products that are simple to use.
Agreed. This need is definitely not required by a huge majority of users.
That is pretty geeky. Apple makes products that are simple to use.
My Mac is easy to use, but that doesn't mean I can't go in to the Terminal and enable some pretty fancy settings. Theoretically I could replace the Aqua interface with one of the ugly X11 window managers if I wanted to. I can (and do) script and automate tasks using the built-in Unix shell and php languages.
Apple makes products that are simple to use, but they also make products that are powerful to use. There's no reason they couldn't leave the simple on/off setting in place for those who just want to enable guest access and then include an advanced configuration open for those who want to lock down their guest networks. Frankly, I didn't realise that the guest network automatically shared the IP submit of the registered machines. This does open up a potential security hole and should be allowed to be closed.
Think of the possibilities if this was offered... How many times have you been to an auto shop or doctor's office (or any other business) where you can see a secured WiFi but you can't connect to it because it's secured for internal use only? With a secured guest connection open, they could maintain their internally secured network and still allow customer access to the outside world.
Think of the possibilities if this was offered... How many times have you been to an auto shop or doctor's office (or any other business) where you can see a secured WiFi but you can't connect to it because it's secured for internal use only? With a secured guest connection open, they could maintain their internally secured network and still allow customer access to the outside world.
You can already do this on several routers and AP's. Cisco Aironet AP's and 800 series wireless routers come to mind. You can broadcast separate SSID's and have a guest SSID on a different VLAN. If you're running a business you should run a business class product, not an Airport Extreme (IMHO). Also, just because you can doesn't mean you want to - these offices where you see a secured wireless connection may have the capabilities and simply have chosen to deny wireless access altogether.
So this entire thread is a waste.
In what way? The device has been updated, but all these articles are based on posts made in forums - the writers haven't done any research themselves. To illustrate my point, I pointed out that the model numbers being used in the articles are ones I have posted, and they are the Canadian models. Had the writers researched this themselves they probably would have gone to the US Apple site and seen the slightly different model numbers, then used those in their stories.
As for the entire thread being a waste - no.
Does anyone know where applebitch.com got its info about the new Airport Extreme having a redesigned antenna and increased range?
Don't know about that site, but a guy on the apple discussion boards found the FCC Test Reports for the current model as well as the previous model. It shows significant increases in output power for the radios...
Previous Version...
http://goo.gl/B8PIu
Current Verison...
http://goo.gl/3yKRl
Follow those links, then click on the Test Report for each.
Link to Wikipedia
Additional: from the above testing, I conclude that it is possible to make AEBS work in 802.11n-ONLY mode (HT40)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Test Report - Previous version
Test Report - Current version
And that is not because of six antennas: I have checked the sources above, there are still three antennas.
Agreed. This need is definitely not required by a huge majority of users.
I gave a use case: small to medium business having MacOS server (or linux, windows server) on it's internal network on which it has DNS running for efficient management of internal applications. Add a guest network for visitors, and prevent guests accessing internal servers for safety. This means that the internal DNS is no longer available to the guest network. But there is no option to specify different DNS config on guest network, so it becomes crippled.
It's not a very exotic use case, I've seen many businesses using such setups as a consultant.
Apple could have specified "automatic" or manual as options. Users who don't know anything about networking would leave it at automatic.
Apple hardware & software is indeed easy for consumers, but putting an "advanced options" menu will not drive consumers away, and allows professionals to use the devices where the current limited configuration options make it a failure.
Apple could also publish a technical document regarding configuration and logging options using snmp v3. Only for the experts, I agree, but I would certainly make use of it !
I gave a use case: small to medium business having MacOS server (or linux, windows server) on it's internal network on which it has DNS running for efficient management of internal applications. Add a guest network for visitors, and prevent guests accessing internal servers for safety. This means that the internal DNS is no longer available to the guest network. But there is no option to specify different DNS config on guest network, so it becomes crippled.
It's not a very exotic use case, I've seen many businesses using such setups as a consultant.
Guest access can be easily configured to use different DNS servers in the DHCP service on Mac OS X Server. It's not necessary to support this on the AEBS.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC...E0NjA#overview
Is the the refurbished part number equivalent of MC340LL/A?
The part number for the currently available Refurbished AirPort Extreme Base Station is part number: FC340LL/A
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC...E0NjA#overview
Is the the refurbished part number equivalent of MC340LL/A?
I think, yes. Non-USA countries have a slightly different models, while numbers usually stay the same.
But you have learned from my previous post that new AEBS has a much stronger signal, so please don't make a mistake.
I gave a use case: Add a guest network for visitors … but there is no option to specify different DNS config on guest network, so it becomes crippled. It's not a very exotic use case… Apple could have specified "automatic" or manual as options. Users who don't know anything about networking would leave it at automatic. Apple hardware & software is indeed easy for consumers, but putting an "advanced options" menu will not drive consumers away, and allows professionals to use the devices where the current limited configuration options make it a failure. Only for the experts, I agree, but I would certainly make use of it !
Guest access can be easily configured to use different DNS servers in the DHCP service on Mac OS X Server. It's not necessary to support this on the AEBS.
Having more advanced options on the AEBS (or Time Capsule) may not be necessary, but would be helpful for people who don't have Mac OS X Server and want the extra control.
I think, yes. Non-USA countries have a slightly different models, while numbers usually stay the same.
I can confirm this as a non-US Apple distributor. Our parts end with X/A instead of LL/A in most cases, so the new Airport Extreme is MD031X/A and the Time Capsules are MD032X/A and MD033X/A.
That was my thoughts too. It's not like Apple to release a new revision without something new in it. The only time that I can remember Apple doing this is during the Intel transition. We found out from Steve Jobs in his keynote that x86 was secretly in Mac OS X for 5 years without anyone outside the transition team knowing it.
Except that both of these devices have been pretty buggy/prone to failure. The TCs apparently had a significant heat dissipation issue causing them to fail regularly after 18 months or so (google TC failure rate), and speaking personally, I've had a bloody tough time with my AEBS spitting the dummy and requiring semi-regular hard resets along with the attendant re-setting up of everything.
Fingers crossed through some minor design changes they've been able to address these issues.